Greetings.

http://bullmonkey.co.uk/mccann/kate.htm

Here’s a link.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/1609_maddie.shtml

Does anyone know PRECISELY WHERE GERRY & WILKINS were talking?

Tinsel gave a link to websleuths.com suggesting the spot was identified on a map posted there, but I couldn’t find any such map (I did however find 2 wildly different, both incorrect, plans of apartment 5a!).

I’ve assumed it was the entrance to the alley leading from the road beside the McCann’s apartment to the swimming-pool & tapas bar, but I recently began to wonder whether it might actually have been the ‘front’ alley by the parking lot & O’Brien’s hire car.

I still think it was probably the ‘back’ alley on the swimming-pool side, and that, if the McCann timeframe for Maddie’s ‘disappearance’ is roughly right, it might have been Gerry’s way of stopping Wilkins bumping into Tanner on the other side of the apartment - as, say, she returned from putting the body in the car after it was passed out of the kids’ bedroom window by Gerry.

If, however, it was the entrance to the ‘front’ alley, and Gerry like O’Brien and Tanner used the ‘front’ door rather than patio windows to enter and leave the apartment, this would make the McCann abduction timeframe just about impossible: the abductors would have about 2 minutes between Gerry’s leaving to return to the bar, and Oldfield & O’Brien leaving the bar for the apartment - Oldfield, in fact, leaving to check on the apartment (without entering) that Gerry had just been standing outside.

Funny… by the time I get to this point in my less frequent occasional posts here, I always feel - what’s the point of even discussing the details? Just bang them up and throw away the key.

And I think: just how mentally challenged do true believers have to be to ’see no evidence’ of a cover-up, and no problem with the abduction scenario?

Anyway, sorry to interrupt the chat - if anyone has the answer to the question, I’ll return in a couple of hours and search the thread.

More ‘great’ words from the attention seeker Tony Parsons.

1 - Why Pro-McConns would you think that her parent’s actions helped finding her or helped grabbing and holding clues that would take towards the direction of finding out what happened to Maddie?

2 - My concerns though, is for the fact that it seems that her parent’s movements took towards to confusion and not to clarify. Her parent’s friends did the same. So, why??? Why???

3 - Why would you destroy evidencies? Why wouldn’t you put all your potential effort to grab, hold and analyse clues as you put when you felt in dangerous of being imprisioned? Why you refuse to answer crucial questions?

4 - If you say that was an abdution, then… Why would you destroy evidencies?

5 - If you say that was an abduction, then… Why wouldn’t you put all your potential effort to grab, hold and analyze clues as you put when you felt in dangerous of being imprisioned?

6 - If you say that was an abdution, then… Why did you refused to answer crucial questions if they would help to clarify?

7 - If you say that was an abdution, then… Why only after you both were made “arguidos” you decided to move all the incredible powers and influencies towards this case not in direction of solving the case but in direction of explaining the inexplicable?

8 - If you say that was an abdution, then… Why aren’t you, taking your own the computer, diary, cuddle cat, car, etc to the police investigators?

(Ok you could say you don’t trust the Portuguese police but there are means of leaving under a Judge protection you evidencies with the English police.)

9 - If you say that was an abdution, then… Why don’t you with bravery disregard the Portuguese secrecy law to give the public the maximun of information towards findind Madeleine?

10 -If you say that was an abduction, then… Why you now, only now, you use your auntie and friends to transcend the secrecy of the Portuguese law for coming up with explanations just with the intuit of saving your backs?

11 - If you think that was an abduction, then… Why you didn’t transcend the Portuguese secrecy law and came up public with everything you knew?

(That would have made much more good to your image than all the effort your PR are doing now because that would be seen desperate mother instinct and the prison would be worth it!
And the end justifies the means. We all would forgive you for surpassing the Portuguese law!)

Decipher me or I’ll devour you!

Of course, the entirely innocent explanation about the probably mistranslated “moving body in concrete” thing is that Gerry was in fact describing the food at the Tapas Bar!

“DIPHENHYDRAMINE IS NOT A SEDATIVE…” CLARENCE MITCHELL WILL ONE DAY SAY.

598
Logic Says:
Hideki 220
“Thank you for that. I hadn’t realised that this formulation had come onto the market. It was just Calpol containing paracetamol when my children were small and I gave it only VERY VERY rarely as paracetamol is not something that should be taken willy nilly.”

The other (possibly crucial) point regarding the McCanns’ admission that they used CALPOL (they said that this “was never a secret”) is that this admission came in response to the (leaked) forensic results that showed diphenhydramine in blood believed to be Madeleine’s.

So the McCanns were as usual proffering an “innocent explanation” for this (which, incidentally, IMO lends credence to the veracity of the leaked forensic results). They were saying that any diphenhydramine must have come from giving the children CALPOL.

Therefore, it is simply not possible that they were referring to the plain CALPOL product, which as you pointed out only contains paracetamol — but rather to the product CALPOL NIGHT, which contains both paracetamol AND diphenhydramine.

McCann supporters have emphasized that the admission of using Calpol means nothing because paracetamol has no sedative action. This is completely disingenuous and ignores the context and intent of the McCann admissions.

Now Stig is adding that CALPOL NIGHT was not available in UK/Europe at that time. If this is true, it would just mean that the McCanns are once again stuck in the web of their own deceit, because the use of CALPOL could not then be an innocent explanation for diphenhydramine found in the blood.

If they did use CALPOL NIGHT for its sedative properties, that alone should result in their dismissal as doctors. Of course, it is highly likely that the diphenhydramine in Madeleine’s blood did NOT come from Calpol Night, but rather from a pill or injection.

Again, the characteristics of diphenhydramine overdose are delirium and hallucination, and there are many accounts by recreational users. I doubt there is information on the effect upon toddlers’ perception, etc. — but recreational dosages of diphenhydramine for adults begin at only slightly more than twice the USA maximum recommended dosage.

And one final note on the McCanns’ endless spinning… when Gerry is emphatic that they did not give Madeleine sedatives, he is playing a semantic card here. Diphenhydramine is not categorized as a sedative drug, but it has a sedative action. And if the tests done by the McCanns ONLY included actual sedatives, they might not even have tested for diphenhydramine, and then announced that the results were negative for sedatives, “proving” that they did not sedate the children.

McCann deceit and deception is so dense that often it appears to me that there is NOTHING BUT DECEIT from them.

No wonder 70-80% of people think they are lying. It is strange that 20-30% either believe them or are not sure. When all the McCann statements are carefully examined, I doubt that even 5% of people would think they are credible.

Deciphrate me or I will devoru you!!!!!

And “in concrete” here means “to be exact” or “precicely”.
Edit….
++++++++++++++++
Thanks.. would also be possible that something of the ‘context’ was lost in two way translation? I,e, Gerry would have originally typed in English, which for this report the alleged contents are translated to Spanish, and we’re now trying to translate that Spanish report back to English!

It seemed to me to say: Police have a suspicious photo of Gerry.
+++++++++++++++++++
That’s pretty much how I read it… I don’t see that the picture itself is ‘suspect’? Possibly the contents of a text message might be, but as ‘we can’t see the content of that message, it’s just a another leaked rumour from a ‘source’ close to someones nether regions?

Is there anything about the other chap in the picture? i.e. Should he be there at that particular date and time – does his presence conflict with witness statements?

And, why does this picture also appear on Gerry’s blog sight if it is allegedly suspicious in some way? Unless of course Gerry has posted the ‘innocent explanation’ for the picture on his blog?

Just complete guess work here people, so no running off with ‘facts’!

Maybe if someone who speaks Spanish could watch the video report and post a translation, that may make it clearer what the accusations, if any, are?

Sorry, but the dictionary says a “movil” is not a “moving body”, but a mobile phone!

And “in concrete” here means “to be exact” or “precicely”.

So McCann was using a mobile phone or - to be more exact - typing a text message.
And not dumping a “moving body” into concerete.

Babelfish is not aways your friend.