Re: Madeleine McCann search digs up the haters and misguided conspiracy theorists

by Guest 10.06.14 11:30

That Twitter link works for me.

by MrsC 10.06.14 11:31

admin wrote:
plebgate wrote:
MrsC wrote:Looking forward to reading his blog!

Wasn't there a poster back in the days of the 3As or even the Mirror forum who used to state 'FACT' after everything they had written. It's ringing a bell somewhere.
I thought of that poster when I read the link. He used to call him Mr. Jerry, FACT and used to aways post as WE think. Sumat like that.

Can't recall name but was very interesting I thought.

Wasn't it Lucian Deville or something like that?

Ah, yes I think it was ~ I asked a question the other day about a poster who used to call the McCann people Mr Jerry & it's wife (childish maybe but it always made me smile) - so he is one and the same person this blogger/twitterer, it would seem. dance

Looking forward to reading this blog so much now!

by Guest 10.06.14 11:33

So are you saying Harry Blackwood is Lucian Deville just because he said FACT?

by **PeterMac** 10.06.14 11:34

Sticking the word FACT after anything is equivalent to Jane Tanner's "I am telling the truth, you know", or Kate's / Janet's "To be honest . . ., or, If I'm honest "
It is a red flag, that either there is nothing on which to base the statement, in the first instance, or that what follows is a lie, in the second and third instances.

by MrsC 10.06.14 11:36

admin wrote:So are you saying Harry Blackwood is Lucian Deville just because he said FACT?

I was just jumping to conclusions, and perhaps hoping they are one and the same - Lucien Deville was very amusing. whistling

by jeanmonroe 10.06.14 11:49

PeterMac wrote:Sticking the word FACT after anything is equivalent to Jane Tanner's "I am telling the truth, you know", or Kate's / Janet's "To be honest . . ., or, If I'm honest "
It is a red flag, that either there is nothing on which to base the statement, in the first instance, or that what follows is a lie, in the second and third instances.

HERE's 'some' FACTS!

ONLY the parents, (and their 'friends') of a 'missing' child have said 'She (Madeleine) WAS abducted'...FACT.

Their 'highly paid representative' in a high court, also 'said' that, but had to sheepishly withdraw her 'assertion' when she admitted that her 'claim' ("Madeleine was abducted") was based SOLELY upon 'what her clients (McCanns) had TOLD her'...FACT.

Carter Ruck, the McCanns hugely expensive, 'lawyers' have not said or repeated, since that 'embarrassment', that 'Madeleine McCann WAS abducted'.....FACT.

The McCanns, at Leveson, under oath, did NOT say their daughter Madeleine 'WAS abducted' or that 'Madeleine WAS connected to an abduction'......FACT

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 13:04

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

Ha Ha Ha......that was hilarious.

It made me spat out my doughnut.

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 13:10

rainbow-fairy wrote:
gbwales wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Have no fear, aiyoyo - they are still there on twitter (maybe not as many, maybe 4xa few socks!) - though I don't see most as I've blocked all I can. Engaging with them is like an infinite circle of frustration and stress

That Harry Blackwood - @blamedandshamed - is going to be fun though isn't he... Totally kick-ass

“@blamedandshamed: You burgle an apartment. You're disturbed by a child. You run. FACT. You don't take the child. FACT. There were no intruders. FACT. #mccann”

“@blamedandshamed: To #mccann sycophants who can't see truth, call me what you want, abuse away. Your opinions are irrelevant. Not a single f*** will be given”

“@blamedandshamed: Note to all the stupid #mccann lovers who are spouting abuse. I won't debate. I'll abuse you then block you. I don't have time for idiots”

“@blamedandshamed: Thanks to the #mccann supporters who have motivated me to make my forthcoming blog even more incisive. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY ABDUCTION. FACT.”

“@blamedandshamed: #mccann justice seekers. I'm gobsmacked by your warm welcomes and kind words. I'm massively motivated. The truth is coming. I'm 100% certain”

He's promising a blog on Friday I think...
Oh yes! I've seen on my timeline this morning that he's going down a storm
Blog should be interesting!
Do you have a page link please?

Ye, Gawd, he's so OTT, nonetheless a nemesis to evil Muratfan, witch BB1, mad Pam and psycho Janet.

by kimHager 10.06.14 13:20

I wonder why she said one warm may evening... the blanket might have been found?? Just curious to this

by espeland 10.06.14 13:22

Re @blamedandshame's references to MI5 having knowledge of 'who did it', the following site

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

includes

"
The work of the Security Service is subject to constant oversight. The aim of this is to ensure that we work within the law and make the best use of resources. It also ensures that our activities are proportionate and necessary, and that we have the correct operational priorities.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The work of the Service is overseen in three different ways:

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

The oversight mechanisms stem from the following four key pieces of legislation (see [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]):

The [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] as amended in 1996. This places the Service under the power of the Home Secretary and sets out the functions of the Service and Director General. "

So surely MI5 are bound to tell the Home Secretary if they have any knowledge re the McCann case and, if they have, why is she allowing SY to continue spending on what may be a fruitless search?

by ultimaThule 10.06.14 13:34

espeland wrote:
< snip >
So surely MI5 are bound to tell the Home Secretary if they have any knowledge re the McCann case and, if they have, why is she allowing SY to continue spending on what may be a fruitless search?

Because 'having knowledge' is one thing and having sufficient indisputable evidence to bring a case in law and convince a jury of guilt is quite another.

As I see it, slowly but surely, Operation Grange are demolishing the planks of any possible defence to what will be extremely serious charges laid against those responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

by espeland 10.06.14 15:14

Because 'having knowledge' is one thing and having sufficient indisputable evidence to bring a case in law and convince a jury of guilt is quite another.

As I see it, slowly but surely, Operation Grange are demolishing the planks of any possible defence to what will be extremely serious charges laid against those responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

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

Posts: 2498
Join date: 2013-09-18

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

Thanks for that, it's clear now. 'Extremely serious charges' certainly makes the mouth water!

by Praiaaa 10.06.14 17:32

candyfloss wrote:

Hehe, he used to say 'Mr Jerry and it's wife'

Yes! I remember that! O h those days so long on the Mirror forum... big grin

by missmar1 11.06.14 15:46

Just re thinking about all the info K Burley has let out of the bag in her article - here's another one I think has been missed ( by me anyway) - by printing in the paper article, KB has reached a lot more people with her statement that she is "staggered " about the NUMBERS on SOCIAL NETWORK SITES !......so in effect, she is also letting the general public KNOW there is a lot more information on this case ( that may not be in the paper versions) that can be found being discussed on the internet

by **PeterMac** 11.06.14 22:25

jeanmonroe wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Sticking the word FACT after anything is equivalent to Jane Tanner's "I am telling the truth, you know", or Kate's / Janet's "To be honest . . ., or, If I'm honest "
It is a red flag, that either there is nothing on which to base the statement, in the first instance, or that what follows is a lie, in the second and third instances.

HERE's 'some' FACTS!
ONLY the parents, (and their 'friends') of a 'missing' child have said 'She (Madeleine) WAS abducted'...FACT.
Their 'highly paid representative' in a high court, also 'said' that, but had to sheepishly withdraw her 'assertion' when she admitted that her 'claim' ("Madeleine was abducted") was based SOLELY upon 'what her clients (McCanns) had TOLD her'...FACT.
Carter Ruck, the McCanns hugely expensive, 'lawyers' have not said or repeated, since that 'embarrassment', that 'Madeleine McCann WAS abducted'.....FACT.
The McCanns, at Leveson, under oath, did NOT say their daughter Madeleine 'WAS abducted' or that 'Madeleine WAS connected to an abduction'......FACT

Correct. But for real emphasis take out the offending word.
Simply state what is known.

Only the parents, (and their 'friends') of a 'missing' child have said 'She (Madeleine) WAS abducted'.
Their 'highly paid representative' in a high court, also 'said' that, but had to sheepishly withdraw her 'assertion' when she admitted that her 'claim' ( that "Madeleine was abducted") was based SOLELY upon 'what her clients (McCanns) had TOLD her'.
Carter Ruck, the McCanns hugely expensive lawyers have not said or repeated, since that 'embarrassment', that 'Madeleine McCann WAS abducted'..
The McCanns, at Leveson, under oath, did NOT say their daughter Madeleine 'WAS abducted' or that 'Madeleine WAS connected to an abduction'[/quote]

So much more powerful don't you think ?

Facts speak for themselves. They need no emphasis. They need no protection. They stand against any implication or assault, whether by paid liars or paid lawyers,
And that is the problem the McCanns face.
They lied. They are on record as having made multiple statemnts to the police and others in which they change their story, not just a little bit, but diametrically. 180º
One door OR the other door.
Curtains Wide open, OR tight closed and whooshing
and so on for page after page . . .

by kimHager 11.06.14 22:59

Exactly PeterMac my own dad (RIP) used to emphasize how some people seem to be pathological liars and that's not how people should be..his fav saying was the truth will stand when the worlds on fire...lies only get covered for so long but truth is always there to see if one looks.
My opinion is as follows:
The Mccanns are still covering truth with lies but we see through it so why can't SY see this or is it they choose to accept the outlandish stories or is it they believe two people who can't keep their stories straight over the PJ who,like them, are supposed to protect, serve,and uphold the law and the truth.I am interested in finding out who will see the truth and expose it regardless of the implications or who is exposed for the lies they've told to restrict justice being served for Madeleine.

by plebgate 11.06.14 23:04

Snipped from PeterM's last post =

"
Facts speak for themselves. They need no emphasis. They need no protection. They stand against any implication or assault, whether by paid liars or paid lawyers,
And that is the problem the McCanns face.
They lied. They are on record as having made multiple statemnts to the police and others in which they change their story, not just a little bit, but diametrically. 180º
One door OR the other door.
Curtains Wide open, OR tight closed and whooshing
and so on for page after page . . . "

As PeterM has posted several times, this (and more) has been pointed out to SY by several researchers, so how can they ignore any of it? Surely at some stage they will have to be re-interviewed by them?

by nobodythereeither 11.06.14 23:11

plebgate wrote:Snipped from PeterM's last post =

"
Facts speak for themselves. They need no emphasis. They need no protection. They stand against any implication or assault, whether by paid liars or paid lawyers,
And that is the problem the McCanns face.
They lied. They are on record as having made multiple statemnts to the police and others in which they change their story, not just a little bit, but diametrically. 180º
One door OR the other door.
Curtains Wide open, OR tight closed and whooshing
and so on for page after page . . . "

As PeterM has posted several times, this (and more) has been pointed out to SY by several researchers, so how can they ignore any of it? Surely at some stage they will have to be re-interviewed by them?

Why oh why do so many posters on this forum seem to know exactly what SY is or is not "ignoring"?

And seem to know who has or has not been "re-interviewed"?

They have already said that they are not going to give a running commentary on the case. Do you really expect them to?

How can you possibly know what SY has or hasn't done? Do you have some inside information, if so, please share it with the rest of us big grin

by plebgate 11.06.14 23:16

do you have some inside info. That response is all you seem to post, it is utter nonsense afaiac. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I have posted before, Mr. Redwood said they are working backwards, therefore they will not interview the Tapas crew until the very end (as they were there at the beginning) big grin

by nobodythereeither 11.06.14 23:28

plebgate wrote:do you have some inside info. That response is all you seem to post, it is utter nonsense afaiac. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I have posted before, Mr. Redwood said they are working backwards, therefore they will not interview the Tapas crew until the very end (as they were there at the beginning)

I can't bear to read any more stuff on here tonight from people who just can't seem to understand that assumptions about what SY are doing stated as fact are just clogging up this forum with rubbish, and spreading misinformation.

I'm off.

by Mirage 11.06.14 23:53

nobodythereeither wrote:
plebgate wrote:do you have some inside info. That response is all you seem to post, it is utter nonsense afaiac. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

As I have posted before, Mr. Redwood said they are working backwards, therefore they will not interview the Tapas crew until the very end (as they were there at the beginning)

I can't bear to read any more stuff on here tonight from people who just can't seem to understand that assumptions about what SY are doing stated as fact are just clogging up this forum with rubbish, and spreading misinformation.

I'm off.

Don't forget your bat.

Time I was over at that other great repository of wisdom [the Latest Interview thread] to pick up a few tips on how to bludgeon people senseless through the power of 134 word sentences.