game overwhen this case is solved

by mariola 28.03.14 20:39

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.
I want to discuss the case I was interested in where this discussion started to lead, as in the exact nature of the involvement of the Tapas 7. Why exactly would they cover up for Kate and Gerry? Was it simply the case that they felt guilty at also leaving their kids alone, or did they also sedate them, or is there yet more involvement in something completely unrelated to Madeleine?

I've always wondered if the allegations of swinging were anything more than tabloid gossip. I'm sure I've heard Amaral mention it. But I still don't see that as enough of a reason to cover up a corpse disposal.

should be known as the tapas 8.surely mrs webster is not involved?

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:41

It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth? I come to this forum to read about interesting theories and hopefully share some of my own, and to read about facts I may have overlooked in relation to this case. Every time threads get personal like this I'm put off. This detracts from the purpose of the forum.

by Cristobell 28.03.14 20:41

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.
I want to discuss the case I was interested in where this discussion started to lead, as in the exact nature of the involvement of the Tapas 7. Why exactly would they cover up for Kate and Gerry? Was it simply the case that they felt guilty at also leaving their kids alone, or did they also sedate them, or is there yet more involvement in something completely unrelated to Madeleine?

I've always wondered if the allegations of swinging were anything more than tabloid gossip. I'm sure I've heard Amaral mention it. But I still don't see that as enough of a reason to cover up a corpse disposal.

Thank you Nglfi smilie

I've always believed in the principle of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), and thought that all the parents were sedating their children in order to go out. Now that is a terrible thing, and it might well have resulted in all the doctors being struck off, not to mention, loss of status, social standing etc, etc, all the things that are important to these people. However, as bad as all of that would have been, it is unlikely they would have faced jail time, a good lawyer could have got them off, and (I know its not true), but Kate claims they offered her a 2 year prison time deal.

However, 7 years on, they are all sticking rigidly to their stories as Scotland Yard have had to mount a multi million pound investigation to find out what really happened. One would like to think, the longer they lie, the longer the sentence, but that remains to be seen. If Madeleine was dead in the apartment that whole tapas meal is a fiasco and I hope SY are looking very carefully at what the 'checkers' were up to when they were away from the table.

I really can't make my mind up about the swinging Nglfi, if they were doing as much sport as they claim, I don't know how they would have had the energy! If they did indeed spend every night at the Tapas bar, there was not much time for shenanigans and Fiona had her mother with her.

I cannot imagine what would compel 7/8/9 or more people to guard a secret for 7 years? What 'secret' is so evil, sinister and damning, that these previously law abiding people allow their names to be dragged through the mud, time and time again, and whose lives must have been wrecked by what happened in May 2007.

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:44

mariola wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.
I want to discuss the case I was interested in where this discussion started to lead, as in the exact nature of the involvement of the Tapas 7. Why exactly would they cover up for Kate and Gerry? Was it simply the case that they felt guilty at also leaving their kids alone, or did they also sedate them, or is there yet more involvement in something completely unrelated to Madeleine?

I've always wondered if the allegations of swinging were anything more than tabloid gossip. I'm sure I've heard Amaral mention it. But I still don't see that as enough of a reason to cover up a corpse disposal.
should be known as the tapas 8.surely mrs webster is not involved?

I'm really undecided about Mrs Webster. I've always found it really strange that she just sat there when all the commotion was going on around her. I think the extent of her involvement may just be knowledge of how the McCanns treated their children in general, but surely later she would have been filled in on what happened by her daughter? I don't know.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 20:52

Newintown wrote:
mariola wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post Cristobell, which is typical when you're so tied up with yourself. Yes, I know the post is called Game Over, but the whole forum should be renamed "Game Over, because Cristobell's word is final and nobody else can have an opinion".

You are getting very boring and pretentious.
you are disrupting the thread.why?

I'm distrupting the thread, duhhhhhh!!!!!

Have a word with Cristobell; haven't you noticed she's taken over the whole forum, and is stopping anyone having an opinion other than her own.

I think aiyoyo will agree with me, or haven't you being keeping up to date with the previous pages on this topic, if not read through them.

Newintown, I dont care if Cristobel takes over the forum, choosing to talk all day long for the entire forum members or not, but she can't made claim she cannot substantiate, that's my contention.

It's just ludicrous to self-believe that because you talk so much about the case then that is equal to campaigning - it's down right nonsense !
Because posting about the case is not the same as campaigning !

by mariola 28.03.14 20:55

nglfi wrote:
mariola wrote:
nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.
I want to discuss the case I was interested in where this discussion started to lead, as in the exact nature of the involvement of the Tapas 7. Why exactly would they cover up for Kate and Gerry? Was it simply the case that they felt guilty at also leaving their kids alone, or did they also sedate them, or is there yet more involvement in something completely unrelated to Madeleine?

I've always wondered if the allegations of swinging were anything more than tabloid gossip. I'm sure I've heard Amaral mention it. But I still don't see that as enough of a reason to cover up a corpse disposal.
should be known as the tapas 8.surely mrs webster is not involved?
I'm really undecided about Mrs Webster. I've always found it really strange that she just sat there when all the commotion was going on around her. I think the extent of her involvement may just be knowledge of how the McCanns treated their children in general, but surely later she would have been filled in on what happened by her daughter? I don't know.

to tell her would have been too risky.surely someone would show some moral fibre!

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:55

Cristobell wrote:

However, 7 years on, they are all sticking rigidly to their stories as Scotland Yard have had to mount a multi million pound investigation to find out what really happened. One would like to think, the longer they lie, the longer the sentence, but that remains to be seen. If Madeleine was dead in the apartment that whole tapas meal as a fiasco and I hope SY are looking very carefully at what the 'checkers' were up to when they were away from the table.

Something I'm confused by - if the body had to have been there for at least two hours (for cadaver odour), the Macs would have to have been mighty brave to dispose of the body, but allow checks to be carried out, knowing that someone might actually notice that Maddie was gone. So, were the Tapas 7 told about what happened before the meal?
My apologies if my points are a bit muddled. Whilst I'm very interested in this case I'm by no means an expert and my knowledge of agreed timelines is a bit hazy. Not least because the main protagonists have changed their stories so many times!

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 20:58

nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !

by nglfi 28.03.14 20:59

Or perhaps it wasn't decided in advance who would make the 'discovery'. When it got to ten o clock and still none of the T7 had noticed Maddie was gone, did Kate then decide right I'll go and do it? I still find it hard to believe that Gerry or Kate discovered her dead just before ten and decided so quickly on the spot to remove the body.

by Casey5 28.03.14 21:00

I can't think of any scenario involving a group of nine people where the death of a child would become secondary to a mundane pastime such as swinging - nine day wonder- so what, it's not a hanging offence.
Even admitting to mildly sedating them could be made to look as if it was an extra dose of calpol - something many parents would plead guilty to (we know of many admitting to leaving their children alone whilst dining - admittedly in hotels and not apartments but still...) to soothe a tooth coming through or a headache.
Leaving them alone; they could have stressed that there was always one of them who stayed in and would have heard any of them crying.
It's strange if the silence is because of being afraid to own up to something so small that they would refuse to help police in the case
of a missing child.
Therefore I think there must be something, perhaps NOT small that has kept them all silent seven years on.
Even now I think any of them would get a fair hearing from both sets of police if they came forward and said "ok it was stupid and unjustifiable but here's what I did that night and it's the truth".

by Cristobell 28.03.14 21:01

nglfi wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

However, 7 years on, they are all sticking rigidly to their stories as Scotland Yard have had to mount a multi million pound investigation to find out what really happened. One would like to think, the longer they lie, the longer the sentence, but that remains to be seen. If Madeleine was dead in the apartment that whole tapas meal as a fiasco and I hope SY are looking very carefully at what the 'checkers' were up to when they were away from the table.
Something I'm confused by - if the body had to have been there for at least two hours (for cadaver odour), the Macs would have to have been mighty brave to dispose of the body, but allow checks to be carried out, knowing that someone might actually notice that Maddie was gone. So, were the Tapas 7 told about what happened before the meal?
My apologies if my points are a bit muddled. Whilst I'm very interested in this case I'm by no means an expert and my knowledge of agreed timelines is a bit hazy. Not least because the main protagonists have changed their stories so many times!

I edited my earlier post Nglfi, I hadn't replied to your question about the swinging!

Impossible for the Tapas 7 not to have known imo Nglfi. Perhaps not Mrs. W, but the others I think must have. How can you have a child die without your holiday friends noticing?

by mariola 28.03.14 21:02

aiyoyo wrote:
Newintown wrote:
mariola wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Newintown wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
I have spent 7 years campaigning for justice for Madeleine. ...........

Really ? How ?
Stay on topic Aiyoyo please, these personal attacks are becoming tedious.

From the posts I've read over the past week or so you seem to have made yourself the administrator of this forum Cristobell. Well in actual fact you seem to have taken over the whole forum with your numerous postings putting people in their place.

I'm not very good at posting and I find it quite daunting, but for any new members I think your attitude over the past week or two would put any new member off from posting.

I think it's about time that admin stepped in and had a word with you before you completely wreck the whole forum with your dogmatic views.
This thread is entitled Game Over, but it would appear there are a few who would rather discuss me, than the topic of this thread.

You obviously didn't read my post Cristobell, which is typical when you're so tied up with yourself. Yes, I know the post is called Game Over, but the whole forum should be renamed "Game Over, because Cristobell's word is final and nobody else can have an opinion".

You are getting very boring and pretentious.
you are disrupting the thread.why?

I'm distrupting the thread, duhhhhhh!!!!!

Have a word with Cristobell; haven't you noticed she's taken over the whole forum, and is stopping anyone having an opinion other than her own.

I think aiyoyo will agree with me, or haven't you being keeping up to date with the previous pages on this topic, if not read through them.

Newintown, I dont care if Cristobel takes over the forum, choosing to talk all day long for the entire forum members, but she can't made claim she cannot substantiate, that's my contention.

It's just ludicrous to self-believe that because you talk so much about the case then that is equal to campaigning - it's down right nonsense !
Because posting about the case is not the same as campaigning !

are you and newinromley on the mccann payroll,it seems you just want to stop the discussion about what happended to maddie.

by nglfi 28.03.14 21:03

aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !

In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because I am new on this forum and I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 21:06

canada12 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:I expect many here are getting tired of threads being disrupted - everyone here is entitled to have their say, you may or may not agree, but please discuss the posts and not the poster. As to how many posts people make, what has that got to do with anything? Some days some posters seem to be more prolific than others, doesn't mean they are taking over the forum.

Back to topic please!! No more of this disruption........thanks.

It's been proven over and over again that whenever we stray too close to the truth on a thread, there are attempts to derail it, and in some cases, get it locked.

Stray too close to the truth ? What truth ?

Even SY don't seem to know what the truth is, but you do (obviously) ?

Please, give me a break !

by nglfi 28.03.14 21:16

It could be the case that in the heat of the moment, since the whole group were friends and may or may not have shared a more intimate bond, they decided to go along with the cover up out of simple loyalty. I can imagine Gerry bullying the group and threatening them with things like 'You left your kids alone as well, you drugged them too, this is a pact now.' Then after all the time that has passed and money that has been spent, they now simply feel too awful to come forward and say 'Actually I was lying all this time. All this time I knew and decided not to say anything.' They would be hounded and vilified by the press and no doubt their lives would be ruined. Could it simply be that it's easier to stay quiet?

But this interpretation then depends on the fact that they were all too callous right at the beginning to stand up and say no this isn't right, and go to the police. So to sum up, I'm going to agree with the theory that there must be more to this than having also simply left their kids alone!!

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 21:17

nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because I am new on this forum and I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

nglfi,
Now that's called trying to personalise before posting when it should not be the basis for posting here.
Don't underestimate people here. Credit people here with their due intelligent that they're capable of discerning what is believable from what is not.
Every post is taken for its own merits.
Whether one is old member or new member won't make a difference, it is the merits of the post that counts, not age of the membership.

by bodiddly 28.03.14 21:23

Is it at all possible that MM was initially placed somewhere where she was supposed to be found, only for whatever reason, she wasn't. By this point it had been made clear that a "missing abducted child" was worth more. This was then why she was moved in the scenic. For her to stay "missing"
By this point the friends had already lied and now were forced to carry on that lie?

by Guest 28.03.14 21:35

Posts disrupting are now being deleted!

by TheTruthWillOut 28.03.14 21:36

nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because I am new on this forum and I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

I don't know about anyone else, but I'd love to know what the 'something' is about Andy Redwood!

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 21:40

Candyfloss,

Where's the fairness ? Are you slipping behind on your role ?

If mariola is allowed to accuse me and another poster of being on mccanns payroll then by virtue of my freedom of expression I should be allowed to defend myself, so why are you deleting my reply to mariola, when you've ignored time wasters who attacked me ?

by petunia 28.03.14 21:40

Aiyoyo i have read your threads over the years with interest and have never seen you so argumentative as you are today..Hope all is well with you.

by plebgate 28.03.14 21:40

Any positive news is welcome. We are all free to believe or not.
ETA - reply to Truthwillout's post previous page.

by Newintown 28.03.14 21:43

aiyoyo wrote:Candyfloss,

Where's the fairness ? Are you slipping behind on your role ?

If mariola is allowed to accuse me and another poster of being on mccanns payroll then by virtue of my freedom of expression I should be allowed to defend myself, so why are you deleting my reply to mariola, when you've ignored time wasters who attacked me ?

I agree, Mariola is the one disrupting the forum and with name changing (an obvious McCann paid shill tactic) but she seems to have been ignored over it.

by nglfi 28.03.14 21:45

aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because I am new on this forum and I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

nglfi,
Now that's called trying to personalise before posting when it should not be the basis for posting here.
Don't underestimate people here. Credit people here with their due intelligent that they're capable of discerning what is believable from what is not.
Every post is taken for its own merits.
Whether one is old member or new member won't make a difference, it is the merits of the post that counts, not age of the membership.

I know there are some very intelligent people on this forum who are capable of discerning plausibility, I just meant I'm not very confident posting. My partner has a friend/colleague who knows someone working on Operation Grange, (this is why I was a little unconfident posting, as I'm starting off with 'a friend of a friend of a friend.....') and this person told him that AR should not be underestimated in any way. Everything that comes out of his mouth is scripted and designed with a specific purpose in mind. There is also not quite the massive rift between SY and the PJ that the media would have us believe. I was greatly buoyed by this (LOL) because I had been leaning more and more towards the whitewash side, and that actually AR was a bit of a dope. The friend didn't explicitly say but this leads me to believe that SY are focusing on the McCanns. However it's just the difficulty with finding enough evidence to charge.

ETA when I say scripted, I mean with a view to getting certain parties to slip up and reveal information. About a week ago was certainly not the first time that AR had given credence to the idea that Maddie had died in the apartment. It was just the right time to make that particular statement.

by Guest 28.03.14 21:47

I have warned about disruption...........I am now deleting posts - there has to be a cut off somewhere.............no sides are being taken. Give it a rest and move on please!!!