Re: The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder'

by lj 21.05.14 1:33

HelenMeg wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

But I wonder why murder and not death?. Murder is specific and doesn't account for accidental death .Why are they using that word. Most of our theories have centred on accidental death. I wonder if the Times use of this word is specifically intended to describe her death as murder or was used in a vague manner...
If it was murder then either the MC CANNS murdered her or someone else is supposed to have... I almost wish they'd used the word death.

I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor. I don't think there is anything here to be optimistic about.

by lj 21.05.14 1:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

Yes I did.

But you knew that.

by jeanmonroe 21.05.14 2:15

lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------

as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit. winkwink

by 1soapy 21.05.14 3:00

Re: Biggles and Petunia posts.

In a documentary on UK TV last night about the 50th anniversary of Thalydamide , it revealed how, in the 1970s, Rupert Murdoch secretly sponsored activists in trying to highlight the disregard for the victims of the drug. Not sure how to read this. An act of selfless genuine concern? A way of pre-empting media articles to follow (e.g. money)?

by nglfi 21.05.14 6:39

As much as it's intriguing, it is slightly worrying that the Times would use a word like murder, as regards the fair trial aspect. If enough evidence is ever collected to bring the twosome to trial, the last thing anyone would want is for them to be able to claim the media has prejudiced their chances (or whatever the term is). I hope that they are using the word with a strong foundation in fact (something journos often lack!)

by Bishop Brennan 21.05.14 6:46

lj wrote:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor. I don't think there is anything here to be optimistic about.

I'd vote the same way as you lj. It's reinforcing the fact that all police forces now accept that she is dead, but in the UK at least they are still promoting a sex-offender abduction and murder storyline. This is significantly off-script for Team McCann, but they are a LONG way from suggesting any parental involvement.

Odd that there has been no reaction. I'm guessing they are going with a "ignore it and hope not many saw it" strategy. So I'm expecting no changes to the OFM website and continued loyalty to 'tannerman' as their chief suspect.

by margaret 21.05.14 9:13

nglfi wrote:As much as it's intriguing, it is slightly worrying that the Times would use a word like murder, as regards the fair trial aspect. If enough evidence is ever collected to bring the twosome to trial, the last thing anyone would want is for them to be able to claim the media has prejudiced their chances (or whatever the term is). I hope that they are using the word with a strong foundation in fact (something journos often lack!)

But nobody has had a more prolific campaign that Maddie is alive and findable for 7 years than the Mccanns. Plus this report is behind a paywall which is exactly why it's been done in this paper IMO.

Murdoch wants his pound of flesh. If they did get something from hacking how can this possibly be whitewashed? Another reason it can't be.

Besides, if the Mccanns are bought to justice from hacking Murdoch will see that as a chance to redeem what went on because it would have caught the criminals of the century.

Win win for Murdoch.

by **PeterMac** 21.05.14 9:32

jeanmonroe wrote:lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------
as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit.

They did rather tie themselves in knots with the whole "Predatory Paedo" thing, and then changed it to "coming to no harm"
Meaning that the Pred Paed suddenly reformed when he met the Saintly child, renounced his Sin, and started to treat her like a Princess . . .
But didn't hand her back, or leave her conveniently outside the creche, of course.

That whole episode, which continues to this day, is most odd
UNLESS you note the existence of the Fund, of course.

by Guest 21.05.14 9:41

margaret wrote:
nglfi wrote:As much as it's intriguing, it is slightly worrying that the Times would use a word like murder, as regards the fair trial aspect. If enough evidence is ever collected to bring the twosome to trial, the last thing anyone would want is for them to be able to claim the media has prejudiced their chances (or whatever the term is). I hope that they are using the word with a strong foundation in fact (something journos often lack!)

But nobody has had a more prolific campaign that Maddie is alive and findable for 7 years than the Mccanns. Plus this report is behind a paywall which is exactly why it's been done in this paper IMO.

Murdoch wants his pound of flesh. If they did get something from hacking how can this possibly be whitewashed? Another reason it can't be.

Besides, if the Mccanns are bought to justice from hacking Murdoch will see that as a chance to redeem what went on because it would have caught the criminals of the century.

Win win for Murdoch.

I thought that could have been the reason for putting The Sun behind a paywall.

As the sister paper of News of the World, The Sun may still have exclusive serialisation rights for the diary and will certainly have the NotW files.

Rebekah Brooks must be clever enough to have realised that, with a few drinks inside him and with prodigious ego stroking and flirting, Gerry would be bursting to tell her how clever he has been ...all "off the record" naturally.

by roy rovers 21.05.14 10:11

jeanmonroe wrote:lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------

as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit.

As Mark Twain would put it 'Reports of her murder have been greatly exaggerated'.

by lj 21.05.14 15:18

jeanmonroe wrote:lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------

as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit.

I know. I was trying to stay in the same rather infantile style most abductor believers use. laughat

by lj 21.05.14 15:27

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------
as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit.

They did rather tie themselves in knots with the whole "Predatory Paedo" thing, and then changed it to "coming to no harm"
Meaning that the Pred Paed suddenly reformed when he met the Saintly child, renounced his Sin, and started to treat her like a Princess . . .
But didn't hand her back, or leave her conveniently outside the creche, of course.

That whole episode, which continues to this day, is most odd
UNLESS you note the existence of the Fund, of course.

Of course the major part is the fund. However I have always thought the "come to no harm part" is also to keep the parents out of jail. After all, if she had come to harm, it is the parents negligence that is responsible for that.

And then there are some other theories about what might have happened.

As anyone can read: all just my opinion.

by Issy 21.05.14 23:03

lj wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:lj:
I suspect they mean murder by a bad abductor.
----------------------
as opposed to a 'good' abductor who would only murder (her?) a little bit.

They did rather tie themselves in knots with the whole "Predatory Paedo" thing, and then changed it to "coming to no harm"
Meaning that the Pred Paed suddenly reformed when he met the Saintly child, renounced his Sin, and started to treat her like a Princess . . .
But didn't hand her back, or leave her conveniently outside the creche, of course.

That whole episode, which continues to this day, is most odd
UNLESS you note the existence of the Fund, of course.

Of course the major part is the fund. However I have always thought the "come to no harm part" is also to keep the parents out of jail. After all, if she had come to harm, it is the parents negligence that is responsible for that.

And then there are some other theories about what might have happened.

As anyone can read: all just my opinion.

Yes, weird how it was all about pedophiles at the beginning, then suddenly it was 'no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm'. Of course after posters on forums pointed out that any child snatched by a stranger and taken away from the people she knew and loved would certainly be distressed, the parents started saying there was no evidence she'd come to any physical harm. Strange how people whose every waking minute is supposedly spent in the search for their daughter have time to monitor forums and back pedal when necessary. The line that they're not responsible for Madeleine being harmed is one they've been desperate to promote, but in truth only a fool would clear them of blame. IMO, of course.

by littlepixie 21.05.14 23:12

They pushed the "come to no harm" mantra for one reason IMO The blood and cadaver odour in their own apartment.

by Guest 21.05.14 23:43

or for the reason to keep the fund alive littlepixie ?

Log in for more topics