Comments

View comments: 1086 to 1056 - 1055 to 1026 - 1025 to 996 - 995 to 966 - 965 to 936 - 935 to 906 - 905 to 876 - 875 to 846 - 845 to 816 - 815 to 786 - 785 to 756 - 755 to 726 - 725 to 696 - 695 to 666 - 665 to 636 - 635 to 606 - 605 to 576 - 575 to 546 - 545 to 516 - 515 to 486 - 485 to 456 - 455 to 426 - 425 to 396 - 395 to 366 - 365 to 336 - 335 to 306 - 305 to 276 - 275 to 246 - 245 to 216 - 215 to 186 - 185 to 156 - 155 to 126 - 125 to 96 - 95 to 66 - 65 to 36 - 35 to 6 - 5 to 1
1. 1086 augusto santos says:
   September 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm

   The thesis of death was not proved . The witness of the abduction was not aceepted!!!
   An equation with two unknowns and extremely poor “mathematicians” .
   The thesis of the police : accidental death and subsequent freezing of the body is for the
   country of crazies .
   What they did to K&G McCann’s is worse than what they say have done .

2. 1085 Bob says:
   October 24th, 2007 at 6:57 am

   Momo

   don’t worry about it.

3. 1084 momo says:
   October 23rd, 2007 at 12:37 am

   http://www.newsdeskspecial.co.uk/2007/10/murat-hid-madel.html#more
   sorry, I forgot the link

4. 1083 momo says:
   October 23rd, 2007 at 12:35 am

   Can they say why gerry wanted to dispose of Madeleins body?
   It was an accident then, wasn’t it? And what has Murat got to do with it then?
   Just because he had met Gerry a few times?
   I think even the insanity story about Kate made more sense.

5. 1082 Ian says:
   October 21st, 2007 at 5:15 pm

   The British press print anything they can to seek to prove the Mccanns innocent, like testing hairs from the twins to ‘prove’ no sedation used. But of they didnt sedate the kids, how could they have left them and how can Maddie have selpt so rigidly?

   http://newsdeskspecial.co.uk/madeleinemccann/

6. 1081 Maria says:
   October 21st, 2007 at 10:08 am

   test

7. 1080 Rosemary says:
   October 21st, 2007 at 9:01 am

   new thread

   http://www.anorak.co.uk/madeleine-mccann/177059.html#comments

8. 1079 Andrew says:
   October 21st, 2007 at 8:00 am

   Sarah, it already is tomorrow! 8AM… no sleep! Read your last comment though.. compelled. Catch you soon!
   Over and out

9. 1078 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
   October 21st, 2007 at 7:56 am

   Goodnight, Andrew, goodnight Anorakers!

   As we say in the South, tomorrow is another day!

10. 1077 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 7:52 am

    Hello, Andrew,

    I agree that there are deeper issues motivating the McCanns about which we are puzzling through. This is why we look at their photographs, configure their every comment like tea leaves…. Part of it is our interest in protecting a child, and everything about the continuation of our species and our purpose on this planet that this emotion represents.

    But another part of it is much more anthropological…and ancient.

    I think that although people aren’t conciously stating it, most are wondering whether the McCanns are killers. Perhaps not murderers, but accidental killers. And even accidental killers are put into a special category–they have taken human life, it makes them rather more overtly dangerous than someone who’s still intimidated from doing that. Even killers who have good reasons to kill (not perfect, or legal reasons, but reasons that make strong good sense to THEM), are quite set apart, once they have killed.

    We wonder about their fitness to live among us. We wonder about the safety of their surviving children who live with them, we wonder about the safety of our own children, of ourselves….

    The McCanns, through their paid, professional representative, claim that various remarks hurt them, and they threaten lawsuits. But what the McCanns have done, just by LOSING Madeleine, let alone something far worse, is to force us to either defend them, rather irrationally, or else suspect them of homicide. And even the mere suspicion is troubling for us. We don’t leap at it, but after a while, because the suspects are not in jail, that they still live among us, we feel justified to demand an explanation, better than the ones they have already given. We want them to answer the questions posed by the Portuguese police, and it really has little to do with their daughter.

    We want proog that they are fit to live among us, that they are not killers.

    It’s hard to prove you didn’t do something.

    At the same time, it would be easier to trust in the McCanns’ innocense if they answered the Portuguese Police’s questions.

    So we’re not McCann haters. But where’s the incentive to trust them? It goes against every instinct we have. And yes, that England’s prime minister elected to involve himself is very curious indeed.

11. 1076 Andrew says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 7:47 am

    Right folks I must sleep… Perhaps you will pop in again Sarah? It’s a pleasure to have heard your opinions. Goodnight everyone, love and peace! x

12. 1075 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 7:39 am

    Hello, Mr. DBond (Gosh, I like your name!),

    What, only 25 witnesses?

    You are quite right to bring up the issue of witness recognition error. It is rather vast. In fact, psychiatrists postulate that it’s so enormous, it’s hard to imagine how courts still use it at all!

    Here is some info on scholarship in that area. It’s quite fascinating.

    I just pulled these references off the web, but there was a very good book written by a Dutch psychiatrist a while back on the Demjanjuk case, that vividly discussed the problems inherent in eyewitness identification. I wish I could remember more details, but I am all McCanned out!

    Guenter Kohnken, University of Kiel, Germany

    Alternative Identification Techniques

    Rod C. L. Lindsay, Queen’s University, Canada

    Eyewitness identifications have traditionally been obtained using lineups or photo arrays in which a suspect was embedded within a group of 3 to 11 others similar in general appearance to the suspect. Research in the 1970s and 80s demonstrated that the lineup was capable of producing unacceptably high rates of false positive choices, particularly when biased lineup procedures were employed. Lindsay and Wells (1985) developed an alternative procedure, the sequential lineup, that dramatically reduced the false positive identification rate. More recently, Levi et al (1995) suggested that even sequential lineups produce unacceptably high rates of false identification; they proposed radical alternatives but provided no evidence of the effectiveness of these alternatives. The study reported in this paper is based on Levi et al’s recommendations. An extremely large (50 person) sequential lineup was tested under instruction conditions that were similar to standard lineup instructions (suggesting that only one person could be selected from the lineup) or using less stringent instructions implying that the witness should choose any lineup member that could not be eliminated as definitely not being the criminal. The data are evaluated in terms of the probability that the target will be identified (selected) and the probability that other lineup members will be identified. Of particular interest is the degree to which the number of nontargets selected is a postdictor of accurate suspect selection. Thus, it may be the case that the fewer faces selected, the more likely it is that the target is among them.

    The Effects of Varied Viewing Conditions, Types of Questions, and Response Threshold on the Confidence and Accuracy of Eyewitnesses

    Mark Phillips, Ronald P. Fisher, Bennett L. Schwartz, Florida International University, Miami, U.S.A.

    Approximately 120 undergraduate volunteers were shown a videotaped simulation of a crime and were later asked to recall the details of the crime. The participants were interviewed using both open-ended as well as closed-ended questions. We also manipulated the conditions under which the crime was viewed using variations in lighting and screen clarity. During the interviews, each witness was asked to use either a very high threshold of responding (i.e. reporting details of the crime only when the witness had complete confidence in their accuracy) or a low response threshold (i.e. reporting every detail remembered, even if unsure of its accuracy). This variable was manipulated using varied witness instructions as well as a payoff matrix. Dependent measures included witness accuracy as defined, in part, by the number of correct responses given divided by the total number of items recalled for each witness. This measure was also correlated with witness confidence. It was hypothesized that witness accuracy and confidence would be highly correlated, and that this correlation would be moderated by viewing conditions, type of questions asked (i.e. open- versus closed-ended), and response threshold.

    Assessing the credibility of witness statements

    Guenter Koehnken, and Eberhard Hoefer, Universitaet Kiel, Germany

    Criteria based content analysis (CBCA) is a tool for evaluating the credibility of witness statements (Steller & Koehnken, 1989). Rather than looking for nonverbal indicators of deception, CBCA analyses the content of a statement regarding the occurrence of certain qualities (the so-called “reality criteria”). The more of these criteria are found in a statement and the more pronounced they are the more likely it is that the statement is an authentic account of own experiences. A number of empirical studies have shown that CBCA has the potential to reliably discriminate truthful and fabricated statements. However, the reliability of CBCA depends to a large degree on the accuracy of the rating of the reality criteria. In order to ensure accurate ratings a three weeks training program for raters was devised including written material and rehearsal ratings with supervision and feedback. Seven studies were conducted to assess the inter-rater and the intra-rater agreement after a time interval of eight weeks. Results show mean agreement scores which are in the range of psychometric personality questionnaires. Furthermore, the intercorrelations of the criteria are low indicating that trained raters were able to assess the criteria independently of each other.

    Emotion and the generation of misinformation effect

    Yukio Itsukushima, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan

    Emotion sometimes plays a crucial role in victims or bystanders when they encode information in real crime situations. In recent years, psychological knowledge of how emotion works in witness memory formation is growing (Christianson, 1992). However, the all-important question whether emotion facilitates or inhibits the process of memorization still remains unsolved. Some researchers have shown that strong emotion, as compared to a neutral mood state, leads to inferior memory performance (Loftus & Burns, 1982), but other researchers have suggested that strong emotional state sometimes leads to better memory for emotional events (Heuer & Reisberg, 1990). To understand the nature of the effect of emotion on memory, we undertook a series of experiments designed to test whether emotional states really produce good memory performance for events or degrade the same. To test these possibilities, the standard misinformation effect test was adopted. Furthermore, we investigated whether an emotional state produces retrograde or anterograde amnesia. Results showed that 1) the emotional state produces anterograde amnesia, 2) the misinformation effect is observed in both the post-emotional and pre-emotional events. In our talk we will discuss these results in terms of a new hypothesis which also facilitates explanation of existing experimental results.

13. 1074 Andrew says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 7:16 am

    Hi Sarah, you raise a good issue with the plate, one which I had not really thought about along those lines. I have however been suspicious of the motivation behind the article. I assumed (possibly naively) that it could be just another emotional blackmailing attempt on the public and not given it much thought as to the syndrome possibility. I’m sure Madeleine’s G.P. and health visitors would have known about any genetic defect, and the Police would certainly know if that was the fact.

    This case seems to involve too many people all linked together in some strange way or other for my liking. It’s like a secret society Masons/Illuminati/etc situation .
    How else can we explain all the intervention by all these people? Part of me thinks it’s a convenient distraction for something else also, or even a “problem” to which people “react” to, then are offered the “solution” Such as a DNA database,
    (which has actually been suggested in the UK recently)
    or electronic tagging of children even. Nothing would surprise me.
    The amount of variables are incredible. However, I’m certain that the McCann’s are not telling us the truth, are hiding something, and fear becoming found out. This I am convinced of.

14. 1073 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 7:11 am

    Hello, Steve T,

    The McCanns seem to be taking steps very similar to the Ramseys in the JonBenet murder case. According to the lead Detective, Steve Thomas, the Ramseys’ “PR man put a media spin on the non-answers, which did not come close to being a true interview. “John and Patsy Ramsey have cooperated extensively with the police and other law enforcement authorities from the very beginning of their investigation, and this cooperation will continue,” the PR man announced. Thomas called this statement “outrageous.”

    JonBenet’s grandmother, interviewed by Thomas, made remarks that Dr. Kate’s mother would chillingly ( or knowingly?) echo years later: “[JonBenet] didn’t like you pulling her out of bed. She would scream bloody murder. Unless they chloroflormed her or taped her mouth, she would have screamed like you wouldn’t believe.”

    It’s almost like a script, isn’t it?

15. 1072 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 6:46 am

    Hello, Jolie,

    Steve Thomas, the lead detective on the JonBenet murder case, said he noticed a picture taken of Patsy at a Christmas party the night her daughter was murdered. She was wearing a red turtleneck sweater and black pants in the picture. He then noticed that in an interview with Patsy Ramsey on the morning of December 26, Patsy was wearing the same clothes. Thomas felt it was unlikely that a former beauty queen who’d attended a party, come home late, put her children to bed, had supposedly gone to sleep herself and then awoke early to fly across the country (to their resort home), would put on fresh makeup and fix her hair, but not change her clothing.

    When Thomas finally interviewed Patsy and her husband, John, he questioned them about Patsy wearing the same clothes two days in a row. The day of her police interview, Patsy was wearing a dark suit with whitish-silver trim. Smith says the Ramseys seemed surprised he’d noticed Patsy’s clothing.

    The very next day, the Ramseys and their lawyers gave interviews with journalists, and Patsy wore the same dark suit with white-silver trim.

    Like the McCanns, the Ramseys had the best legal counsel money could buy.

16. 1071 mrdbond says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 6:32 am

    Kris: - “There are also, to my knowledge, THREE independent and verified sightings of Madeleine on the afternoon and evening of May 3. Two nannies, and David Payne. I would suspect there are more. So are you suggesting THREE people are helping cover up the possible murder of Madeleine by lying to the public, and the police, about seeing Madeleine that afternoon/evening?” - Verified by whom? The Portuguese press? And You “suspect there are more…”!! Do you!! They part of the “25 witnesses” that Team McCann are providing to PJ? - “Nevermind that even if every bit of DNA/forensic evidence leaked to the press was true, it STILL would not be enough to convict the McCanns” - Quite right. My issue is why there’s any detectable materials AT ALL for DNA testing. - “Yet you want us to think it’s possible that three independent confirmed sightings of Madeleine — PUBLICLY confirmed sightings, no less — are false. ” Once again, I’m unclear where you get the ‘confirmed’ criteria. “False”? H’mm, I dunno, maybe try “biased”? And, like any good little TV cop’ll tell ya(witness statements) “are statistically prone to error”. - “My “motive” here is to discourage non-sensical thinking. Is there something wrong with that? ” A laudable sentiment indeed.

17. 1070 SteveT says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 6:30 am

    The claim that Gerry is going back to work requiring a security guard is just another publicity stunt. Oh, he must be innocent and nasty people want to attack the poor man.
    As for McCann’s plea for 25 witnesses to be interviewed/re-interviewed, well that is remarkable. In other words, some of the Tapas9 have been coached on exactly what to say this time as they cocked it up the first time, making the PJ suspicious.
    I saw in one newspaper that ash from policemens cigarettes has contaminated the DNA evidence - why dont they just say what they mean - the McCanns want people to think that the police are lazy and unprofessional.

18. 1069 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 6:23 am

    Hello, Andrew,

    Thanks for writing back. About Gran’s plate, I have a thought.

    I wonder, just musing of course, because Philomena has asked me to do so….

    I don’t think Gran is acting out of vanity or nuttiness in presenting the heart-shaped plate with what are purportedly Madeleine’s hand prints on it.

    No, too much is now at stake, and there are too many Prime Ministers and diplomats and highly-paid media professionals involved in protecting the McCanns for this to be just goofy, “look at me!” weirdness. The plate, and its timely revelation, have a deeper purpose.

    But I am just guessing, just imagining, because Philomena’s asked me to.

    Think back to Madeleine’s colobama, the McCanns’ early publicity of it, and Anorak’s earlier posts on Charge syndrome. One of the possible signs of Charge syndrome is problems with the hands. This is part of various musculoskeletal anomalies not always, but sometimes, present in Charge syndrome–absent thumbs, extra fingers, short hand bones, fusuion of fingers, a “hockey puck” crease in the palm….

    I theorize that Madeleine’s gran produced the plate not to say, “Oh boo hoo hoo, look at my memento!” but rather to show that Madeleine did not have Charge syndrome. The McCann machine is likely anticipating that, at some point, law enforcement authorities may theorize that either Dr. Kate or Dr. Gerry or both may have killed their daughter because she suffered from Charge syndrome. Anorakers have discussed this possibility already, proving the group’s impressive prescience. Those labeled “McCann haters” (a label I think is wrong) reportedly suspect that the McCanns may not have wanted to continue parenting a genetically challenged child, and so had a motive for killing her. Other Anorak commentators call it a “mercy killing” (I think the suggestion was euthanasia).

    Of course, Charge syndrome has lots of other manifestations, and one could have it and still have perfectly normal-looking hands. We haven’t seen the plate with the print of Madeleine’s toes yet, but clefting of the foot, fusion of toes, extra toes, missing toes, etc. is also within Charge’s syndrome.

    The writing may be the day care’s, it may be anyone’s, but most definitely is not Madeleine’s. So, who knows where the plate really comes from? Perhaps it is a real plate Madeleine made, perhaps it is a second, look-alike plate substituting a healthy pair of hands. We are just musing, but who knows, really?

    Whether they are innocent or guilty, I think it’s reasonable to presume that, at this point, nothing escapes the McCann camp without a really good, well-thought-out, strategic reason. They have too many high-high-priced lawyers working for them now.

    Yes, Gran and her plate have a definite purpose. Or else, we’d hear nothing about it.

19. 1068 Jolie says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 6:05 am

    From Sunday’s Times Online:

    QUOTE

    McCanns’ plea over 25 witnesses

    THE PARENTS of Madeleine McCann have given Portuguese prosecutors a list of 25 witnesses they believe should be interviewed to try to clear their names and refocus police attention on the search for their daughter, writes John Follain.

    The witnesses, some never questioned by police before, include relatives, friends and staff of the Ocean club in Praia da Luz, where Madeleine went missing on May 3.

    The request will create controversy in Portugal, where it is almost unheard of for suspects to try to influence an investigation. There was criticism last week after it emerged that prime minister Gordon Brown had discussed the case with his Portuguese counterpart at the European summit in Lisbon.

    The McCanns’ legal team hope that a thorough reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared will help rule out her parents as suspects.

    A source close to the family said: “Kate and Gerry have singled out these witnesses because they were present . . . they can explain exactly what happened that night, and because they can show what a normal, loving relationship the parents had with their daughter.”

    UNQUOTE

    near bottom of this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2702285.ece

20. 1067 Jolie says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 5:55 am

    Finally, someone in the media is standing up for Ann Enright’s right to express her opinion. Thank you, Sarah Caden!

    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/time-to-start-accepting-the-callousness-of-human-nature-1200554.html

21. 1066 Jolie says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 5:53 am

    1063 Sarah Whalen

    Welcome! I enjoyed reading your articulate, informative post.

    I didn’t follow closely either the Ramsey or Simpson case, not the way I am with this one, so I learned a few things from reading your post. For instance, I did not know that Patsy Ramsey was wearing the same dress the day they found Jon Benet as what she wore to the party the night before. How odd, indeed, unless she never did go to sleep that night, like she said she did.

    Looking forward to reading more of your posts.

22. 1065 Jolie says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 5:48 am

    From Sunday’s Daily Express

    GUARD AS GERRY RETURNS TO WORK http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/22664/Guard-as-Gerry-returns-to-work

    Here’s an interesting item from near the end of that article:

    QUOTE

    Portuguese law prevents the couple from speaking out, but Dr Russell O’Brien, one of the “Tapas Nine” dining with them when Madeleine disappeared, is set to issue a detailed version of events on that night in a bid to end the suspicion stalking his friends – despite the risk of being charged with perverting the course of justice.

    The McCanns’ lawyers will this week re-evaluate the legal restraints that have so far kept him and his friends silent. Dr O’Brien has been advised that prosecution would be unlikely, given the sensitivity of the case and the diplomatic problems that charges might stir up.

    UNQUOTE
    ————-
    I wonder if Dr. O’Brien has bothered to share that timeline with the PJ. Or should I ask which version of the timeline is he planning on using?

23. 1064 Andrew says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 4:16 am

    Sarah, you are not alone! You articulated very well many points which I have held throughout my Anorak experience. Together we are indeed “on the case” There are more of us than meets the eye… Thank god for Anorak, the internet, and the overwhelming spirit for truth and Justice!

24. 1063 Edna says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 4:10 am

    Mods and admins

    I didn’t know you’d already answered - desculpe. I did a ctrl-f and couldn’t find anything. No, just one link and what is this spammer you speak of? I can’t think of anything that would be perceived as spam.

    ————————-

    Mods and Admin

    More than one link per post and its usually automatic, no you won’t see it

25. 1062 Sarah Whalen, posting as "Grotius Gal" says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 3:53 am

    Hello, Anorakers,

    So…Team McCann announces that hair tests on the McCann twins proves that Drs. Kate and Gerry did not drug their daughter, Madeleine?

    Aside from the very obvious logical error, i.e., Sean and Amelie are not Madeleine, go back to Dr. Gerry’s online blog diary entry three weeks after Madeleine mysteriously disappeared–”Day 25-23–25-26/05/07: Some of you [readers] may have noticed that Sean and Amelie did manage to squeeze in a hair cut!”

    The exclamation mark is all Dr. Gerry’s.

    Elsewhere in the blog, Dr. Gerry himself chats about having his own haircuts.

    Would you, if your three year-old daughter had gone mysteriously missing, be chatting up the internet public about your grooming? Or the grooming of your other children?

    So, let’s see… numerous trips to the dump/tip in both Portugal and England, haircuts, trips all over, lugging rolling suitcases and backpacks (whatever could be in them?). The McCann “family” reportedly scoffed at reports that Drs. Kate and Gerry had hidden Madeleine’s body in an apartment refrigerator, stating that the refrigerators were too small to hold even a child’s body. Okay…. But what about holding little bits and pieces of…well, it is too horrible to even write here.

    And yet, it’s been done before by others.

    Double hefty-bag it.

    Think about what doctors have to go through to become doctors. Cutting up a body? Is it part of the medical education in Great Britian? So, if you are a devout Catholic and you know the soul has gone to heaven, cutting up the physical shell that houses the soul is, well, perhaps if you brace yourself, it’s not that different from what you learned in anatomy. But I am just guessing…just imagining.

    Who could imagine that bits and pieces of a crime scene, or even a crime, could be dribbled and drabbled out all over, well, several continents, not to mention different dustbins, garbage cans, dumps, bogs in Huelva? It cannot be…can it?

    Commentators surmize that O.J. Simpson dribbled and drabbled some, but not all, of his bloodied clothing, perhaps even the murder weapons, in public trash bins from the L.A. airport to the streets of New York City.

    I thought it odd that Dr. Kate and Dr. Gerry both went to their official Portuguese police interviews wearing backpacks. Whatever would you carry in them to an appointment with the law? First of all, they’d likely be searched. And why create unnecessary drama?

    But if I wanted to give the impression that I often carried a backpack or a rolling suitcase, and that there was nothing incriminating inside such a carry-all and nothing out of the ordinary had occurred, I would make a point of carrying it all the time. Just as Boulder, Colorado detectives noticed that Patsy Ramsey, suspected of killing her daughter, JonBenet, made a point of wearing the same outfit twice in a row for a television interview after police questioned her about why she hadn’t changed her clothes she’d worn to a party the evening her child was killed, and was still wearing the next morning when she first reported her daughter missing (even though she claimed she’d gone to sleep.

    When questioned about it, Patsy, a former titled beauty queen with gobs of high-fashion clothes, claimed she often wore the same outfits day after day.

    Only her dry cleaners knows for sure! But of course, Patsy Ramsey was never charged with her daughter’s killing.

    The McCanns cut their twins’ hair only three weeks after their daughter Madeleine went missing. Why would Gerry pointedly mention that in the blog?

    I feel that it is okay to write you Anorakers because back in July, I received an email from Philomena McCann (whom I do not know and have never met) asking me personally (she said, “you,” so I assume she means me personally) to look for her neice.

    Initially, I didn’t want to be involved. But Philomena’s pleading email encouraged me to give the riddle of Madeleine’s disappearance some thought. I don’t write to hurt a soul or to cause any lawsuits–how could the McCanns threaten to sue people for just thinking and talking, when Philomena McCann herself has emailed hundreds of thousands of people requesting their help?

    Asking for help so unreservedly just logically means that you may receive information or replies that you don’t care for, or ones that you find “hurtful” or even “actionable.” But how can it be either, when the McCanns asked for it? And asked, and asked, and asked?

    In writing to point out Dr. Gerry’s odd statements about the twins’ haircuts, so close in time to their sister’s mysterious disappearance, I consider that the McCanns have asked me personally and specifically to use my best efforts to help them solve the mystery.

    So, like you Anorakers, I am on the case!

26. 1061 Kris says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 3:01 am

    But Peter, the nannies have PUBLICLY said they saw Madeleine that evening. So has David Payne. These are not “sources close to Nanny Charlotte say she saw Madeleine.” This is CHARLOTTE saying she saw Madeleine. Ditto David Payne. THREE people saw Madeleine that evening.

27. 1060 Kris says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 2:58 am

    Peter O….

    What ulterior “motives” could people possibly have for , as you describe it, not wanting “questions asked” about the whereabouts of Madeleine earlier in the day?? Could it not be that people find it exhausting when others keep insisting — against all logic and all evidence- -that Madeleine could have gone missing earlier? Let’s see, yes, you’re right, there are creche records. There are also, to my knowledge, THREE independent and verified sightings of Madeleine on the afternoon and evening of May 3. Two nannies, and David Payne. I would suspect there are more. So are you suggesting THREE people are helping cover up the possible murder of Madeleine by lying to the public, and the police, about seeing Madeleine that afternoon/evening? If so , I find that exhaustingly absurd. My “motive” here is to discourage non-sensical thinking. Is there something wrong with that?

    Those who believe the McCanns are covering up the accidental or intentional death of their daughter ask us to suspend our disbelief and look past the repeated false reports in Portugese (and English) newspapers… and believe the many rumors of DNA reports indicating Madeleine is dead. (Nevermind that even if every bit of DNA/forensic evidence leaked to the press was true, it STILL would not be enough to convict the McCanns). So you tell us we cannot possibly believe that all that forensic “Evidence” will turn out to be false. Yet you want us to think it’s possible that three independent confirmed sightings of Madeleine — PUBLICLY confirmed sightings, no less — are false.

    Huh??? That’s just nuts.

28. 1059 moniker says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 2:46 am

    The timeline posted earlier today (yesterday?) reports Tanner going back to get her camera. I hope it has pictures and was seized! Suspicious character, that one.

29. 1058 moniker says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 2:41 am

    1057
    Bob Says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 12:24 am
    Huge breasts=you don’t have to cry either!
    —-
    boB’s a BooB

30. 1057 Ian says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 12:24 am

    1049 - dont be daft! These are doctors, theyd have techniques to prevent that.

    Obviously if they left the body uncovered and untreated, but as I say, doctors!

    Anyway, could have taken the body somewhere else, a cave? A fridge?

    The DNA was there in the car, under the carpet, are we saying it wasnt Maddies now (just now someone said they knew it was Maddies as it could be identified as different from the twins)?

31. 1056 Bob says:
    October 21st, 2007 at 12:24 am

    Huge breasts=you don’t have to cry either!

View comments: 1086 to 1056 - 1055 to 1026 - 1025 to 996 - 995 to 966 - 965 to 936 - 935 to 906 - 905 to 876 - 875 to 846 - 845 to 816 - 815 to 786 - 785 to 756 - 755 to 726 - 725 to 696 - 695 to 666 - 665 to 636 - 635 to 606 - 605 to 576 - 575 to 546 - 545 to 516 - 515 to 486 - 485 to 456 - 455 to 426 - 425 to 396 - 395 to 366 - 365 to 336 - 335 to 306 - 305 to 276 - 275 to 246 - 245 to 216 - 215 to 186 - 185 to 156 - 155 to 126 - 125 to 96 - 95 to 66 - 65 to 36 - 35 to 6 - 5 to 1