Re: New photos of the McCanns

by Liz Eagles 16.03.14 13:37

Châtelaine wrote:I promised myself not to react to this kind of things ever more, but it got once again the better of me ...

me too. I sat on it but couldn't sit and say nothing.

by John (In)DEED 16.03.14 14:24

aquila wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
John (In)DEED wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
***
Why do you post here a - what I think at the time honest - view of O'Connor, given NINE days after the disappearance? And such without a comment or explanation of yourselves?
Châtelaine, say hello to ~~marconi~~/~~bellum~~. A fine extractor of urine.

Well..
If I am doing something wrong, you can tell me.
This is insulting.

This link was in the early days.
In the early days it was Mccann clan all over.. like they were eyewitness.
To put a statement out what really happened.

So this was a different kind of view.
The traces went to the Baptista.
But they were there before..so didnT mean she was there on that night.

But you know.. If you don't like what I have to say..
O.K then.
I am not here to kissing or kicking asses.

by Guest 16.03.14 15:24

I thought I was rather clear about what IMO was wrong with your post.
Perhaps I should try and be even more clear:

* you post a link with an irrelevant 12 May 2007 interview with O'Connor in a Topic on New McCann photos;
* you post this link without any comment or explanation as to why you do so;
* you post just a link, not the youtube video itself, thus forcing members to click on a link of which they cannot be sure, where's it's going to lead to;
* you suggest now that you did link to the 12 May 2007 interview, because it gives a different kind of view - which it does, suggesting a WAW instead of an intruder;
* BUT, as you very well know - I cannot imagine you would have missed that - O'Connor's IMO honest and intelligent analysis was made, WAY before the multitude of lies and inconsistencies became apparent, WAY before the dogs were sent in and WAY before the PJfiles were released.

And you wonder, WHY I ask you a question?

ETA regarding your last line: I know of very, very few people, who are here to either kick or kiss buttocks ...

by Liz Eagles 16.03.14 15:30

Châtelaine wrote:I thought I was rather clear about what IMO was wrong with your post.
Perhaps I should try and be even more clear:

* you post a link with an irrelevant 12 May 2007 interview with O'Connor in a Topic on New McCann photos;
* you post this link without any comment or explanation as to why you do so;
* you post just a link, not the youtube video itself, thus forcing members to click on a link of which they cannot be sure, where's it's going to lead to;
* you suggest now that you did link to the 12 May 2007 interview, because it gives a different kind of view - which it does, suggesting a WAW instead of an intruder;
* BUT, as you very well know - I cannot imagine you would have missed that - O'Connor's IMO honest and intelligent analysis was made, WAY before the multitude of lies and inconsistencies became apparent, WAY before the dogs were sent in and WAY before the PJfiles were released.

And you wonder, WHY I ask you a question?

Châtelaine, it's time for Admin to kick this idiot out. Don't waste your breath.

@Admin. Please do something about this. Most people know this is marconi/bellum in another guise. Even if it's not it's obvious this is an idiot causing disruption.

Please sort it out.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 17:09

As playing the troll card does little to enhance the reputation of this forum or encourage others to join, do you not think that your concern would be more appropriately conveyed to Admin by pm, aquila?

by juliet 16.03.14 17:43

Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.

by John (In)DEED 16.03.14 18:13

aquila wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I thought I was rather clear about what IMO was wrong with your post.
Perhaps I should try and be even more clear:

* you post a link with an irrelevant 12 May 2007 interview with O'Connor in a Topic on New McCann photos;
* you post this link without any comment or explanation as to why you do so;
* you post just a link, not the youtube video itself, thus forcing members to click on a link of which they cannot be sure, where's it's going to lead to;
* you suggest now that you did link to the 12 May 2007 interview, because it gives a different kind of view - which it does, suggesting a WAW instead of an intruder;
* BUT, as you very well know - I cannot imagine you would have missed that - O'Connor's IMO honest and intelligent analysis was made, WAY before the multitude of lies and inconsistencies became apparent, WAY before the dogs were sent in and WAY before the PJfiles were released.

And you wonder, WHY I ask you a question?
Châtelaine, it's time for Admin to kick this idiot out. Don't waste your breath.

@Admin. Please do something about this. Most people know this is marconi/bellum in another guise. Even if it's not it's obvious this is an idiot causing disruption.

Please sort it out.

I am not insulting, or giving orders
Just try to comment on a forum.

Mabye I am slow, can't place my comment right.
But I don't insulting anyone.
Well..
I see my cooment isn't welcome..
Good luck anyway.

by Newintown 16.03.14 18:24

juliet wrote:Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.

Just to carry on from your comment, I have to say I viewed a video earlier today from May 2007, I can't remember which topic it was on now, but it showed the McCanns getting out of a car, Gerry had A by the hand and she looked tiny and not very confident walking along with GM, when she got to the stairs of the apartment she didn't look too keen at getting down the stairs either. It looked as if GM picked her up to go down the stairs but my phone rang at that time so I missed the end of the video.

But having viewed the Donegal video some time ago and having seen the video from May 2007, it is obvious something isn't right with what the public are being shown on the Donegal video.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 18:32

juliet wrote:Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.

At Christmas 2005 the twins would have been 10 months old but, together with their amazing ability to sleep for extended periods no matter what racket is going on around them, they also possess their older sister's extraordinary ability to appear older or younger than their given chronological age and are able to remain the same size for months on end.

The McCanns are, indeed, a most peculiar family.

by Mirage 16.03.14 18:48

As regular readers may have noticed I occasionally indulge in black humour. This serves as a safety valve because I sometimes cannot bear to look on infestations of ugliness in a world of stupendous beauty and magnificence. That we are all custodians in one way or another of this beautiful planet and its many life forms is a concept that weighs more heavily on me the older I become. I try to do all in my power to make up for shortcomings I may exhibit in my own life. I try my best to militate against any wrong or injustice or trauma I perceive inflicted on my fellow man. Where I can do nothing, I often cry for a victim, human or animal: the least I can offer, a reaching out. We are all on a journey, hopefully with a desire to be at one with one's own nature and the wider world of nature surrounding and incorporating us all. An awareness that we are here and gone in the blink of an eye.

It ill behoves anyone to ignore their spiritual needs. They must be attended to as one would attend to food and drink for the body. So if anyone comes to forum with no fellow feeling for a suffering child, I say that person left their soul somewhere and should make it their first priority to return to the spot where they last had contact with it and gently nurture it back to life.

by juliet 16.03.14 19:24

Ulimathule..surely the twins were supposedly one year 10 months at Christmas 2006? But they looked months younger. I wish someone could put the photo up of Maddie opening that pink rucksack and Sean behind her barely standing upright. Yet a few months later he was a big sturdy boy as seen in Donegal!

by Guest 16.03.14 19:34

ultimaThule wrote:
juliet wrote:Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.
At Christmas 2005 the twins would have been 10 months old but, together with their amazing ability to sleep for extended periods no matter what racket is going on around them, they also possess their older sister's extraordinary ability to appear older or younger than their given chronological age and are able to remain the same size for months on end.

The McCanns are, indeed, a most peculiar family.

No, they're a happy family. Gerry says so at 2' 09, "Madeleine was here". Look at the body language:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

First time I've seen this.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 19:36

My apologies, juliet. I misread your 2006 for 2005 (it's been a long day) and having just managed to beat the deadline, I've amended the date in my post.

The problem is that the dates or occasions which are given as being those on which numerous of the photos of Madeleine and the twins were taken don't appear to bear correlation with their chronological ages at that time.

Setting aside the wee one's mantra 'confusion is good', it's anyone's guess as to why there should be such wide ranging anomalies in images of the children which have been put into the public doman by their parents unless, of course, there is deliberate intent to deceive.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 19:46

Ladyinred wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
juliet wrote:Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.
At Christmas 2005 the twins would have been 10 months old but, together with their amazing ability to sleep for extended periods no matter what racket is going on around them, they also possess their older sister's extraordinary ability to appear older or younger than their given chronological age and are able to remain the same size for months on end.

The McCanns are, indeed, a most peculiar family.

No, they're a happy family. Gerry says so at 2' 09, "Madeleine was here". Look at the body language:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

First time I've seen this.

Mmm... I beg to differ, Lir. I'll continue to maintain that the McCanns are 'peculiar' family in that every time I look at that clip Gerry's nose appears to have grown longer while his ~~lie~~ age remains the same. laughat

by Guest 16.03.14 19:54

ultimaThule wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
juliet wrote:Surely this has been covered....but just to say again that the pics supposedly of Christmas 2006 show te twins as bandy legged barely standing babies of about one year three months. Madeleine also looks very young. There is NO WAY these three children became the tall, much older kids shown in the Donegal and PdL.photos.In my view the McCanns faked those Christmas pictures....but why I don't know.
At Christmas 2005 the twins would have been 10 months old but, together with their amazing ability to sleep for extended periods no matter what racket is going on around them, they also possess their older sister's extraordinary ability to appear older or younger than their given chronological age and are able to remain the same size for months on end.

The McCanns are, indeed, a most peculiar family.

No, they're a happy family. Gerry says so at 2' 09, "Madeleine was here". Look at the body language:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

First time I've seen this.
Mmm... I beg to differ, Lir. I'll continue to maintain that the McCanns are 'peculiar' family in that every time I look at that clip Gerry's nose appears to have grown longer while his ~~lie~~ age remains the same.

uT, apologies for the misunderstanding, I was being sarcastic about the "happy family". I agree with your sentiments.

by plebgate 16.03.14 20:00

at 3.20 in the vid -
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Mrs. says that when A. is wearing Maddie's shoes - like we have said before, why would she allow Maddie's sister to wear her shoes when the shoes could have been given to the police for DNA checks. I just don't get that at all.

by juliet 16.03.14 20:20

The Mccanns claimed those pics were taken Christmas 2006 even though the childre were about six months younger than they were supposed to be. So they must have faked Christmas, with bits of tinsel and wrapped presents. So they are proven as lisrs to a sinister degree.

by juliet 16.03.14 20:31

All the pictures of Madeleine aged over three and a bit are dodgy, in my view. The strange party ones in the red dress....the Everton shirt pics....the very suspect Donegal and PdL pic s. Why did they not have genuine Christmas pics of Madeleine aged three yrs eight months and twins one yr ten months?

by Guest 16.03.14 20:36

juliet wrote:All the pictures of Madeleine aged over three and a bit are dodgy, in my view. The strange party ones in the red dress....the Everton shirt pics....the very suspect Donegal and PdL pic s. Why did they not have genuine Christmas pics of Madeleine aged three yrs eight months and twins one yr ten months?

juliet, do you have a link to Donegal photos. I've seen one or two taken with cousins - are these the ones to which you are referring?

by juliet 16.03.14 20:51

Sorry I am too dim to manage links! But yes, the photos on the roadside etc. Many think they are fake and many anomalies with hands and neck etc. I suppose I have always known the McCanns are liars but the fake Christmas seems particularly blatant and weird. Did they not expect to be able to take genuine Christmas photos? So much evidence of planning and manipulating.

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 21:07

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable.

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

I have been searching for credible evidence of that and come up with nothing credible.

But,

From April 29th onwards, the McCanns:

Stopped going out to breakfast - but resumed this activity just after the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke

Started leaving the apartment by different doors (during the daytime only)

Ate lunch at their own apartment even though the rest of the group took lunch on the Payne's' balcony

Did not join the rest of the group on the trip to the beach

(Not wanting to be seen as a family of only four?)

There was no Madeleine DNA in the apartment

Madeleines' bed had not been slept in

Despite being at the Ocean Club for almost a week, some staff did not even realise that they had children

by Tangled Web 16.03.14 21:12

On the subject of 'dodgy' photo's etc. Does anybody think that bit of pre-PdL video footage on the bus and boarding the plane was released to supposedly 'prove' who went on that holiday? The video focused on 'Madeleine' walking to the steps (and falling up them), which is odd. Why zoom in on a child that isn't even yours? It's as if the footage was taken in a premeditated manner. As in, we'll release this afterwards to prove Madeleine went on that holiday. Personally, I think any spare hands should've been used to help the little ones up the steps but maybe I'm just an overprotective parent huh

I'm finding it difficult to put into words exactly what I mean so I hope someone catches my drift!

by Guest 16.03.14 21:13

sharonl wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable.

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

I have been searching for credible evidence of that and come up with nothing credible.

But,

From April 29th onwards, the McCanns:

Stopped going out to breakfast - but resumed this activity just after the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke

Started leaving the apartment by different doors (during the daytime only)

Ate lunch at their own apartment even though the rest of the group took lunch on the Payne's' balcony

Did not join the rest of the group on the trip to the beach

(Not wanting to be seen as a family of only four?)

There was no Madeleine DNA in the apartment

Madeleines' bed had not been slept in

Despite being at the Ocean Club for almost a week, some staff did not even realise that they had children

Did they go to breakfast on their first morning at PdL, Sunday 29th April?

by Guest 16.03.14 21:17

Tangled Web wrote:On the subject of 'dodgy' photo's etc. Does anybody think that bit of pre-PdL video footage on the bus and boarding the plane was released to supposedly 'prove' who went on that holiday? The video focused on 'Madeleine' walking to the steps (and falling up them), which is odd. Why zoom in on a child that isn't even yours? It's as if the footage was taken in a premeditated manner. As in, we'll release this afterwards to prove Madeleine went on that holiday. Personally, I think any spare hands should've been used to help the little ones up the steps but maybe I'm just an overprotective parent
I'm finding it difficult to put into words exactly what I mean so I hope someone catches my drift!

Tangled Web, I think Clay has wondered if the video on the bus was actually footage of that holiday.

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 21:23

Ladyinred wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable.

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

I have been searching for credible evidence of that and come up with nothing credible.

But,

From April 29th onwards, the McCanns:

Stopped going out to breakfast - but resumed this activity just after the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke

Started leaving the apartment by different doors (during the daytime only)

Ate lunch at their own apartment even though the rest of the group took lunch on the Payne's' balcony

Did not join the rest of the group on the trip to the beach

(Not wanting to be seen as a family of only four?)

There was no Madeleine DNA in the apartment

Madeleines' bed had not been slept in

Despite being at the Ocean Club for almost a week, some staff did not even realise that they had children

Did they go to breakfast on their first morning at PdL, Sunday 29th April?

Yes, they went to the Millenium restaurant.

Madeleine was reported missing on the Thursday night/Friday morning. According to Cat Baker, she saw the McCanns at breakfast on the Saturday morning

by Guest 16.03.14 21:27

sharonl wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable.

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

I have been searching for credible evidence of that and come up with nothing credible.

But,

From April 29th onwards, the McCanns:

Stopped going out to breakfast - but resumed this activity just after the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke

Started leaving the apartment by different doors (during the daytime only)

Ate lunch at their own apartment even though the rest of the group took lunch on the Payne's' balcony

Did not join the rest of the group on the trip to the beach

(Not wanting to be seen as a family of only four?)

There was no Madeleine DNA in the apartment

Madeleines' bed had not been slept in

Despite being at the Ocean Club for almost a week, some staff did not even realise that they had children

Did they go to breakfast on their first morning at PdL, Sunday 29th April?

Yes, they went to the Millenium restaurant.

Madeleine was reported missing on the Thursday night/Friday morning. According to Cat Baker, she saw the McCanns at breakfast on the Saturday morning

I thought they arrived late Saturday afternoon, 28th April. (Not trying to be argumentative here).

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 21:30

juliet wrote:The Mccanns claimed those pics were taken Christmas 2006 even though the childre were about six months younger than they were supposed to be. So they must have faked Christmas, with bits of tinsel and wrapped presents. So they are proven as liars to a sinister degree.

This is one and the same as the conclusion I've reached, particularly with regard to the word 'sinister', juliet.

As you've also observed 'there is so much evidence of planning and manipulating' and IMO it would be foolish to overlook the possibility that Madeleine's disappearance was premeditated weeks, if not months, in advance of the event and that certain individuals who ostensibly, or in actual fact, remained in the UK were in on the plan.

This scenario also raises the possibility that the Tapas 7 are considerably more than the common and garden liars they appear to be from their assorted rog statements.

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 21:34

Ladyinred wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable.

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

I have been searching for credible evidence of that and come up with nothing credible.

But,

From April 29th onwards, the McCanns:

Stopped going out to breakfast - but resumed this activity just after the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke

Started leaving the apartment by different doors (during the daytime only)

Ate lunch at their own apartment even though the rest of the group took lunch on the Payne's' balcony

Did not join the rest of the group on the trip to the beach

(Not wanting to be seen as a family of only four?)

There was no Madeleine DNA in the apartment

Madeleines' bed had not been slept in

Despite being at the Ocean Club for almost a week, some staff did not even realise that they had children

Did they go to breakfast on their first morning at PdL, Sunday 29th April?

Yes, they went to the Millenium restaurant.

Madeleine was reported missing on the Thursday night/Friday morning. According to Cat Baker, she saw the McCanns at breakfast on the Saturday morning

I thought they arrived late Saturday afternoon, 28th April. (Not trying to be argumentative here).

Sorry, that post was not really clear. They arrived late afternoon on Sat 28th, had breakfast at the Millenium Restaurant on the 29th and then ate breakfast in their apartment until the news of Madeleines' disappearance broke. I am not sure what they did on Friday 4th, but they obviously ate out on Sat 5th.

by ultimaThule 16.03.14 21:45

Tangled Web wrote:On the subject of 'dodgy' photo's etc. Does anybody think that bit of pre-PdL video footage on the bus and boarding the plane was released to supposedly 'prove' who went on that holiday? The video focused on 'Madeleine' walking to the steps (and falling up them), which is odd. Why zoom in on a child that isn't even yours? It's as if the footage was taken in a premeditated manner. As in, we'll release this afterwards to prove Madeleine went on that holiday. Personally, I think any spare hands should've been used to help the little ones up the steps but maybe I'm just an overprotective parent
I'm finding it difficult to put into words exactly what I mean so I hope someone catches my drift!

I've caught your drift, TW, and if the McCanns' arms were full with hand luggage and a twin each, and one of the Paynes' was carrying their youngest child, that would have left a childfree Payne and Dianne Webster to either hold the twins or hold both little girls' hands to help them up the aircraft steps.

If my little girl had tripped in that manner she wouldn't have been told 'oopsy daisy'; she would have been scooped up, given a kiss, praised for having managed to climb so many steep steps, and carried to the aircraft door where I would have asked one of the flight attendants to fetch items from their onboard first aid kit to clean the scrape/wound when we were seated.

I don't regard myself as an overprotective parent but, to my mind, the disregard shown for that little girl invokes the word 'callous' to describe the behaviour of those around her.

Fwiw, on my monitor the little girl who trips up the aircraft steps appears to have ginger hair which, coincidentally, happens to be the natural hue of Gerry's dyed locks.

by **sharonl** 16.03.14 22:04

Tangled Web wrote:On the subject of 'dodgy' photo's etc. Does anybody think that bit of pre-PdL video footage on the bus and boarding the plane was released to supposedly 'prove' who went on that holiday? The video focused on 'Madeleine' walking to the steps (and falling up them), which is odd. Why zoom in on a child that isn't even yours? It's as if the footage was taken in a premeditated manner. As in, we'll release this afterwards to prove Madeleine went on that holiday. Personally, I think any spare hands should've been used to help the little ones up the steps but maybe I'm just an overprotective parent
I'm finding it difficult to put into words exactly what I mean so I hope someone catches my drift!

This is something that has bothered me for a while. We all take holiday snaps but how normal is it for someone to record the kids boarding the plane of sitting on the transport bus? Imagine travelling with eight little ones, the hand luggage alone would be cumbersome enough let alone having to keep a close eye on the children. How likely is it that someone would pull out a camera and start recording the event? And, why would anyone do it anyway? Seems quite unusual to me.