Re: McCann's split up?

by Beanie 06.07.13 15:48

marconi wrote:
Beanie wrote:Chris Spivey has mentioned the marriage break up today, he says that although it cannot be proven it was told to him by a reliable source.

The problem is that everybody is reliable.

Never a truer word spoken.

by marconi 06.07.13 15:50

Beanie wrote:
marconi wrote:
Beanie wrote:Chris Spivey has mentioned the marriage break up today, he says that although it cannot be proven it was told to him by a reliable source.

The problem is that everybody is reliable.

Never a truer word spoken.

thank you.

by marconi 06.07.13 16:11

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:I think it's quite likely. The driving force for them to stay together has long gone. Now that KM is an ambassador for missing children she is safe enough alone as long as she doesn't talk about Maddie, May 2007 or anything that's sensitive.

Gerry imo needed to make sure Kate didn't spin out of control as she has done several times in the past. e.g. 'I know what happened', the phonecall and the dream. Gerry answered all the questions in September, Kate answered none. I think on his instruction.

I've never seen the two of them interact like two people who are at least fond of each other. They don't interact at all imo. It's always been a presentation.

Yeah, brilliant performance and all....it's just for show!

Who is chris speivy, (?) for goodness sake?

I doubt if there has been a separation. Kate makes too many Freudian mistakes. Unless both are intending to confess the truth and controlling Kate is no use anymore.
Their life at home must be unberable, guilty or not. A death of a child can destroy 99% of all of the marriages.
If a child dies of a serious illness, parents still feel guilty, let alone if they die of a homicide, accidental or otherwise.

It must be horrible.

Redwood's woords " witnesses EVIDENCE" could be the final reason of the separation. Tapas 7?

Leaving Kate all by herself with the twins, it would be again irresponsible of Gerry. She could be out of balance.

AND WHO IS THAT CHRIS?

by Guest 06.07.13 16:15

This is Chris Spivey's own website.

www.chrisspivey.co.uk

He's a blogger.

Beware, the language he uses at times is in my opinion unacceptable.

On reflection, the Katy Brand article is so awful, I'm beginning to wonder if she is extracting the urine.

by roy rovers 06.07.13 16:35

Could have been 'off the record' or something Katy believed was common knowledge. She may have retracted it but has Kate denied it?

by lufc50337 06.07.13 17:55

I really don't understand the secrecy .

They would have had the general publics sympathy if they had released a statement saying they had decided to separate but were both still completely committed and united in the search for M and caring for S and A

Everybody is aware of the statistics for parents divorcing if a tragedy occurs to a child.

The people involved in the case will be aware and it seems to be common knowledge to everybody but the general public.

by Rufus T 06.07.13 18:10

No Fate Worse wrote:
On reflection, the Katy Brand article is so awful, I'm beginning to wonder if she is extracting the urine.

I hear that, was beginning to wonder the same thing. agree

by **PeterMac** 06.07.13 19:48

According to another site there has been a "tweet" that the matter has rectified.

Brilliantly, someone has suggested it has been Ruck-tified.
Another rich word to add to Clarrie-fication

by **PeterMac** 06.07.13 19:52

Rufus T wrote:
No Fate Worse wrote:
On reflection, the Katy Brand article is so awful, I'm beginning to wonder if she is extracting the urine.
I hear that, was beginning to wonder the same thing.

But why the hell did the Telegraph - (OK I know its the women's section, but I try to be fair ) allow it to go through. (And why is there no Men's section ?)
Just in case anyone is confused . . .
McCann's split up? - Page 4 <a href=

" />

by MRNOODLES 06.07.13 21:05

Rufus T wrote:
No Fate Worse wrote:
On reflection, the Katy Brand article is so awful, I'm beginning to wonder if she is extracting the urine.

I hear that, was beginning to wonder the same thing.

I just read the article. Then read Katy Brand's bio. And thought exactly the same thing. She's having a laugh, there's a ripple of withering sarcasm running through the article. Many of the problems KM has, that KB lists are KM own doing (all of them really counting day 1 but you know what I mean)

by loopzdaloop 07.07.13 0:10

marconi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:I think it's quite likely. The driving force for them to stay together has long gone. Now that KM is an ambassador for missing children she is safe enough alone as long as she doesn't talk about Maddie, May 2007 or anything that's sensitive.

Gerry imo needed to make sure Kate didn't spin out of control as she has done several times in the past. e.g. 'I know what happened', the phonecall and the dream. Gerry answered all the questions in September, Kate answered none. I think on his instruction.

I've never seen the two of them interact like two people who are at least fond of each other. They don't interact at all imo. It's always been a presentation.

Yeah, brilliant performance and all....it's just for show!

Who is chris speivy, (?) for goodness sake?

I doubt if there has been a separation. Kate makes too many Freudian mistakes. Unless both are intending to confess the truth and controlling Kate is no use anymore.
Their life at home must be unberable, guilty or not. A death of a child can destroy 99% of all of the marriages.
If a child dies of a serious illness, parents still feel guilty, let alone if they die of a homicide, accidental or otherwise.

It must be horrible.

Redwood's woords " witnesses EVIDENCE" could be the final reason of the separation. Tapas 7?

Leaving Kate all by herself with the twins, it would be again irresponsible of Gerry. She could be out of balance.

AND WHO IS THAT CHRIS?

Kate would have been the one to administer the drugs considering her speciality. She's in it up to her neck.
I actually believe Gerry concocted the yarn to protect her and the remaining members of his family.

by marconi 07.07.13 0:57

The McCanns must regret their pathological insistence on getting a police force for a review.
My impression is that the insistence came more from Kate than from Gerry. They had all of the gates of opportunities to get away with the crime but they couldn't stop annoying the British government. It became their hobby, probably Kate's, who stays the whole day at home.

I suspect that the Yard used the excuse "12 Britons" in orde to start a investigation. They planned it together with the Home Office. All of those 38 are innocent, imo, and I believe, as I said before, that Tapas 9 will be the next.

Short ago the Yard had only a witness evidence, if I red it well, now Redwood talks about witnesses evidence.
All of the Tapas 7 are shocked. And we still have that comment of Justin McGuiness who said that Madeleine died of paedophilia. Are the McCCanns suing her already? Extra money is always welcome.

The circle is becoming narrower and narrower to the point that they will be not able to breath anymore.

The worst idea they have had in their life was insisting on the review.

They are crashed now.

by Who?What?Where? 07.07.13 2:49

Here is how I see it. Feel free to criticise.

The McCann's are just a very small piece in a big Jigsaw, IMHO.

They aspired to be a very big piece, but they had no idea what they were really dealing with, and how ruthless, brutal and unforgiving, the people that they were actually dealing with, really are.

They may well make headline's in the future, we shall see. If it is proven that they have done wrong , then there should be no absolution. No amount of Hail Mary's, should allow them to escape from that.

Don't think, for one minute, that a conviction in this case change's anything, in any way. It won't. They are a very small part of a very big problem.

by Guest 07.07.13 9:19

www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/2013/06/04/44271/madeleine+press+spokeswoman+urges+industry+to+take+paedophile+threat+more+seriously.html

Marconi, I don't see anything in this article that says that Madeleine "died of paedophilia".

I wonder though about the possible hidden message in "....many paedophiles appear to be upstanding members of communities not thought capable of carrying out that sort of crime".

Well said Justine, we aren't talking about the Raymond Hewletts of the world.

I still think that this may be a rehashed article in view of the reference to Madeleine as being 5.

by marconi 07.07.13 15:39

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:www.travelweekly.co.uk/articles/2013/06/04/44271/madeleine+press+spokeswoman+urges+industry+to+take+paedophile+threat+more+seriously.html

Marconi, I don't see anything in this article that says that Madeleine "died of paedophilia".

I wonder though about the possible hidden message in "....many paedophiles appear to be upstanding members of communities not thought capable of carrying out that sort of crime".

Well said Justine, we aren't talking about the Raymond Hewletts of the world.

I still think that this may be a rehashed article in view of the reference to Madeleine as being 5.

I read it on a blog, interpretation of that article but I can't find it back.