The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register please do NOT use your email address as a username because everyone will be able to see it!


New members please put your questions here

Page 1 of 24 1, 2, 3 ... 12 ... 24  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

New members please put your questions here

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 29, 2013 7:25 pm

Rather than opening topic after topic in this section with questions, perhaps we can have a general thread where new members can ask any questions or raise points they wish to discuss.

There are rather too many new threads being opened with only a couple of posts in some, which is resulting in popular debate threads being knocked down the forum.

So please post your queries, questions etc. here.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

What happens if we reverse the sniffer dogs route in this picture?

Post by Fierljepper on Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:32 pm

Candy, I checked the various topics and if possible would like to start a dedicated thread on this.

Although I am not a fan of scenarios incriminating the McCanns, my eye fell on this one.

We naturally assume the sniffer dogs on May 4th and 8th were following a trace of somebody carrying/kidnapping Maddie (e.g. the parents or an abductor). If it was an abductor, it is a long and very risky route to pick. But now suppose that we REVERSE the peculiar route the sniffer's dog followed in this picture:



Then the route remains pretty strange, but could support an interesting scenario where an accident has actually happened to Maddie near the parking lot (or the exit of the pool) and she is then actually carried back into apartment 5A, however the one(s) carrying her, then wanted to remain as unseen as possible and hence they took the 'longer way home' using the more shielded/covered foot path. Has this been considered as an option? Of course it also implies that when Maddie (who maybe already died) was removed from the apartment, it had to happen by car and/or wrapped in plastic not leaving additional traces for the sniffer dogs.

Fierljepper

Posts : 25
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sniffer dog?

Post by Peter the Netherlands on Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:56 pm

@Fierljepper wrote:Candy, I checked the various topics and if possible would like to start a dedicated thread on this.

Although I am not a fan of scenarios incriminating the McCanns, my eye fell on this one.

We naturally assume the sniffer dogs on May 4th and 8th were following a trace of somebody carrying/kidnapping Maddie (e.g. the parents or an abductor). If it was an abductor, it is a long and very risky route to pick. But now suppose that we REVERSE the peculiar route the sniffer's dog followed in this picture:



Then the route remains pretty strange, but could support an interesting scenario where an accident has actually happened to Maddie near the parking lot (or the exit of the pool) and she is then actually carried back into apartment 5A, however the one(s) carrying her, then wanted to remain as unseen as possible and hence they took the 'longer way home' using the more shielded/covered foot path. Has this been considered as an option? Of course it also implies that when Maddie (who maybe already died) was removed from the apartment, it had to happen by car and/or wrapped in plastic not leaving additional traces for the sniffer dogs.

Which sniffer dog do you mean?

Peter the Netherlands

Posts : 13
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Fierljepper on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:03 pm

@Peter the Netherlands wrote:
@Fierljepper wrote:(snip)

Which sniffer dog do you mean?
The ones referred to here:

[color:1fcb=000000]The Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team, who coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs, states that the dogs took the same route on both 04 May 2007 and 08 May 2007 - i.e. around the apartments and into the nearby car park, where the trail was lost.

[color:1fcb=000000]So, the dogs used immediately after[color:1fcb=000000] Maddie's disappearance.

Fierljepper

Posts : 25
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:20 pm

Far fetched, but an interesting turn of view. The first tracker dogs following a route of Madeleine WAW and then being carried back ... to 5A. hm ...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

ANY TRUTH IN THIS STATEMENT..? I AM NEW ON THIS SITE....

Post by ekatae on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:34 pm

Quote from site: sic
 
From memory, the drugs company that John Mccann worked for had a factory/plant in Helueva. Not heard about him having an appartment there, but I remember that there was a lot of building going on there with rumours that these would be investigated.

ekatae

Posts : 88
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Guest on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:37 pm

@ekatae wrote:Quote from site: sic
 
From memory, the drugs company that John Mccann worked for had a factory/plant in Helueva. Not heard about him having an appartment there, but I remember that there was a lot of building going on there with rumours that these would be investigated.
ekatae have merged your thread/question here.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

RE: MY LAST POST

Post by ekatae on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:38 pm


ekatae

Posts : 88
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Thank You

Post by ekatae on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:43 pm

Oh.. Sorry.. I am new to Forum's in general. I can see your point.. Thank You...

ekatae

Posts : 88
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Research_Reader on Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:54 pm

I'm relatively new, just re-watched the CW 'reconstruction' and am totally confused:

(1) The man who has come forward to say he was the man sighted by Jane Tanner: they said he had picked up his child from the creche, but looking at the map they showed on CW, Jane Tanner's man would have been walking TOWARDS the creche not away from it?! Has anyone explained this?

(2) Gerry seems to imply that the abductor(s) could have been hiding in the apartment when he went for his check at 9pm. Doesn't this hugely open up the available time for an 'abduction'? Couldn't, for example, the abductor have entered through the patio doors (very carefully so as not to be spotted from the other side of the pool) sometime before 9pm, sedated the children but then hid when he heard Gerry entering, then after Gerry left he opened the front door from the inside (surely this wouldn't have needed a key, opening from the inside) and quietly left? Not saying I believe the abduction theory, I am just trying to get my head around why thats not possible. Of course it still requires Kate's description of the window open to be explained, but perhaps it was just slightly opened - for some reason - when the abductor was in the apartment, and in Kate's frenzied mind at the time she thought it was fully opened?

(3) If Jane Tanner invented the sighting of the man carrying a child as a piece of fake evidence for the abduction theory, then how come a man with VERY close matching looks and clothes has now come forward? But if she didn't invent him and she knew he was a real man, then how could she be using him as a fake support for the abduction story when she and any of the T9 would not have known that he wouldnt come forward for years?

I'm so confused!
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Sedation...

Post by AB1 on Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:52 pm

@Research_Reader wrote:I'm relatively new, just re-watched the CW 'reconstruction' and am totally confused:

(1) The man who has come forward to say he was the man sighted by Jane Tanner: they said he had picked up his child from the creche, but looking at the map they showed on CW, Jane Tanner's man would have been walking TOWARDS the creche not away from it?! Has anyone explained this?

(2) Gerry seems to imply that the abductor(s) could have been hiding in the apartment when he went for his check at 9pm. Doesn't this hugely open up the available time for an 'abduction'? Couldn't, for example, the abductor have entered through the patio doors (very carefully so as not to be spotted from the other side of the pool) sometime before 9pm, sedated the children but then hid when he heard Gerry entering, then after Gerry left he opened the front door from the inside (surely this wouldn't have needed a key, opening from the inside) and quietly left? Not saying I believe the abduction theory, I am just trying to get my head around why thats not possible. Of course it still requires Kate's description of the window open to be explained, but perhaps it was just slightly opened - for some reason - when the abductor was in the apartment, and in Kate's frenzied mind at the time she thought it was fully opened?

(3) If Jane Tanner invented the sighting of the man carrying a child as a piece of fake evidence for the abduction theory, then how come a man with VERY close matching looks and clothes has now come forward? But if she didn't invent him and she knew he was a real man, then how could she be using him as a fake support for the abduction story when she and any of the T9 would not have known that he wouldnt come forward for years?

I'm so confused!
Hi Research Reader - another Newbie here!

I'm confused by the direction as well, but see below...

My problem with a stranger sedating the children is what with? Sleeping children can't be made to swallow anything, and oral medications take more time to work. Chloroform leaves skin irritation and has to be continually administered, the effects wearing off as soon as it is taken away. There is no evidence of injection sites, but did anyone really check? All those doctors (including anaethetists) and Kate saying she kept checking the twins as feared they had been drugged but no-one mentioned it to the PJ on the night! At the very least that's ANOTHER form of neglect - not seeking medical attention. There were no tests until well over 3 months had passed - 30 to 90 days being the maximum depending on the drugs. Unless a cadaver...

Perhaps the Tannerman coming forward is a SY bluff to test reactions? Although they would have to be very sure the sighting wasn't real. Also surprising that in this 15minute of fame era Tannerman has tried to sell their story. Or perhaps they are very sensible and want to avoid the circus at all costs.

AB1

Posts : 49
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Research_Reader on Wed Oct 30, 2013 7:18 am

Hi, yes I agree about the sedation, but the larger question for me at the moment is: when was there an opportunity for any stranger to enter and exit the apartment and how?

I personally don't believe SY and the BBC would deliberately put out false information just in order to provoke a reaction from the T9, but who knows.
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

WINDOW

Post by AB1 on Wed Oct 30, 2013 8:00 pm

@Research_Reader wrote:Hi, yes I agree about the sedation, but the larger question for me at the moment is: when was there an opportunity for any stranger to enter and exit the apartment and how?

I personally don't believe SY and the BBC would deliberately put out false information just in order to provoke a reaction from the T9, but who knows.
In terms of a 'window' of opportunity - if T9 truthful, it's tight, that line between when does improbable become impossible.

But the actual 'window'? If it was the point of entry, it makes sense that the apartment was exited the same way as the front door was key-locked and the 'abductor' was either unaware that the patio doors were opened or considered them too risky. So window as in and out, yet no tool marks on the 'jemmied' shutters, pulled-back curtains said to billow, no finger or glove marks on the glass (except for KM), lack of footprints on ground/sill/bed etc. Which ever way I look at it, the scene appears staged. Why would an abductor do that? Especially as time was tight.

To be balanced, a colleague of mine (who also believes the window staged) suggests an innocent KM faked the window for fear of being judged that the patio doors were left open, realised it wouldn't be believed, so had to admit to the patio doors being open. That the MC lie is the window, to try and absolve their guilt regarding the vulnerable position of the children.
Of course, the same could be true of a guilty KM. Try the window story, see it isn't working, and say the patio doors were unlocked.

I truly believe the window exit/entrance is a lie and the motive for the lie can only be reasoned by reference to the other evidence.

Tannerman is a connundrum. Did the "real" Tannerman see GM + buggyman? JT? If they've only just realised they were Tannerman I doubt they recall anything.
Right now SY doesn't seem sophisticated enough to be playing a bluff (which could backfire).
The only certainty is that Tannerman became JT's alibi... whatever that means!



m

AB1

Posts : 49
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Research_Reader on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:21 pm

Thank you for your reply Window!

If we are to be completely objective about the possibility of an abduction (I still doubt there was an abduction, but we need to test if it was physically possible or not), then there is also another reason why Kate might have lied about it: An entrance/exit through the window is the ONLY evidence that this could have been an abduction! If Madeline had somehow woken up and walked out the apartment, it would not have been through the window. If she had been taken out by a family member or one of their friends, it would not have been through the window. 

Giving Kate the benefit of the doubt for a moment: it may be possible that there WAS an abduction, but that it didn't happen the way Kate says.

Gerry also seems to be implying that the abductor was in the apartment when he performed his last check. There also seems to be some confusion about whether the door was locked or not. Do we know if the door could be opened from the inside without a key? (some doors require a key from the outside but not the inside).
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Guest on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:38 pm

@Research_Reader wrote:Thank you for your reply Window!

If we are to be completely objective about the possibility of an abduction (I still doubt there was an abduction, but we need to test if it was physically possible or not), then there is also another reason why Kate might have lied about it: An entrance/exit through the window is the ONLY evidence that this could have been an abduction! If Madeline had somehow woken up and walked out the apartment, it would not have been through the window. If she had been taken out by a family member or one of their friends, it would not have been through the window. 

Giving Kate the benefit of the doubt for a moment: it may be possible that there WAS an abduction, but that it didn't happen the way Kate says.

Gerry also seems to be implying that the abductor was in the apartment when he performed his last check. There also seems to be some confusion about whether the door was locked or not. Do we know if the door could be opened from the inside without a key? (some doors require a key from the outside but not the inside).
Why would Kate McCann not tell the truth, if something as important as her childs life was at stake.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Window Lie

Post by AB1 on Wed Oct 30, 2013 11:38 pm

candyfloss wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:Thank you for your reply Window!

If we are to be completely objective about the possibility of an abduction (I still doubt there was an abduction, but we need to test if it was physically possible or not), then there is also another reason why Kate might have lied about it: An entrance/exit through the window is the ONLY evidence that this could have been an abduction! If Madeline had somehow woken up and walked out the apartment, it would not have been through the window. If she had been taken out by a family member or one of their friends, it would not have been through the window. 

Giving Kate the benefit of the doubt for a moment: it may be possible that there WAS an abduction, but that it didn't happen the way Kate says.

Gerry also seems to be implying that the abductor was in the apartment when he performed his last check. There also seems to be some confusion about whether the door was locked or not. Do we know if the door could be opened from the inside without a key? (some doors require a key from the outside but not the inside).
Why would Kate McCann not tell the truth, if something as important as her childs life was at stake.  
Can't imagine any Mother lying in those circumstances.

Unless she was suffering from a personality disorder a) pathological liar b) narcissist, unable to put others first or accept any criticism c) over-identification of self as victim.
Interestingly, over-exercising is symptomatic of a few psychological disorders, yet exercise is also suggested by therapists as a means of treating depression etc...

Of course, KM could have lied beause she was just plain old-fashioned GUILTY!

AB1

Posts : 49
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Research_Reader on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:38 am

In that scenario (which, again, I'm just trying to figure out as a possibility, I don't necessarily think its the most likely scenario at all) she might have lied about the window so as to focus the police's investigation on the abduction route, and away from the idea that it was the friends/parents (who would have had no reason to use the window) or simply Madeline walking out of the apartment.

I would suggest that whatever the truth is, Kate's apparent behaviour and reactions are strange and untypical.
avatar
Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by thetruthbeknown on Thu Oct 31, 2013 5:23 pm

candyfloss wrote:
Why would Kate McCann not tell the truth, if something as important as her childs life was at stake.  
Self preservation? Maybe fearing the neglect aspect? Not saying that is what happened by any means, but 'self-preservation' is a strong force in some, especially if their lifestyle/job requires them to be seen as 'responsible'...but whether selfish enough to put that above a childs welfare?? That is debateable,but id say possible.

thetruthbeknown

Posts : 273
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Varriott on Thu Oct 31, 2013 8:30 pm

I'm a new member, and I've got a question.  I tell everyone about all my theories of what happened, how I believe the abduction was simulated, that Smithman was Gerry, etc etc.  The most common question people ask me is, ok, if Gerry did that, then who of the T9 knew about it?  I wonder what people here think.  Here's my hypothesis, in order of who probably knew:

1. O'Brien. He was gone for most of the critical time btw 9:30-10:00pm, washing sheets.  That's suspicious.
2. Oldfield. His check/non-check of 9:30pm was the only time that whole holiday that anyone claimed to have entered someone else's room to check on children.  Yet he didn't actually see them.  He couldn't keep his story straight.  Suspicious.
3. Kate.  "They've taken her" is an unnatural reaction to an empty bed, like she was reading from a script.
4. Tanner.  I used to think she was lying completely about bundleman.  But now, I think it's possible that her 9:15 sighting of an innocent parent leaving the creche had the unwanted effect of blowing Gerry's timeline.  It did give him an alibi, however, so he accepted it.  One way or the other, she may not have first-hand knowledge of whatever might have transpired in 5A.
5. David Payne. His 5:30 visit is vague and riddled with inconsistencies.  Whatever he saw or didn't see, it looks like a clumsy attempt to provide cover.
6-8. The rest are spouses or mother-in-law and may not have had first-hand knowledge of anything.
avatar
Varriott

Posts : 79
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-31
Location : The Big Apple

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Hicks on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:17 pm

@Varriott wrote:I'm a new member, and I've got a question.  I tell everyone about all my theories of what happened, how I believe the abduction was simulated, that Smithman was Gerry, etc etc.  The most common question people ask me is, ok, if Gerry did that, then who of the T9 knew about it?  I wonder what people here think.  Here's my hypothesis, in order of who probably knew:

1. O'Brien. He was gone for most of the critical time btw 9:30-10:00pm, washing sheets.  That's suspicious.
2. Oldfield. His check/non-check of 9:30pm was the only time that whole holiday that anyone claimed to have entered someone else's room to check on children.  Yet he didn't actually see them.  He couldn't keep his story straight.  Suspicious.
3. Kate.  "They've taken her" is an unnatural reaction to an empty bed, like she was reading from a script.
4. Tanner.  I used to think she was lying completely about bundleman.  But now, I think it's possible that her 9:15 sighting of an innocent parent leaving the creche had the unwanted effect of blowing Gerry's timeline.  It did give him an alibi, however, so he accepted it.  One way or the other, she may not have first-hand knowledge of whatever might have transpired in 5A.
5. David Payne. His 5:30 visit is vague and riddled with inconsistencies.  Whatever he saw or didn't see, it looks like a clumsy attempt to provide cover.
6-8. The rest are spouses or mother-in-law and may not have had first-hand knowledge of anything.
Jane Tanner did not see a man carrying a child. This supposed sighting was to counteract the Smiths catching GM. SY must know it too as they have a couple of witnesses who were in the same block as the McCann's (apparently had the best all round view) the female was sat on the balcony at 9.15, she states that she did not see anyone in the road at the time.
Jeremy Wilkins cannot be certain at what exact time he met GM.

It is hard to make sense of the evening when you are using the timeline given by the McCann's and their friends as it's most likely a work of fiction.
The table was empty by 21.30/40 according to OC workers so it makes more sense to work back from that point in time.
avatar
Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 60

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by suzyjohnson on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:48 pm

@Research_Reader wrote:I'm relatively new, just re-watched the CW 'reconstruction' and am totally confused:

(1) The man who has come forward to say he was the man sighted by Jane Tanner: they said he had picked up his child from the creche, but looking at the map they showed on CW, Jane Tanner's man would have been walking TOWARDS the creche not away from it?! Has anyone explained this?

Reply) It's fishy isn't it?

(2) Gerry seems to imply that the abductor(s) could have been hiding in the apartment when he went for his check at 9pm. Doesn't this hugely open up the available time for an 'abduction'? Couldn't, for example, the abductor have entered through the patio doors (very carefully so as not to be spotted from the other side of the pool) sometime before 9pm, sedated the children but then hid when he heard Gerry entering, then after Gerry left he opened the front door from the inside (surely this wouldn't have needed a key, opening from the inside) and quietly left? Not saying I believe the abduction theory, I am just trying to get my head around why thats not possible. Of course it still requires Kate's description of the window open to be explained, but perhaps it was just slightly opened - for some reason - when the abductor was in the apartment, and in Kate's frenzied mind at the time she thought it was fully opened?

Reply ) As I recall GM didn't come up with that one until he realised JT's sighting had him trapped because he says he saw MM at 9.05 pm and JT saw Tannerman at 9.15 pm, hence someone had to have been in the apartment already.

(3) If Jane Tanner invented the sighting of the man carrying a child as a piece of fake evidence for the abduction theory, then how come a man with VERY close matching looks and clothes has now come forward? But if she didn't invent him and she knew he was a real man, then how could she be using him as a fake support for the abduction story when she and any of the T9 would not have known that he wouldnt come forward for years?

Reply) I just assumed that she recalled seeing someone similar at another time or date, and because of that, they would not necessarily have come forward because at that moment in time, 9.15 pm on May 3 rd, it wasn't them.







I'm so confused!

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1207
Reputation : 269
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by suzyjohnson on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:55 pm

@Fierljepper wrote:Candy, I checked the various topics and if possible would like to start a dedicated thread on this.

Although I am not a fan of scenarios incriminating the McCanns, my eye fell on this one.

We naturally assume the sniffer dogs on May 4th and 8th were following a trace of somebody carrying/kidnapping Maddie (e.g. the parents or an abductor). If it was an abductor, it is a long and very risky route to pick. But now suppose that we REVERSE the peculiar route the sniffer's dog followed in this picture:



Then the route remains pretty strange, but could support an interesting scenario where an accident has actually happened to Maddie near the parking lot (or the exit of the pool) and she is then actually carried back into apartment 5A, however the one(s) carrying her, then wanted to remain as unseen as possible and hence they took the 'longer way home' using the more shielded/covered foot path. Has this been considered as an option? Of course it also implies that when Maddie (who maybe already died) was removed from the apartment, it had to happen by car and/or wrapped in plastic not leaving additional traces for the sniffer dogs.
I can't explain this but I have often thought was it was possible that someone carried MM back to 5A after an accident, perhaps shortly before 7 pm when KM was on her own with the children and then the rest of the Tapas group arrived back, remember that TV interview where JT said what sounded like 'I carried her' Could she have run all that way with somebody chasing her? I can't think why this would need to be covered up though.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1207
Reputation : 269
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by AndyB on Thu Oct 31, 2013 9:57 pm

@Research_Reader wrote:If Jane Tanner invented the sighting of the man carrying a child as a piece of fake evidence for the abduction theory, then how come a man with VERY close matching looks and clothes has now come forward?
Has he? The only evidence for that is Andy Redwood's say so. There are many people on here, and I am one of them, that doubt that his investigation is as honest as we'd like it to be

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by suzyjohnson on Thu Oct 31, 2013 10:14 pm

@AB1 wrote:
To be balanced, a colleague of mine (who also believes the window staged) suggests an innocent KM faked the window for fear of being judged that the patio doors were left open, realised it wouldn't be believed, so had to admit to the patio doors being open. That the MC lie is the window, to try and absolve their guilt regarding the vulnerable position of the children.
Of course, the same could be true of a guilty KM. Try the window story, see it isn't working, and say the patio doors were unlocked.

In the same way that GM initially tried to say he went into the front door of his apartment at 9.05 pm using his key? You, and your colleague, could be right there. It's pretty bad if that's the case though, misleading the police, when there is a missing child to be found.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1207
Reputation : 269
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: New members please put your questions here

Post by Five Star on Thu Oct 31, 2013 11:04 pm

If there was no discussion about Madeleine getting out the flat, you would think that means she couldn't have!   it points towards the window being cleaned imo
avatar
Five Star

Posts : 110
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-21
Location : erf

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 24 1, 2, 3 ... 12 ... 24  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum