Re: Round and Round we go - Express front page - Suspects paid to snatch Maddy

by jeanmonroe 31.01.14 14:54

watendlath wrote:
NickE wrote:If it is someone from staff,why did they left through or open the window?

Maybe they had bad stomach and let out some air

I think that would be to trick the police; if the police see that all doors and windows are locked they will suspect an inside job...ie OC staff who have access to a key.

Just remind me:

Why would anyone need a key to enter 5A when they(?) have been watching the apartment all week (according to KM) and seeing the McCanns leaving the patio door unlocked every night.?

And why would they(?) need a key when GM himself has said he left the front door unlocked as well as the patio door unlocked on the evening of 3rd May 2007?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.

As for the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

So not such a case of "Come on down" but more likely "Come on IN"
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children

Remind me again:

I must have missed the bit in all of the T7's statements where they say they checked on the McCann kids BEFORE the night of 3rd May 2007.

Anyone seen the evidence of any of the T7 'checking' on the McCann children BEFORE 3rd May as G&K say they did?

by watendlath 31.01.14 15:48

jeanmonroe wrote:
watendlath wrote:
NickE wrote:If it is someone from staff,why did they left through or open the window?

Maybe they had bad stomach and let out some air

I think that would be to trick the police; if the police see that all doors and windows are locked they will suspect an inside job...ie OC staff who have access to a key.

Just remind me:

Why would anyone need a key to enter 5A when they(?) have been watching the apartment all week (according to KM) and seeing the McCanns leaving the patio door unlocked every night.?

And why would they(?) need a key when GM himself has said he left the front door unlocked as well as the patio door unlocked on the evening of 3rd May 2007?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.

As for the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

So not such a case of "Come on down" but more likely "Come on IN"
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children

Remind me again:

I must have missed the bit in all of the T7's statements where they say they checked on the McCann kids BEFORE the night of 3rd May 2007.

Anyone seen the evidence of any of the T7 'checking' on the McCann children BEFORE 3rd May as G&K say they did?

I was really answering the question in general terms...if an intruder gets in via a door because he has a key, how does he throw the police off his scent.

You have just demonstrated how ridiculous it is in this case to suppose that the 'intruders' must have worked at the Ocean Club because they are the ones having access to apartment keys.

You are right...anyone watching the McCanns movements that week could have got in and out very easily.

In fact I remember on the Dispatches video one of the team looking at the patio doors and remarking that an abductor could have been in and out again in a minute.

by nglfi 31.01.14 16:02

Have I missed something here? NOTHING WAS STOLEN FROM THE APARTMENT!!!!! Why exactly would MW employees slip silently into an apartment (as they had keys), and instead of going straight for the safety deposit box (they know exactly where it is) , decide to tangle with a hyperactive child who is now awake and crying?? They'd just leave. It would not be worth the risk if she started screaming the place down, or otherwise being difficult. No need to touch, injure or kill her. The fact that she died in the flat is indisputable, so it doesn't make sense. Unless we are saying the specific purpose in mind was murder and concealement of a cadaver. If it was kidnap for a ransom, why no ransom demand? If it was kidnap to be sold to a paedophile gang, why kill her? Perhaps, in a perfect world, what SY want the Portuguese to do is check bank statements and homes to prove these people were/are burglars, not prove they had a motive to do something to Maddie. Once that is proved they can force the burglars to talk about what they have seen. No one now, after the worldwide media hype, would want to admit they were anywhere near the scene of the crime. I still haven't seen anything official which says arrests are imminent, rather than questioning.

by nglfi 31.01.14 16:16

However much spin is put on this, and however many part time burglars-cum-kidappers come out of the woodwork, nothing will ever change Kate's refusal to answer questions, the couple's departure as soon as they were made arguidos, and their general obstructiveness and deliberate damage to the investigation.
Those are far stronger indicators of what happened than staff who occasionally stole from holiday makers. Where is the evidence placing these staff members at the scene?
Where is the evidence they used the Renault scenic, rather than the Macs? Where is the evidence they borrowed Kate's clothes to kill Maddie in (God knows when they did that, before or after selling her to the paedophile network?!)

by ultimaThule 31.01.14 16:47

plebgate wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Could it be because they're figments of a ~~desperate~~ fervent imagination, plebgate?

The McCanns have form for biting hands that fed them.

I wonder what MW makes of this story which has emerged at the peak time for bookings for the summer season?
Good point about the bookings UT.

As for figments of a fervent imagination, could be, but imo it sounds like the old sauce bottle has been out again.

Would that be the jar of apple sauce which traditionally accompanies all things pork? Looks like the rim's gone a bit crusty which usually happens when someone's failed to put the lid back on properly...

by Dr What 31.01.14 18:12

Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.

by ultimaThule 31.01.14 21:05

worriedmum wrote:Three very cunning operators, managing to make sure that specialist cadaver odour and blood dogs would later throw investigators off the scent (sorry about the pun!)

I wonder how they snuck into the Renault Scenic?

Given that the Scenic was left ungaraged with its boot wide open at night to air the eau d'rotting meat, fish, and nappies, even three very uncunning operators would have had no need to snuck, wm, and if Sean's ability to sleep like the dead through plane journeys and press conferences is a family trait, they could have held a party in the moonlight for the purpose of applying a liberal coating of cadaverine and putrescine scented fluids to the tyre well. yes

by NickE 31.01.14 21:21

jeanmonroe wrote:
watendlath wrote:
NickE wrote:If it is someone from staff,why did they left through or open the window?

Maybe they had bad stomach and let out some air

I think that would be to trick the police; if the police see that all doors and windows are locked they will suspect an inside job...ie OC staff who have access to a key.

Just remind me:

Why would anyone need a key to enter 5A when they(?) have been watching the apartment all week (according to KM) and seeing the McCanns leaving the patio door unlocked every night.?

And why would they(?) need a key when GM himself has said he left the front door unlocked as well as the patio door unlocked on the evening of 3rd May 2007?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children. He clarifies that the main door was always closed but not necessarily locked with the key.

As for the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.

Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door.

So not such a case of "Come on down" but more likely "Come on IN"
----------------------------------------------------------------
On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007. On this day, the deponent (GM) and KATE had already left the back door closed, but not locked, to allow entrance by their group colleagues to check on the children

Remind me again:

I must have missed the bit in all of the T7's statements where they say they checked on the McCann kids BEFORE the night of 3rd May 2007.

Anyone seen the evidence of any of the T7 'checking' on the McCann children BEFORE 3rd May as G&K say they did?

Gonçalo Amaral: "The key that Mr. Gerald McCann alleges to have used had in fact been left in the kitchen, on the kitchen’s counter.
Right away, the lies started."

by worriedmum 31.01.14 21:25

ultimaThule wrote:
worriedmum wrote:Three very cunning operators, managing to make sure that specialist cadaver odour and blood dogs would later throw investigators off the scent (sorry about the pun!)

I wonder how they snuck into the Renault Scenic?
Given that the Scenic was left ungaraged with its boot wide open at night to air the eau d'rotting meat, fish, and nappies, even three very uncunning operators would have had no need to snuck, wm, and if Sean's ability to sleep like the dead through plane journeys and press conferences is a family trait, they could have held a party in the moonlight for the purpose of applying a liberal coating of cadaverine and putrescine scented fluids to the tyre well.

UT. I never thought of that.....

by ultimaThule 31.01.14 21:29

jeanmonroe wrote:< snip >
Remind me again:

I must have missed the bit in all of the T7's statements where they say they checked on the McCann kids BEFORE the night of 3rd May 2007.

Anyone seen the evidence of any of the T7 'checking' on the McCann children BEFORE 3rd May as G&K say they did?

As I recall, following Madeleine asking her mother 'where were you when Sean and I cried' on the morning of 3 May 2007, K&G resolved that they would 'really' check on their children.

The use of the word 'really' suggests that prior to the night of 3 May any checks they had performed were of the 'play' or 'pretend' variety - perhaps consisting of the occasional glance in the general direction of the obscured view of the rear entrance to the apartment where their infants lay sleeping in the front bedroom? Or a low decibel shout of 'Are you OK, kids?' from beside the swimming pool, followed by swift resumption of revelries when answer came there none.

However, discounting the Paynes who were fortuitiously equipped with an especially long range baby monitor, I can't find any account of the other couples in the group checking on either the McCann children or their own prior to 3 May 2007.

by sami 31.01.14 21:39

ultimaThule wrote:
However, discounting the Paynes who were fortuitiously equipped with an especially long range baby monitor, I can't find any account of the other couples in the group checking on either the McCann children or their own prior to 3 May 2007.

Perhaps because 3rd May was one of the only nights all adults actually went to the table ? No adult was reported as sick and staying in that night. On other occasions there was the monitor in Paynes and an adult "sick", so no need for the checking system ?

by NickE 31.01.14 21:43

Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.

The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

by Woofer 31.01.14 22:06

NickE wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.
The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

..... and SY have re-named them `burglars`.

by Ollie 01.02.14 0:49

Woofer wrote:
NickE wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.
The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

..... and SY have re-named them `burglars`.

I have been reading David Paynes rogatory interviews, just started reading part three (this will probably sound bizarre) I thought of blackmail...could SY be checking bank accounts because someone knew what happened and maybe blackmailed the McCanns? I know it's probably farfetched but after Reading DPs RIs it's not really surprising!

by Rasputin 01.02.14 6:17

Ollie wrote:
Woofer wrote:
NickE wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.
The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

..... and SY have re-named them `burglars`.
I have been reading David Paynes rogatory interviews, just started reading part three (this will probably sound bizarre) I thought of blackmail...could SY be checking bank accounts because someone knew what happened and maybe blackmailed the McCanns? I know it's probably farfetched but after Reading DPs RIs it's not really surprising!

When Gerry had his wallet ' stolen ' Kate made a tv appeal for its return , saying ...." we don't care about the money we just want the photos back "....I always thought there was something more to this appeal for some reason .

by NickE 01.02.14 7:27

If Kate talks truth about the wallet, there is someone out there who may have this sensitive photos, if so, that person may have the key, but is \"paid" by someone to be quiet, long shot but ....... wrote:
Ollie wrote:
Woofer wrote:
NickE wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.
The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

..... and SY have re-named them `burglars`.
I have been reading David Paynes rogatory interviews, just started reading part three (this will probably sound bizarre) I thought of blackmail...could SY be checking bank accounts because someone knew what happened and maybe blackmailed the McCanns? I know it's probably farfetched but after Reading DPs RIs it's not really surprising!

When Gerry had his wallet ' stolen ' Kate made a tv appeal for its return , saying ...." we don't care about the money we just want the photos back "....I always thought there was something more to this appeal for some reason .

by DurhamGuy1967 01.02.14 7:59

NickE wrote:
If Kate talks truth about the wallet, there is someone out there who may have this sensitive photos, if so, that person may have the key, but is \"paid" by someone to be quiet, long shot but ....... wrote:
Ollie wrote:
Woofer wrote:
NickE wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there temporarily before deciding how to dispose of the corpse, would you leave ANY main door or patio door unlocked in the interim and run the risk of anyone going inside.
I believe GM is calculating enough not to have done that.IF there was anyone amongst the Tapas 7 who was in the know, then I tend to think that they would have been given a key to enter the apartment.
The door was left unlocked, maybe because someone was "hired" to pick her up after it has become dark outside?!?

..... and SY have re-named them `burglars`.
I have been reading David Paynes rogatory interviews, just started reading part three (this will probably sound bizarre) I thought of blackmail...could SY be checking bank accounts because someone knew what happened and maybe blackmailed the McCanns? I know it's probably farfetched but after Reading DPs RIs it's not really surprising!

When Gerry had his wallet ' stolen ' Kate made a tv appeal for its return , saying ...." we don't care about the money we just want the photos back "....I always thought there was something more to this appeal for some reason .

What if a fairly decent amount of money had been drawn out? say £2k. He would need to explain where it had been spent.

by diatribe 01.02.14 11:57

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there
What if a fairly decent amount of money had been drawn out? say £2k. He would need to explain where it had been spent.

I'd be surprised if prior to the Donation Fund, the McCanns had 2K in cash. Like most people in the UK, everything they owned was probably strapped up and their overdraft stretched to the limit.

There will undoubtably be a school of thought subscribing to the fact that to be skint with no debt in the UK are riches beyond most's dreams. Those halcyon days of being debt free and merely skint would be but distant memories of a golden age to most UK subjects. They may even predate those carefree days when one could cross one's threshold into the street and not be recorded by a state CCTV device, or filmed by some pervert with a mobile phone directed at your girlfriend's ass.

by jeanmonroe 01.02.14 12:19

diatribe wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:

Assuming the child was dead and behind the sofa AND you had put her there
What if a fairly decent amount of money had been drawn out? say £2k. He would need to explain where it had been spent.
I'd be surprised if prior to the Donation Fund, the McCanns had 2K in cash. Like most people in the UK, everything they owned was probably strapped up and their overdraft stretched to the limit.

There will undoubtably be a school of thought subscribing to the fact that to be skint with no debt in the UK are riches beyond most's dreams. Those halcyon days of being debt free and merely skint would be but distant memories of a golden age to most UK subjects. They may even predate those carefree days when one could cross one's threshold into the street and not be recorded by a state CCTV device, or filmed by some pervert with a mobile phone directed at your girlfriend's ass.

The writer of the card calls them "thieving b******s" for using money from the Find Madeleine Fund to make two payments on their mortgage.

"Gerry and Kate, how can you use money given by poor people in good faith (to 'search' for Madeleine) to pay your mortgage on your mansion?"

Imo, the McS were 'at it' almost immediately.

by diatribe 01.02.14 12:50

nglfi wrote:However much spin is put on this, and however many part time burglars-cum-kidappers come out of the woodwork, nothing will ever change Kate's refusal to answer questions, the couple's departure as soon as they were made arguidos, and their general obstructiveness and deliberate damage to the investigation.
Those are far stronger indicators of what happened than staff who occasionally stole from holiday makers. Where is the evidence placing these staff members at the scene?
Where is the evidence they used the Renault scenic, rather than the Macs? Where is the evidence they borrowed Kate's clothes to kill Maddie in (God knows when they did that, before or after selling her to the paedophile network?!)

An excellent analysis, nglfi(I do hope I've spelt your name correctly:) The only answer I can provide to any of your poignant observations is in relation to our much revered and esteemed, Dr. Kate McCann's refusal to answer questions.

Presumably you are referring to her interview at the local plod stn. as she will have undoubtably have spoken with various members of the Portugese constabulary prior to this, particularly in the immediate aftermath of the interment of her daughter, Madeleine. (I much prefer the word interment to disappearance, its got a more authentic tone )

When our intrepid doctor underwent this 'interview', it would have been conducted on the basis of her being a suspect as opposed to a witness. Presumably she would have been cautioned in the same manner as if she were undergoing an IUC(Interview under caution) in the UK. Under these circumstances, she would almost certainly have been advised by her legal counsel and by this time there would have been many, to not answer any of the questions put to her during the course of this interrogation.( I prefer the word interrogation to that of interview, the latter being a euphemism for the former)

I can understand the confusion over this matter of our flat chested heroine's refusal to answer these pertinent questions, but one has to distinguish between being 'interviewed' as a suspect and 'interviewed' as a witness, because there is no correlation between the two, the difference being as wide as retail shop prices and the actual value of a commodity which is as expansive as the Grand Canyon.

NB, Readers will have to excuse the number of edits, I always tend to find upon review a certain amout of grammatical errors, ie. the odd spelling mistake, excess or lack of punctuation, inappropriate use of apostrophes, etc., etc. and I'm sure there's still enough left for the pedants to build the foundations for another Find Madeleine fund.

by NickE 01.02.14 12:55

Where is Edward Snowden and Wikileaks when we need them??!?

by Guest 01.02.14 13:28

Ollie, Your idea about someone blackmailing the Macs is not in itself imo overly far fetched, since obviously, since time imemorial, people have been blackmailing others for things they claim to know about them or claim to have seen them do and have demanded hush money winkwink

. Who could that be though? Surely not the bungling 'new to abduction' burglars?

I'm not sure though how any activity on the Fund could necessarily suggest or refute that either way. Would blackmailers be paid in several large sums or as a drip feed? Who would know what pattern of payment to look for? That's assuming SY would ever see fit to examine the Fund anyway. coffee

Which they probably haven't.

by diatribe 01.02.14 13:47

MILLIE wrote:Ollie, Your idea about someone blackmailing the Macs is not in itself imo overly far fetched, since obviously, since time imemorial, people have been blackmailing others for things they claim to know about them or claim to have seen them do and have demanded hush money . Who could that be though? Surely not the bungling 'new to abduction' burglars?

I'm not sure though how any activity on the Fund could necessarily suggest or refute that either way. Would blackmailers be paid in several large sums or as a drip feed? Who would know what pattern of payment to look for? That's assuming SY would ever see fit to examine the Fund anyway. Which they probably haven't.

An interesting analogy, Millie, but as previously stated, the confidence of the McCanns, particularly in the case of our not so veritable Gerry with his 'Catch us if you can' cavalier attitude would tend to suggest that they are not vulnerable to others being privy to what actually occurred to Madeleine.

Also, the amount of money made available for information leading to the whereabouts or what happened to Madeleine not being claimed would tend to substantiate the aforementioned thesis. There's no honour amongst thieves, blackmailers, burglers, holiday camp employees, aspiring abductors, paedos on their death beds et al when it involves financial reward and immunity from prosecution. big grin

by Guest 01.02.14 16:08

Yes, you make valid points there, Diatribe. The business of why no-one ever came forward to claim the reward money is interesting. I think Jeanmonroe made that point on a different thread, and the point was made that the bungling burglars could have come forward and tried to claim a reward for 'finding' Madeleine, if indeed, they had snatched her in the first place and got cold feet. Then again, can we be certain no-one ever did see something 'worth telling'? Maybe something which even he/she/they didn't even recognise was crucial information? With many people being encouraged to send whatever info they had to the in-house website, who knows what was sent in and how much of it was lost, redirected, deleted. We will just never know.

by Guest 01.02.14 16:32

MILLIE wrote:Yes, you make valid points there, Diatribe. The business of why no-one ever came forward to claim the reward money is interesting. I think Jeanmonroe made that point on a different thread, and the point was made that the bungling burglars could have come forward and tried to claim a reward for 'finding' Madeleine, if indeed, they had snatched her in the first place and got cold feet. Then again, can we be certain no-one ever did see something 'worth telling'? Maybe something which even he/she/they didn't even recognise was crucial information? With many people being encouraged to send whatever info they had to the in-house website, who knows what was sent in and how much of it was lost, redirected, deleted. We will just never know.

I like to think that even burglars, if they were to stumble upon a child's body during the course of their "work", wouldn't keep it themselves but would let the authorities know, even if only anonymously.

by Doug D 01.02.14 18:29

Millie:

“With many people being encouraged to send whatever info they had to the in-house website, who knows what was sent in and how much of it was lost, redirected, deleted. We will just never know.’

And even today they are still at it! Completely ludicrous & surely should be stopped by SY.

Maybe the Crimewatch appeal should have been extended to ask for anyone who ever came forward with any info. directly to the website or 24:7 telephone line in the past to resubmit anything to the Met Police contact, but I can’t see it’s ever going to happen. It would be nice to add the photos that never reached the PJ to this list as well, although presumably SY are at least aware of & could obtain access to these if they wanted.

If anything ever came to court (& I feel it’s a big if), how far could any responsibility for attempting to pervert the course of justice fall, as regards site owners, web-master, admin staff, media management, etc or would it just be a case of everybody trying to distance themselves from everything & a free for all, with everyone claiming deniability of any knowledge?

I think we’ve heard it before somewhere, “I was only following orders.”

Is there already a case on the back-burner regarding the withheld M3 reports or is that just water under the bridge?

by mysterion 01.02.14 18:43

Airing the boot of the Scenic. Has there ever been a re-enactment of how long it takes for meat, fish and nappy odour to disperse? Once it has been cleaned up, not very long I would have thought. Also, as a car renter, aren`t you supposed to ensure that the car is locked whilst unattended, especially with all those burglars about.

by Guest 01.02.14 19:08

I can testify, that a whole bucket [10 kilos] of frozen raw herrings [a long story, which I will spare you], when defrosted started leaking into a NEW refrigerator. It took two days to clean out and air it ... [and it was really "bad" to start with ...] ... But that was it ...

There is JUST one scent, which everyone, who had the mischance of experiencing it, will tell you: You don't get rid of it and you'll NEVER forget ...

by Smokeandmirrors 01.02.14 19:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Just on a few lines on the front page:

may have been snatched

may have been sold by her kidnappers

alleged the suspect worked

suspects thought to have

++++++

Newspapers like this don't deserve to survive

Quite so. Grange said they were not going to give running commentary through their investigation/review, and apart from Crimewatch appearances, and they haven't. The press are probably annoyed at not being given "official" information and IMO are printing a load of old cobblers in the hope that they will find something out by annoying Grange. Perhaps they are awaiting their nonsense to be corrected, so they can make assumptions from that.

by ultimaThule 01.02.14 20:23

Châtelaine wrote:I can testify, that a whole bucket [10 kilos] of frozen raw herrings [a long story, which I will spare you], when defrosted started leaking into a NEW refrigerator. It took two days to clean out and air it ... [and it was really "bad" to start with ...] ... But that was it ...

There is JUST one scent, which everyone, who had the mischance of experiencing it, will tell you: You don't get rid of it and you'll NEVER forget ...

Which is why, in the event Smithman was in possession of a dead body, we can be reasonably sure that the child met its end not more than 24 hours before its corpse was paraded around the streets of Luz.

Latest topics