Re: 100 REASONS WHY THE PARENTS BELONG IN JAIL/SHOULD BE UNDER INVESTIGATION

by bobbin 17.05.14 16:39

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aquila wrote:
Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"
Don`t think that`s right.
It's not right given the released files.
Is it right according to the `bewk`? I`ve never read it - to even touch it I`d feel dirty.

Kate makes no mention of the time-lines, either of them, nor of the revised and agreed third one on the computer at the later date.

Perhaps a wise decision, since she intended the world to believe that her best friend Tanner had not bothered to tell her of the sighting, and that her own husband also failed to inform her, and in fact took her on a useless wild goose chase the following morning, still not having told her, and therefore hindering her search. (?)

It is possible, although I hadn't thought of it like this before, that Gerry KNOWS knows that Jane is a fantasist and inveterate ~~liar~~ story-changing-'patsy' and that any 'abductor' that she had seen going in one direction would automatically mean that there was (a) NO abductor and (b) that he was going in the opposite direction.

That's why Gerry had Kate leaping into bins and over hedgerows, because he knew that if she kept herself busy she would be able to answer future sofa questions with some conviction. Talking about convictions, when are we ever going to see one.
I do believe the PJ are serious and will not let this drop. The MET, well, given the recent exposure of its past corruption/records, that's anybody's guess.

I know that the list of questions above is reaching a wider and wider vociferous audience and these people will not let it drop either.
The PJ are our real hope I believe and they are keeping their own knowledge close to their hearts.

by 1soapy 17.05.14 17:09

Bobbin: Gerry had Kate leaping into bins and over hedgerows, because he knew that if she kept herself busy she would be able to answer future sofa questions with some conviction.

Sorry off task for 2nd time in this thread, but responding to a point of interest contained within it. Just want to add that this is a good point and one that I can imagine. Just shows how gathering info/pictures in the mind, based on case studies can and has no doubt continue to bring information that may add to getting a result.

by **PeterMac** 17.05.14 18:10

1soapy wrote:Bobbin: Gerry had Kate leaping into bins and over hedgerows, because he knew that if she kept herself busy she would be able to answer future sofa questions with some conviction.

And yet when asked, she couldn't remember her lines, and blathered on about being incredibly busy . . rather than giving a long detailed account of the time she had spent looking.
Which leads one to the thought that it was not searching, but a 'stress-relieving" jogging session.
The TV interview pre-dated the book, so the ends could be tied up by 2011, to give the one example of "searching".
And incidentally to prove, yet again in Exhibit KH 1, that she was lying in one or other account. (Sorry, VERSION !

by ShuBob 17.05.14 18:37

Hi PeterMac. I hope you are able to help me answer a niggling question I've had for some time. If the investigation concludes that the McCanns and their tapas friends have no case to answer, is the investigation obliged to give detailed answers (or any answers) to all the inconsistencies in their stories? I can't believe these (the inconsistencies) will just be left to hang even if a willing patsy is found!

Thank you smilie

by stumo 17.05.14 18:39

Was Sky news contacted before the Police? YES

by TheTruthWillOut 17.05.14 19:00

stumo wrote:Was Sky news contacted before the Police? YES

According to John McCann, they went to the Sun first:

Visit NBCNews.com for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by stumo 17.05.14 19:04

OK, i'll change it..

Were the media contacted before the police? YES

by Woofer 17.05.14 20:46

PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aquila wrote:
Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"
Don`t think that`s right.
It's not right given the released files.
Is it right according to the `bewk`? I`ve never read it - to even touch it I`d feel dirty.

Kate makes no mention of the time-lines, either of them, nor of the revised and agreed third one on the computer at the later date.

Perhaps a wise decision, since she intended the world to believe that her best friend Tanner had not bothered to tell her of the sighting, and that her own husband also failed to inform her, and in fact took her on a useless wild goose chase the following morning, still not having told her, and therefore hindering her search. (?)

Now, when you put it like that .......
Yep, he obviously knew about Tannerman by 6am (or whenever it was) .... yet takes K searching in ditches, behind hedges and in rubbish bins.

by Liz Eagles 17.05.14 21:05

Woofer wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Woofer wrote:
aquila wrote:
Woofer wrote:"No. 9 Did Kate sit writing timelines instead of searching for Maddie YES"
Don`t think that`s right.
It's not right given the released files.
Is it right according to the `bewk`? I`ve never read it - to even touch it I`d feel dirty.

Kate makes no mention of the time-lines, either of them, nor of the revised and agreed third one on the computer at the later date.

Perhaps a wise decision, since she intended the world to believe that her best friend Tanner had not bothered to tell her of the sighting, and that her own husband also failed to inform her, and in fact took her on a useless wild goose chase the following morning, still not having told her, and therefore hindering her search. (?)

Now, when you put it like that .......
Yep, he obviously knew about Tannerman by 6am (or whenever it was) .... yet takes K searching in ditches, behind hedges and in rubbish bins.

Kate manages to tell us she broke into a jog.

Speaking of running, the couple have been running for Missing People today.

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

Candyfloss, please move link to a more appropriate thread if necessary.

There's a lovely photograph of Gerry but I don't recognise the photo of Kate.

by ShuBob 17.05.14 21:13

Aquila, thanks for the link.

Kate is wearing an identical pink top to the left of Gerry in the picture. You can just make her out.

by Guest 17.05.14 21:24

PINK. Were they, K&G, and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield the only ones to wear PINK?

by canada12 17.05.14 21:29

I find Gerry's statement on his t-shirt "Never Giving Up" quite ironic, really.
You can take that two ways.
Never giving up search for Madeleine or...
Never giving up to the police, as in, confessing.

by Liz Eagles 17.05.14 21:44

Châtelaine wrote:PINK. Were they, K&G, and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield the only ones to wear PINK?

There are better photographs in the Express article I've just seen.

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

by ShuBob 17.05.14 22:14

No quotes from the duo in the Express article despite posing for pictures.

by Liz Eagles 17.05.14 22:18

ShuBob wrote:No quotes from the duo in the Express article despite posing for pictures.

What a coup for Missing People. Claudia Lawrence's father and the McCanns united in fronting their business!

by Watching 17.05.14 22:29

aquila wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PINK. Were they, K&G, and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield the only ones to wear PINK?
There are better photographs in the Express article I've just seen.

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

Why? Why? Why did I look at the link - and Why? Why? Why did Mr take off the slimy green coloured t.shirt only to reveal that 'orrible 'airy bod? Sick! My evening now spoiled! He's not pretty in pink (he is pink, pink & hairy) or any colour! Big wimp though starting with t.shirt on under his not so fetching pink vest!

by wjk 17.05.14 22:32

That's not Kate imo, aquila.

by Liz Eagles 17.05.14 22:39

Watching wrote:
aquila wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PINK. Were they, K&G, and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield the only ones to wear PINK?
There are better photographs in the Express article I've just seen.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Why? Why? Why did I look at the link - and Why? Why? Why did Mr take off the slimy green coloured t.shirt only to reveal that 'orrible 'airy bod? Sick! My evening now spoiled! He's not pretty in pink (he is pink, pink & hairy) or any colour! Big wimp though starting with t.shirt on under his not so fetching pink vest!

This year's fashion is all about layering (pun intended) and if you want to stand out in a crowd you can't go far wrong with lime green beneath hot pink.

by Woofer 17.05.14 22:48

Is that Matt Oldfield in black next to Rachel Oldfield ? (if it is he`s receded a bit and grown a beard).

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

by Watching 17.05.14 22:55

aquila wrote:
Watching wrote:
aquila wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:PINK. Were they, K&G, and Rachael Mampilly Oldfield the only ones to wear PINK?
There are better photographs in the Express article I've just seen.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Why? Why? Why did I look at the link - and Why? Why? Why did Mr take off the slimy green coloured t.shirt only to reveal that 'orrible 'airy bod? Sick! My evening now spoiled! He's not pretty in pink (he is pink, pink & hairy) or any colour! Big wimp though starting with t.shirt on under his not so fetching pink vest!
This year's fashion is all about layering (pun intended) and if you want to stand out in a crowd you can't go far wrong with lime green beneath hot pink.

LOL

Right Said Gerry?

I'm too sexy for my green shirt, too sexy for my pink shirt
So sexy it hurts,
And I'm too sexy for Milan, too sexy for Milan,
New York and Japan
But not for Mrs McCann

As long as he doesn't start shaking his touche on the catwalk - criminal!

by Watching 17.05.14 23:01

Woofer wrote:Is that Matt Oldfield in black next to Rachel Oldfield ? (if it is he`s receded a bit and grown a beard).

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

Well they aren't the Three Degrees, and they aren't Supremes, missing the sequins, a new band - The Deceivers?

by Guest 17.05.14 23:08

Im really surprised to see Rachel Oldfield there. Where was she when the libel trial was taking place?

I don't think I'll ever get my head around the way the mc canns stay in the public eye so much.

by Liz Eagles 17.05.14 23:10

Brand McCann are wearing running vests promoting their own website.

ETA: this would be the website that still invites folk to hit a donate button, still puts out Tannerman, was initially funded according to the accounts at a cost of 37K GBP by donations from the public. The UK police are now 'investigating' and yet the McCanns still want your donations.

by canada12 17.05.14 23:22

aquila wrote:Brand McCann are wearing running vests promoting their own website.

Just in case Madeleine's out there somewhere and. having learned to read while she's been missing, she can see the link and now knows how to contact her parents to let them know where the hellish lair is so they can come and fetch her.

by Watching 17.05.14 23:26

canada12 wrote:
aquila wrote:Brand McCann are wearing running vests promoting their own website.

Just in case Madeleine's out there somewhere and. having learned to read while she's been missing, she can see the link and now knows how to contact her parents to let them know where the hellish lair is so they can come and fetch her.

They'd run a mile, & ten million more if they got such a call from 'the grave'

by lj 18.05.14 14:10

MF77 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:What evidence is there for the answers given to questions 67 to 71?

Does the person who originally wrote these Q and As have some inside information?

If not, unfortunately, I think that including them just detracts from the power of the other Q and As, and that they would have been better off omitted from the (otherwise excellent) list.

67. Are they investigating ALL aspects of the case? NO
68. Have they been told by the government to focus on abduction only? YES
69. Have they come up with any evidence of an abduction? NO
70. Have they come up with any credible suspects? NO
71. Have they questioned the tapas group or parents over the case? NO

I agree above are just speculation and opinion not fact.

Thanks for clearing that up, I wouldn't want to have quoted any of it erroneously.

Shouldn't they really be removed, if they're not factual? It only damages our case.

I think "investigating as if the abduction took place in England" is not much of a speculation.

Plus according to Andy the parents the parents are not persons of interest, neither are the tapas 7

by TheTruthWillOut 18.05.14 14:17

lj wrote:Plus according to Andy the parents the parents are not persons of interest, neither are the tapas 7

lj, that could just mean they are prime suspects! *runs*

by jeanmonroe 18.05.14 15:53

lj wrote:Plus according to Andy the parents are not persons of interest, neither are the tapas 7

SHOCK HORROR!

DISPITE being the LAST 'people' to have admitted to have SEEN a 'LIVE' Madeleine?

Surely not.

DCI Redwood ain't THAT daft!

(Is he?)

by j.rob 18.05.14 16:01

They really have got a nerve. And it is astonishing that Rachael Oldfield is still prepared to still prepared to back them to the extent of wearing the same colored vest. You have to wonder what planet they are all on.

On the other hand, as others have noted - Never Giving Up is clearly the McTapas slogan when it comes to their 'campaign.' Still running away, but hopefully no longer to the bank. I really hope people are not still donating to the Fraud, sorry I mean the Fund.

I would be wanting to look closely into this Missing People organisation. Given the very high level of controversy surrounding the case and the fact that there is an ongoing criminal investigation, which has not, as far as I am aware, officially ruled out any involvement of the parents or friends, this is a bit off, isn't it?

Although everything since 3rd May 2007, and very probably long before, was a bit off when it comes to missing Madeleine.

Have you noticed how, in the article in the Wandsworth Guardian, the woman in the photo who they claim is Kate McCann does not look like her. And, although wearing a pink bib, it has a different number - 311. The photo looks so unlike Kate, imo, that it is difficult to see how the mistake - if it is one - was made.

Whereas in the Sunday Express article Kate's bib number is 212. And in that photo it does look like Kate.

Can someone else verify that or am I seeing things!

by **PeterMac** 18.05.14 16:04

A bit like little blonde 3 years olds. All look the same !

Latest topics