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, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Photographs revisited - questions

Page 6 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by AndyB on 13.05.14 9:40

@tigger wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
@tigger wrote:An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.
Agreed, its also a potential explanation for the high level involvement but leukaemia (or any other form of cancer for that matter) wouldn't need to be kept from the public. Do you have something else in mind?

No. If the public needed to look for a healthy, beautiful little princess any  illness would need to be kept hidden.
I suggested leukaemia because it is  very hard to treat in young children, but periods of recovery are common - could be anything. iVF children are more susceptible.
I do have some sympathy understanding  forKate as my feeling is that she had expected a healthy baby, very much like the Paynes'.  It would explain a lot.

The public would also not have looked favourably on doctors leaving a sick cild alone.
Oh I see - you're talking from the McCann's perspective, whereas I'm thinking from the powers that be's. For arguments sake lets say she had Leukemia. I can see why the McCann's might want that hidden (although I think they'd probably have milked it for sympathy) but what I can't see is why the UK authorities would want it hidden from the Portuguese. How would the discovery of Leukemia have affected the investigation?

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: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 9:52

@MrsC wrote:
Normal??

Well MrsC (haha, my wife is also Mrs. C, you're not her are you?  nah ) , when you start thinking about it the whole sentence reads pretty strangely.

"Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today."

"We have had to remember" - Sounds like they've been somewhat inconvenienced? I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and just say he's a useless orator.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 13.05.14 11:22

Tigger,

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I don't keep up with the forum regularly. Not enough hours in the day.

You have done an awful lot of work on the subject of Madeleine being taken out to PDL for a purpose. I  think  at one point you thought the whole thing was staged so she could be vanished? I have always thought there would be easier ways to vanish a child, hush up a death etc. I'm not even sure she was ill, but if she was (and the word courageous certainly suggests she might have been) , do you think it is possible she was taken out to PDL for some unorthodox, or experimental treatment on the quiet, had an adverse reaction and died? Or even worse, the treatment was successful, but she had an accident (hit her head, slow brain bleed type of thing, maybe the treatment had an anti-coagulant effect) and died and they couldn't risk an autopsy?

I would think they would  be struck off instantly, if that was the case.  Drug treatments are very heavily regulated and if they were using something on her that hadn't been through clinical trials and/or was unapproved for use in children and  she died and they were caught, then the s**t would really hit the fan.  If the rest of the group knew, then they would be complicit, hence the pact of silence? Everyone's careers/livelihoods are on the line. 

IMO they seem happy to be thought of as neglectful, so either they can't see how awful that looks to the rest of us (and they deserve to rot in jail), or being seen as neglectful is the least of their worries. 

As you can tell I change my theory at regular intervals, probably because my brain likes to go down the "what if"  route. This is the "what if she was ill/dying" route.  Why would you  take a sick (possibly dying)  child to PDL in April, surely Disneyland in Florida would be the better option for what could be a last holiday? What was there that was only available in PDL?

Not sure why they would have the picture to hand to print off though.  Maybe in case it all went wrong?

So many red herrings.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by PeterMac on 13.05.14 11:36

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Mr McCann, along with wife Kate, said: "Today we should be celebrating the fourth birthday of our daughter Madeleine.
"Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today.
Courageous?

Her fear OF pain ?
What were they doing to her ?

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 11:43

I take the "we have had to remember...." comment as meaning that, instead of Madeleine being there in person, there are only memories instead.

"Courageous" is an odd word to use though for a child; you'd say it about someone who has had a lot of illness or adversity to overcome and has done so more bravely than an adult would.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 11:47

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I take the "we have had to remember...." comment as meaning that, instead of Madeleine being there in person, there are only memories instead.

"Courageous" is an odd word to use though for a child; you'd say it about someone who has had a lot of illness or adversity to overcome and has done so more bravely than an adult would.

I just look at it as an impressive sounding adjective that has been wedged into a long list of other impressive sounding adjectives.

In other words, it sounds good and is designed to impress, but is otherwise meaningless.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by juliet on 13.05.14 11:49

In any other case like this nursery staff, neighbours, other mothers of little friends would have been endlessly interviewed about their thoughts and memories of Madeleine. Here, nothing except the overblown and very similar Tapas 7 descriptions
avatar
juliet

Posts : 579
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 11:57

@juliet wrote:In any other case like this nursery staff, neighbours, other mothers of little friends would have been endlessly interviewed about their thoughts and memories of Madeleine. Here, nothing except the overblown and very similar Tapas 7 descriptions
Yes i always found that extremely odd.

It remind's of me someone i met about 6 months back. This case briefly became a topic of conversation and she 'claimed' that a good friend of her's worked at the same nursery back in Leicester that MBM used to go to.

She also 'claimed' that her friend was under strict instructions not to discuss anything related to MBM what so ever. Nothing. Squat. Forbidden. Just was not allowed to comment. Full stop. 

That was all i could get out of her. Very strange indeed.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 14:06

Andrew77R wrote:
@juliet wrote:In any other case like this nursery staff, neighbours, other mothers of little friends would have been endlessly interviewed about their thoughts and memories of Madeleine. Here, nothing except the overblown and very similar Tapas 7 descriptions
Yes i always found that extremely odd.

It remind's of me someone i met about 6 months back. This case briefly became a topic of conversation and she 'claimed' that a good friend of her's worked at the same nursery back in Leicester that MBM used to go to.

She also 'claimed' that her friend was under strict instructions not to discuss anything related to MBM what so ever. Nothing. Squat. Forbidden. Just was not allowed to comment. Full stop. 

That was all i could get out of her. Very strange indeed.

Interesting. I had a similar experience recently. I was talking to an old friend about a mutual acquaintance. I haven't seen him for a long time but he used to be the partner of a very old friend of mine. We even all went on a MW holiday with all our children one summer! The acquaintance worked for MW (still does to my knowledge). The moment I mentioned his name, and tried to bring up the subject of MM, my friend darted a concerned look at me and changed the subject.  She would not go there at all. 

It was so odd. It's a 'no go' area.

But why?

But, to go back to the photos. They are all peculiar. And yes, I do think it is possible there a messages and hidden meanings. Anyone who doubts this should go carefully through the Madeleine was Here series with a critical mind. I defy anyone to not find some of the re-enactments and the so-called 'happy family' scenes incredibly creepy. 

There is a long thread devoted to just one episode in the series where a man comes out of a garage door while Gerry kicks a football around the garden in an attempt to look as though he is engaging with his children.  The whole thing is beyond weird.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 14:11

I've been under NDA (non-disclosure agreement) for most of my career.  I can't tell you what I'm working on, nor can I tell my nearest and dearest.  In fact, I can't tell 99% of my colleagues what I'm working on.  And it's not because a death has been covered up.  It's a fact of the business world.

Just trying to shine a (non-sinister) light on the reasons people may have for not discussing things like Madeleine's disappearance. It is very common for companies to order their staff not to speak publicly about various things.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 14:21

Yes but I wasn't trying to talk to the person who works for Mark Warner about what happened to Madeleine. I was trying to talk to someone else who doesn't work for Mark Warner but just happens to know him. 

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing 'non-sinister' about Madeleine's disappearance. Everything points towards sinister. At the very least the cover up of neglect.

That alone is a serious offence.  Especially when you consider that these people are doctors who are in a position of trust and responsibility.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 14:29

@j.rob wrote:Yes but I wasn't trying to talk to the person who works for Mark Warner about what happened to Madeleine. I was trying to talk to someone else who doesn't work for Mark Warner but just happens to know him. 

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing 'non-sinister' about Madeleine's disappearance. Everything points towards sinister. At the very least the cover up of neglect.

That alone is a serious offence.  Especially when you consider that these people are doctors who are in a position of trust and responsibility.

I find it hard to believe that people who know people who work for Mark Warner are somehow involved in a cover up, or are under instructions not to talk about Madeleine.  That just sounds like paranoia to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 14:47

@WLBTS.

Yes i can understand that in the business world, NDA's and CA's are fairly common. Signed a few CA's myself over the years. That's business.

The MBM case is not business (well i guess it's a lucrative business for K+G). 

It just seems strange that under no circumstances are people that have had dealings directly with MBM have ever came forward and spoke out.

As JRob said earlier and i agree, it all seem's extremely sinister.

@JRob.

Yes, i find that interesting as well that your friend who knew someone who worked at Mark Warner wouldn't discuss MBM at all. 

Exactly the same as the person i was talking too. I'm sure she knew a lot more than she let on about her friend but she was keen to swiftly change the subject.

It's as if that everyone (apart from the family) who has ever had contact with MBM has been told to shut up and not say anything. Not only that, anybody who knows somebody who has been directly involved with MBM has been told to shut up as well. 

So yes, it certainly does seem sinister.

Would the Mccanns, lawyered up, really go round and speak to every single person that has ever been in contact with MBM and issue NDA's and CA's???

Sounds like something out of a film. However it appears to be the case...
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 14:50

Maybe it´s a bit off topic, but very interesting tough
...so please delete if... Thank you

http://www.dw.de/scientists-find-brain-differences-in-pedophiles/a-16305968

"This use of MRT has enlarged the understanding of pedophilia. Doctors have now identified a number of signs that can point to a successful diagnosis:
"Pedophiles show a string of neuropsychological characteristics," said Ponseti. "For example, their intelligence quotient is about 8 percentage points lower than the average."



"It's also interesting that the age of the victim is related to the IQ of the abuser," he added. "So the dumber the criminal, the younger the child."

Apart from that, there is evidence that pedophiles are physically smaller than average, and Canadian investigators have found that the average pedophile
suffered twice as many head injuries in his childhood than average.



"The MRT can tell us who is a pedophile - but, unfortunately, not why."
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 14:54

Andrew77R wrote:
It's as if that everyone (apart from the family) who has ever had contact with MBM has been told to shut up and not say anything. Not only that, anybody who knows somebody who has been directly involved with MBM has been told to shut up as well.

I don't know what size company Mark Warner is, but have you got any idea how many people that would involve?  How many people would need to be told to shut up?  On threat of what?

What about new friends?  Do Mark Warner, or the Dark Powers That Be keep track of all their employee's personal relationships, so that they can tell new friends to shut up?

Do the DPTB turn up on the door-step of some employee's 81 year old mother, demanding that they stay quiet OR ELSE?

I'm sorry for being blunt, but this really does sound like paranoia to me.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 14:57

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:


I find it hard to believe that people who know people who work for Mark Warner are somehow involved in a cover up, or are under instructions not to talk about Madeleine.  That just sounds like paranoia to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.
"if I'm being perfectly honest."
There we go. You must be in it as well.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 15:01

MarcoG wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:


I find it hard to believe that people who know people who work for Mark Warner are somehow involved in a cover up, or are under instructions not to talk about Madeleine.  That just sounds like paranoia to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.
"if I'm being perfectly honest."
There we go. You must be in it as well.

Ha! That just says that forensic linguistics shouldn't always be treated as gospel ;-)

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 15:05

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
MarcoG wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:


I find it hard to believe that people who know people who work for Mark Warner are somehow involved in a cover up, or are under instructions not to talk about Madeleine.  That just sounds like paranoia to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.
"if I'm being perfectly honest."
There we go. You must be in it as well.

Ha!  That just says that forensic linguistics shouldn't always be treated as gospel ;-)
Lol yes. Interesting, but no science.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 15:09

@WLBTS

Haha - Yes it does sound like paranoia. I totally agree on that.

I just find it completely bizarre why so many people have not or not allowed to come forward and speak out. 

It just got me thinking after the person i met who claimed her very good friend worked at MBM's old nursery apparently was not to say a word about MBM under any circumstances. Why? 

Why could she not come out and say 'yes, Madeleine was a sweet girl who loved playing with the other children and really enjoyed singing' or something, just for an example.

By all accounts she wasn't allowed to utter so much as a word to her long standing very good friend (the person i was talking too). 

Or some of Madeleine's nursery friends parents commenting. Just seems to be nothing. Like i say, forbidden. Just want to know why thats all...

Will try and not turn into a paranoid wreck. Best go as i think someone is watching me.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 13.05.14 15:12

Andrew77R wrote:
Will try and not turn into a paranoid wreck. Best go as i think someone is watching me.

 spit coffee 

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Shhh on 13.05.14 17:50

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I don't know what size company Mark Warner is, but have you got any idea how many people that would involve?  How many people would need to be told to shut up?  On threat of what?

What about new friends?  Do Mark Warner, or the Dark Powers That Be keep track of all their employee's personal relationships, so that they can tell new friends to shut up?

Do the DPTB turn up on the door-step of some employee's 81 year old mother, demanding that they stay quiet OR ELSE?

I'm sorry for being blunt, but this really does sound like paranoia to me.
You'd be surprised who would & the lengths some colleagues go to to "grass" on you for speaking about things/passing judgement/ect, people you think are friends.  From personal experience.

Shhh

Posts : 198
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 19:07

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@j.rob wrote:Yes but I wasn't trying to talk to the person who works for Mark Warner about what happened to Madeleine. I was trying to talk to someone else who doesn't work for Mark Warner but just happens to know him. 

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing 'non-sinister' about Madeleine's disappearance. Everything points towards sinister. At the very least the cover up of neglect.

That alone is a serious offence.  Especially when you consider that these people are doctors who are in a position of trust and responsibility.

I find it hard to believe that people who know people who work for Mark Warner are somehow involved in a cover up, or are under instructions not to talk about Madeleine.  That just sounds like paranoia to me, if I'm being perfectly honest.

God you don't have to be so snippy! I am simply recording that this person did not want to discuss it. Which I found quite strange. If I am  being perfectly honest, I think you are trying to suggest I am paranoid!

But why? Are you actually suggesting that there has NOT been a cover-up???

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 19:10

@Shhh wrote:
@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:I don't know what size company Mark Warner is, but have you got any idea how many people that would involve?  How many people would need to be told to shut up?  On threat of what?

What about new friends?  Do Mark Warner, or the Dark Powers That Be keep track of all their employee's personal relationships, so that they can tell new friends to shut up?

Do the DPTB turn up on the door-step of some employee's 81 year old mother, demanding that they stay quiet OR ELSE?

I'm sorry for being blunt, but this really does sound like paranoia to me.
You'd be surprised who would & the lengths some colleagues go to to "grass" on you for speaking about things/passing judgement/ect, people you think are friends.  From personal experience.


How long has this McCann charade gone on for? How  many people who have tried to disagree with the McCAnns have been sued? Which newspapers have been sued?

How much have the McCAnns spent on legal fees to silence people? 

What about all the MW staff who got 'whoosed' away from the resort???

The detectives that first worked for the McCanns were quite intimidating, apparently.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 19:11

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Will try and not turn into a paranoid wreck. Best go as i think someone is watching me.

 spit coffee 
 big grin

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by j.rob on 13.05.14 19:22

Helene1 wrote:Maybe it´s a bit off topic, but very interesting tough
...so please delete if... Thank you

http://www.dw.de/scientists-find-brain-differences-in-pedophiles/a-16305968

"This use of MRT has enlarged the understanding of pedophilia. Doctors have now identified a number of signs that can point to a successful diagnosis:
"Pedophiles show a string of neuropsychological characteristics," said Ponseti. "For example, their intelligence quotient is about 8 percentage points lower than the average."



"It's also interesting that the age of the victim is related to the IQ of the abuser," he added. "So the dumber the criminal, the younger the child."

Apart from that, there is evidence that pedophiles are physically smaller than average, and Canadian investigators have found that the average pedophile
suffered twice as many head injuries in his childhood than average.



"The MRT can tell us who is a pedophile - but, unfortunately, not why."


I have always thought  that the McCanns IQs were  an interesting topic. Along with their choice of photographs of their daughter.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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