Comments

View comments: 1331 to 1301 - 1300 to 1271 - 1270 to 1241 - 1240 to 1211 - 1210 to 1181 - 1180 to 1151 - 1150 to 1121 - 1120 to 1091 - 1090 to 1061 - 1060 to 1031 - 1030 to 1001 - 1000 to 971 - 970 to 941 - 940 to 911 - 910 to 881 - 880 to 851 - 850 to 821 - 820 to 791 - 790 to 761 - 760 to 731 - 730 to 701 - 700 to 671 - 670 to 641 - 640 to 611 - 610 to 581 - 580 to 551 - 550 to 521 - 520 to 491 - 490 to 461 - 460 to 431 - 430 to 401 - 400 to 371 - 370 to 341 - 340 to 311 - 310 to 281 - 280 to 251 - 250 to 221 - 220 to 191 - 190 to 161 - 160 to 131 - 130 to 101 - 100 to 71 - 70 to 41 - 40 to 11 - 10 to 1
1. 1331 bean me up scotty says:
   November 26th, 2007 at 3:27 am

   lets ask, if egg man took her why didnt he drive her away? I thought the program would be fair and unbiased but it turned into total support for team Mccann

2. 1330 annie123 says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm

   Didn’t the pj’s say there was a very short window of oppertunity? After GM made his check, he was talking to JW at 9-10pm, JT said she walked passed them and saw the eggman at 9-15pm.
   If the abductor had been in the apartment, he would have waiting perhaps a min for GM to be out of hearing incase one of the kids woke and cried. He would have to open the window/shutter, lift Maddie from the bed and try and climb out the window with her in his arms, not an easy thing to do when you have a weight to carry. He wouldn’t want to risk her waking and alerting anyone nearby so possibly sedated her somehow or knocked her out. It’s what? perhaps 1 min from the window to where JT said she saw him? Only 1 man, not 2. If someone had handed Maddie out the window then maybe there was time for it to all fall into the timeline or maybe not IMO

3. 1329 on2u says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 1:14 pm

   I agree with the poster who said it would be difficult for the Tapas9 to stage an abduction the evening of, due to all the alcohol consumed. The police also noted they were falling all over themselves when they got there. If this was a planned event. They certainly were not in top form to carry it through under those conditions.

4. 1328 Peter O says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 10:54 am

   1321 Maria Says:
   Peter O and Stig

   Edit…

   It’s because the programme raises all these questions (whereas before we only had newspaper reports of what JT had said, not her actual words) that I don’t think anyone could say it was biased. Some people had never questioned this question seriously before because inconsistencies are to be expected and newspaper reports are inaccurate. The programme gave them JT’s own words and proved that this oddity really was just that.

   ++++++++++++++++++++

   Maria, I’m sorry but the Panorama program did nothing to ‘raise questions’. It was more like a party political broadcast for Team McCann. What the program did was sidestep any ‘issues’ and avoided asking ‘difficult questions’ of the McCann’s.

   Any member of the general public who had not previously taken an interest in this case and begun to understand some of the inconsistencies in the McCann’s alleged statements would have been none the wiser from watching the Panorama program.

   One of the most obviously contentious areas of the witness statements is Jane Tanner’s alleged sighting of the Egg Man. It is fairly common knowledge that Jane Tanner’s statement(s) is/are at best suspect/unreliable and at worst an outright lie. It is also fairly common knowledge that Wilkins, who was talking to Gerry, does not recollect seeing Jane Tanner at the time she alleges she saw the Egg Man despite being in the same narrow street as she claims she was in. I notice from posts here yesterday that there is also a suggestion that Gerry didn’t see Tanner?

   Why then did the Panorama reporter not press Tanner on these questions? He didn’t I suspect because the McCann’s/their team retained editorial control of the program. Team McCann decided what could be shown and what questions could be asked, certainly of Tanner and Jon Corner.

   People will have been ‘misled’ by the interspacing of Jon Corner’s “home video”. This was not a “home video”, it was a broadcast quality heavily scripted program in it’s own right. Worse, because it was interspaced with BBC/Panorama footage it became impossible to tell which was Jon Corner’s “home video” and BBC footage.

   In fact, Kate and Gerry were NOT interviewed for this Panorama program, all the footage of them speaking comes from Jon Corner.

   For obvious reasons the PJ could not contribute to the Panorama program so they had no “right of reply” to the reporters claim that the evidence against the McCann’s was ‘tenuous’. The Panorama program has no more knowledge of precisely what evidence the PJ may have against the McCann’s than you or I do. They’ll have access to the same media leaks/speculations as we do.

   Team McCann’s objectives for that program did not include trying to persuade Anorak posters, it was aimed solely and squarely at Joe Public. Even in this respect, I think it missed it’s mark since the McCann’s once again failed miserably to convince that they were either suffering for their loss nor willing to accept any responsibility for their part in Madeleine’s alleged abduction.

5. 1327 matty says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 10:33 am

   

   :{
   :~

   

6. 1326 matty says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 10:31 am

   :0

   

   ;(

   :^

7. 1325 matty says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 10:30 am

   

8. 1324 Gill says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 9:30 am

   Morning all.

   I posted this yesterday morning - but its still relevant to your ongoing thread.

   I had a thought last night, whilst lying in the bath with a glass of wine - beats the husband - lasts longer (sorry Mods and Admin).

   Exactly how did whichever of them hurt Madeleine tell the other?

   I mean I can’t imagine my old man coming home after a tennis lesson or whatever and me casually saying “Good lesson dear? By the way I’ve just killed our daughter” or vice versa.

   No. Sorry. They both have to be involved somehow. So maybe it did happen earlier and Sean and Amelie were at the kinds club. Or - like I said on here eons ago - they were having an afternoon nap in the apartment and told Madeliene was asleep.

   Then when they were asleep - sedated or otherwise - the removal plan was put into action.

   The child that JT so say saw was her own. Being carried by her husband to give the abduction theory weight. They hoped someone else would notice. Her child was supposedly sick wasn’t she. But the resort say no one wanted sheets. Of course they didn’t - she wasn’t sick - she was a stand in.

   Madeleine was already gone. Then moved. to Heulva or wherever.

   JT said she was in her apartment . I thought she said before she was at the bar when Kate came in screaming they’ve taken her.

   At that point someone else in the Tapas bar - unconnected with the Tapas 9 was supposed to say “I saw a man carrying a child - he went thataway” or something like that.

   But it didn’t happen.

   Oh shit.

   What do we do now.

   The rest is improvisation.

   Well?

   ——————————–

9. 1323 Peter O says:
   November 22nd, 2007 at 9:26 am

   1320 Hideki Says:
   1318 Peter O Says:

   You were a liar yesterday. You’re a liar today. You’ll probably be liar tomorrow

10. 1322 Maria says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:54 am

    Pater O

    Sorry! Meant to say
    “Some people had never questioned this “oddity” before because inconsistencies…………..”

    Still tired!

11. 1321 Maria says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:52 am

    Peter O and Stig

    Thank you for your answers.

    I also wonder if Jane Tanner would have been willing to appear on Panorama if she was concerned that this oddity (GM and JM not having seen her or the man) was obviously going to come out. Maybe there is some simple explanation. She would hardly have said or done anything which could make things worse for her friends.

    Of course, with a programme like that, there must have ben a whole lot of stuff which was covered in the making of it but which didn’t appear in the final edited version.

    Again, have we actually seen GM say himself that he didn’t notice JT passing? I know he didn’t see the man carrying the child but that is more understandable, depending on exactly where he and JW were standing while chatting.

    I wonder which way JW was walking? Had he come from the street at the top (at right angles to the street where the two men were talking)or was he making his way towards it? I think I need to watch the programme again.

    Since JW did not see the man, why would JT even say she’d seen him unless it was true? Where was Russell O’B at this time? I rather think he was in the restaurant, from what JT said on Panorama? She decided to do her check just before the starters arrived. Presumably O’B was in the tapas bar? So she can’t have been saying this thing about the man simply in order to throw suspicion off O’B in case anyone else noticed him carrying Madeleine away. O’B wasn’t there at the time and GM was talking to JW. So neither GM nor O’B would be seen by anyone else carrying Madeleine away! JT had no need to make up that story to cover for either of them, from what I can see.

    Without being there, knowing what the light was like etc. it’s difficult to know how easy it might have been for the two men not to have noticed the man carrying the child. It would even have been possible for GM to say he HAD noticed a figure passing at the top of the street but didn’t focus in on him/her because he was chatting to JW. If GM is lying and/or guilty of something sinister, why didn’t he support JT’s story by saying just that?

    Have to go now but will look in much later this evening. Will watch Panorama again tomorrow.

    It’s because the programme raises all these questions (whereas before we only had newspaper reports of what JT had said, not her actual words) that I don’t think anyone could say it was biased. Some people had never questioned this question seriously before because inconsistencies are to be expected and newspaper reports are inaccurate. The programme gave them JT’s own words and proved that this oddity really was just that.

    Thanks again.

12. 1320 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:44 am

    1318
    Peter O Says:
    “Can’t remember the codes. Essentially, shorthand for the Anti-McCann ‘in-group’ to label other posters who have the temerity to disagree with them in any way.”

    Well, your posts show no evidence of temerity whatsoever, so I guess that rules you out as MTzero then. That leaves, what? Pro-McCann.

13. 1319 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:38 am

    1317
    Peter O Says:
    “You were a liar yesterday. You’re a liar today. You’ll probably be liar tomorrow. At least your consistent.”

    Whatever you say, Gerry!

14. 1318 Peter O says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 am

    1316 Hideki Says:
    439 AgendaWide Says:

    “419 Hideki
    Had a brief word with Ade some time ago about this and he said MTzero not pro McCann”

    I do not know what MTzero denotes. Can someone explain?

    +++++++++++++++++++

    Can’t remember the codes. Essentially, shorthand for the Anti-McCann ‘in-group’ to label other posters who have the temerity to disagree with them in any way.

15. 1317 Peter O says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:33 am

    311 Hideki Says:
    859 Peter O Says:

    You were a liar yesterday. You’re a liar today. You’ll probably be liar tomorrow. At least your consistent.

16. 1316 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:29 am

    439
    AgendaWide Says:

    “419 Hideki
    Had a brief word with Ade some time ago about this and he said MTzero not pro McCann”

    I do not know what MTzero denotes. Can someone explain?

17. 1315 Peter O says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:26 am

    1268 The Real Stig Says:
    1227 Maria

    Something else to ponder is the Alcohol.

    The Police who initially turned up, allegedly(for Peter O’s sake) described the people at the scene as being obviously intoxicated to some degree. There is also the matter of the bar bill.

    If there had been an accident of some kind that evening, I fail to see how there would have been enough time for a couple of tipsy people to do a clean up so thorough that next to no meaningful forensic trace was left. Edit…

    Skilled and experienced criminals could not have done a better job cold sober than the McCanns are alleged by some to have achieved while a bit pissed.

    ++++++++++++++

    I tend to agree with your assessment. A bit like abduction though, which whilst it appears unlikely I don’t think you can say it’s impossible.

    The tight timelines is one of the reasons why we need to keep a thoroughly open mind about what the real timelines may be in this case. The McCann’s are desperate that we should believe Madeleine was alive and well in that apartment when they left it at 8.30PM on May 3rd.

    As has been reported on numerous occasions, the PJ are allegedly concerned about a period of time that has been dubbed “the missing six hours”. If this is taken in it’s most literal sense then this means six hours prior to 8.30PM. That implies they are interested in the time from about 2.30 PM, immediately after the alleged ‘last photo’.

18. 1314 Peter O says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am

    1254 fairandbalanced Says:
    1237 Peter O Says:
    1234 fairandbalanced Says:
    1231. Isn’t that what your blackies and chinamen are for? Or have pushchairs taken these job opportunities away from them?!

    +++++++++++++

    Pardon? That’s a disgraceful thing to say.
    ========================================

    Peter O,

    You missed earlier messages then?

    Stevo and Julie claim the term ‘chinamen’ is acceptable and okay because Wikipedia says so.

    My comment was poking fun at their incredible ignorance.

    I apologise.

    But interesting only one poster challenged Julie and Stevo after they continued to harass and attack. Everyone else thought it was either acceptable too (both the word and their harrrasing) or it depends on who is making the comment and who is doing the harassing.

    ++++++++++++++

    Ah sorry, hadn’t realised you were being humorous.. Apology not necessary, but thank you anyway.

19. 1313 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 am

    167
    noseycow Says:
    “164 Hideki - Anaphylaxis is treated with adrenaline, antihistamines are only effective in less severe reactions.”

    Antihistamines are used as soon as a reaction manifests. They are also used PRIOR to administering drugs when the patient has a history of allergic response. You are correct that in severe cases , antihistamines are not adequate.

    If Madeleine’s reaction progressed to life-threatening, an emergency tracheotomy was also performed. This would result in blood of course, such as that found in the apartment.

    There is the further chance that an allergic reaction was FOLLOWED by fatal fall, and either one could be the cause of death.

20. 1312 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 6:59 am

    621
    thea Says:
    ” I have Hideki’s male (alleged) counterpart trying to sabotage any comments I have made.”

    Who might that be? I have not been following your posts at all. BTW, according to PeterO , your OPINION that I have a “counterpart” is a lie, and you are a liar. Don’t worry, though, that’s not what I think!

21. 1311 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 6:39 am

    859
    Peter O Says:

    “Hideki you’re a liar and you have no idea who any of the people are in here.”

    Don’t you even read the posts which you quote? I never said I know who anyone is — read your own quote of my post and see what I said:

    “I have been generally skipping pro-McConn posts, unless someone else who interested me was engaging them. So I do not have a good stylistic sense of which ones are duplicates. But off-hand I would say that PeterO, Ferdinand, and Stig are very similar.”

    That is my OPINION, Peter O. It is not a matter that is either true or false. Others may feel that the 3 of you do NOT post in a similar way.

    Also, it is my OPINION that your posting is deliberately obfuscated pro-McScum rubbish. How is that a “lie”? And why did my opinion upset you so much? Why do you care what I think of you?

    I have NEVER speculated who you are, but since you seem to be egging me on to do so, I will try. I think the 3 of you probably hail from the McCann family, or are Team McCann players. That, Peter O, is SPECULATION based on reading the posts. It is NOT a statement purporting to express a fact, and as such, it cannot possibly be a “lie”. I just cannot imagine why else anyone would post things that fit in so nicely with the Team McCann PR barrage of bollocks.

    You, contrarily, have lied several times about the content of what I’ve posted. You also plagiarized some paragraphs I wrote, used them in your own post, falsely calling it a “paraphrase”. THAT was also a lie.

    Do you now understand the difference between openly speculating about something based on the available information, and lying about information that has been presented to everyone publicly?

    How fascinating that you seem to have such a dim concept of what constitutes lying, fabrication and distortion. These, I would say, are McCann attributes.

    Now, if you choose to , in your Peter O role, be a plagiarist and a liar, that is your choice, and I have no particular problems with it.

    Rather, in my mind, it simply fuels my SPECULATION that you are a principle Team McCann player.

    I don’t doubt that Gerry himself is posting on this forum, because he has nothing else to do. He’s only working a half-day a week, and he is certainly not busy looking for Madeleine’s body. So other than update his boring blog between tennis matches and jogging, or sedating the twins, what else would he be doing, if not going around on the Internet trying to convince people that he might possibly be innocent?

    I certainly hope that both Kate and Gerry are reading the Internet forums, and learning what people think about them. If anything, it should keep them busy trying to come up with more clever things to say in their next interview.

22. 1310 Julie says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 6:19 am

    1306
    hannasus Says:

    November 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 am
    899 - Julie,
    Thank you for standing up to Thea.
    I practically stopped posting after an attack by her.
    Totally unprovoked, it left a bad taste and I just started watching and not participating.
    Wish I had had the courage to challenge her unfounded aggression.
    ****************
    Not something I’m proud of, but like a couple of other posters I just feel enough is enough. Thea was always such a rational poster and a pleasure to converse with, but something changed very quickly. I’ve just had enough of being abused when I try and be civil to others here, and I’m sure a lot of posters feel exactly the same way.

23. 1309 Julie says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 6:16 am

    Hi there and good morning to All

    Very interesting article I’ve just picked up on when I googled for news on baby grace this morning :

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5321635.html

    Notice the very clear reference to “leaving no stone unturned” - sound familiar?

24. 1308 Hideki says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 am

    656
    http://bullmonkey.co.uk/tony/
    I’ve listened to Tony’s interview at this link. He did a fine job, and I agree with everything he said.

    The interviewer was correct to emphasize that guilt associated with crimes other than the neglect is a separate issue. However, the connection may be that the McCanns absolute focus on cover-up (apparently of something other than neglect) while at the same time taking no responsibility for the admitted neglect itself would seem to provide a powerful reason why they should be prosecuted.

    Their attitude, behavior and statements all show that they have absolutely no remorse for the neglect that led to the child’s disappearance. Instead, they are focused on evading responsibility, or “getting away with it” — whether the “it” is child neglect and/or other crimes.

25. 1307 Criminal Profiler Pat Brown says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 5:50 am

    The Last Photo of Madeleine McCann: Fact or Fake? - http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/

26. 1306 hannasus says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 am

    899 - Julie,
    Thank you for standing up to Thea.
    I practically stopped posting after an attack by her.
    Totally unprovoked, it left a bad taste and I just started watching and not participating.
    Wish I had had the courage to challenge her unfounded aggression.

    Judith C - I tend to agree with you about more and more laws.
    When I read about the crime in the UK committed by teens, I have the scary realisation that these teens are going to become parents one day. They are breaking the basic laws now of course they will break the parenting laws as well.
    If one looks at an older culture still in touch with their society, you don’t make laws about looking after kids, it is inherent in your nature.
    One has to have an inner morality and that comes about through healthy education and upbringing
    I read today that Pear trees could be chopped down because the hard unripe pears could fall on someones head and render them dead.
    1059 - Internet Geek - Thanks for that. I always suspected Kris was Thea. Please stick around, we could always use your skills.
    Stevo - don’t respond. I know it is difficult but just ignore them posters. Your heart is good and you and Tony Bennett are the only ones actually doing something about justice instead of just talking about it.
    How did Stevo oust Dave S? I missed that.

27. 1305 Sad Git says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 3:43 am

    Last!

28. 1304 Canada says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 3:14 am

    test

29. 1303 Canada says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 am

    I see the crazies are here

30. 1302 Wanderer says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 2:07 am

    No doubt some wish that definition applied. But in reality, it is late in the UK and in America some people are having an early night, gone away, or preparing for Thanksgiving tomorrow. (I point out those groups as they seem to be the two groups with higher populations here)

    The rest of the world thinks we smell, I’m sure. (plus the time difference still applies)

    Or…perhaps they really have abducted one another?

31. 1301 Sad Git says:
    November 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 am

    I can’t imagine how people could be busy at this time of night, young and innocent as I am.

View comments: 1331 to 1301 - 1300 to 1271 - 1270 to 1241 - 1240 to 1211 - 1210 to 1181 - 1180 to 1151 - 1150 to 1121 - 1120 to 1091 - 1090 to 1061 - 1060 to 1031 - 1030 to 1001 - 1000 to 971 - 970 to 941 - 940 to 911 - 910 to 881 - 880 to 851 - 850 to 821 - 820 to 791 - 790 to 761 - 760 to 731 - 730 to 701 - 700 to 671 - 670 to 641 - 640 to 611 - 610 to 581 - 580 to 551 - 550 to 521 - 520 to 491 - 490 to 461 - 460 to 431 - 430 to 401 - 400 to 371 - 370 to 341 - 340 to 311 - 310 to 281 - 280 to 251 - 250 to 221 - 220 to 191 - 190 to 161 - 160 to 131 - 130 to 101 - 100 to 71 - 70 to 41 - 40 to 11 - 10 to 1