Comments

View comments: 424 to 394 - 393 to 364 - 363 to 334 - 333 to 304 - 303 to 274 - 273 to 244 - 243 to 214 - 213 to 184 - 183 to 154 - 153 to 124 - 123 to 94 - 93 to 64 - 63 to 34 - 33 to 4 - 3 to 1
1. 424 andrea m preson says:
   May 28th, 2009 at 8:52 pm

   Re: Madeleime McCann
   She was seen at Fatima, the witness is corect because it fits in with the intent. The litte girl was asking for her daddy, which makes it more real. I am asking for the abductors to release Maeleine and to leave her in her Father’s house….Church

2. 423 Paul says:
   November 23rd, 2007 at 4:25 am

   Medjugore has been noted by intelligence communities to be a hotbed of child trafficking and child prostitution. The reason this has not been brought to light in the media is because Bosnia and Medjugorje depend so much on tourist dollars. If Medjugorje was truly exposed as a fraud, civil unrest would cause many casualties. Just google “medjugorje slaughter” and you’ll find some interesting things….

3. 422 Madeldine McCann: Tea With Sympathy, Bosnia And ‘A Sinister Higher Force’ | Anorak News says:
   November 15th, 2007 at 7:41 am

   [...] They? It was one man from Ireland, on a visit to a Catholic shrine in Bosnia, who saw Madeleine in a car crying for her daddy [...]

4. 421 David says:
   November 14th, 2007 at 8:37 pm

   Sod you too

5. 420 Elizabeth says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 9:38 pm

   416

   The police in Galveston, Texas have already they have ruled out Madeleine McCann as the identity of Baby Grace.

6. 419 Dottie says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pm

   where’s everyone at?

7. 418 Isabella says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 7:19 pm

   I really don’t think a bag was found by the airport. I think PJ would know not to say a word about it, if they really felt there was some sort of link to Madeleine. It is unbelievably sad, the amount of rumors out there.

8. 417 Isabella says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 7:16 pm

   Hi,
   Does anyone know if it has been confirmed that baby Grace is not Madeleine??? thanks

9. 416 Canada says:
   November 12th, 2007 at 6:27 pm

   Sorry if this has been posted already

   I see our Tony Bennett and Andrew have been quoted in Transfattyacid!
   Congrats

   http://trannyfattyacid.blogspot.com/

10. 415 annie123 says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:36 pm

    Alot of people seem convinced that Maddie is dead (me included) But is there any real evidence to suggest she is dead?

    The press published there was dna evidence in the car that could only have come from a corpse, is this a fact or speculation and is it definatly Maddies dna?

    I know one of the dogs got excited around the car, but which dog was it? One is trained to detect corpse and blood and the other I believe only traces corpse scent?

    Anyone know the answers?

11. 414 Ian says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:19 pm

    Is there likely to be an English version of the whole of that (seemingly) interesting Portuguese documentary?

    Are the UK TV stations afraid to show it?

12. 413 I 8 Tapas says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 2:36 pm

    394
    an observer Says:

    November 12th, 2007 at 2:41 am

    Thanks for the links, I gave uplast night as I had trouble posting.

13. 412 Peter O says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am

    406 Hideki Says:
    387 Peter O

    Before I attempt to respond your latest incontinent tirade, other posters should read this little gem from your following post:

    407 Hideki Says:

    And it is for this reason I have NO tolerance for anyone supporting these detestable people, or for anyone who does not push for prosecution of child neglect.

    So, as we discussed a couple of days ago YOUR agenda here is charging people with child neglect. You have not the slightest interest, so far as I can ascertain, in discovering what happened to Madeleine and pursuing those responsible to the maximum extent of the law. And no, I don’t give a damn that you think that reads like a ‘Team McCann’ statement.

    As I also explained to you a of couple of days ago I have a difference of ‘opinion’ to you and several other posters here. That’s my prerogative. I do not believe that a third party child neglect charge brought at this time will best serve the investigation. You, in particular, are so myopic in your views and have such a lust for blood that you appear incapable of understanding that this is a public forum where people express their opinions and the chances of everyone always agreeing with you are pretty slim. Just because someone holds a different opinion to you it doesn’t necessarily make them something akin to the devil incarnate or fully paid up member of Team McCann, as you alleged a couple of days back.

    Turning to your post, it amply demonstrates that you are both incapable of following a fairly simple observation and separating your ‘agenda’ from your thought processes.

    Hideki - POST EXTRACT

    “I think the ones with absolutely no involvement in whatever crimes may have been committed may now be extremely worried that they are about to get embroiled in
    something far larger than a ‘little white lie’ about how often they/others checked their children, in my opinion.”

    I see you have not grown tired of your “argumentation” that child neglect is not very serious, should not be prosecuted, etc. For your information, it is a serious crime that can bring a sentence of several years. Lying in order to cover up such a crime is NOT “a little white lie”. Frankly, I’m astounded that you would think so and publicly state such an opinion.

    COMMENT

    Please show me anywhere where I have specifically stated that child neglect is not a serious issue/crime?

    You are missing the point of my original comment. Assuming that all the members of the Tapas 9 are NOT in fact axe wielding murders, or however you might like to describe them, there must be you would think a few of them who may not have had the slightest clue as to what actually happened on the evening of May 3rd? They may well have become suspicious AFTER the event, but by that time they had been ‘tricked’ into giving corroborating witness statements by others in the group who really did have something very serious they needed to hide, in my opinion.

    Hideki - POST EXTRACT

    Moreover, even if a Tapas couple did not know (to be hypothetical) that Madeleine was killed, if by lying about their own crime (child neglect) they interfere with the course of justice, then they ARE guilty of obstructing justice. It would further aggravate their guilt if they knowingly used their lies to cover up the killing (hiding of corpse, etc), but EVEN WITHOUT A KILLING, these people KNEW PERFECTLY WELL that a child disappeared, and that their lies would impact the investigation.

    COMMENT

    You are mixing up unrelated issues and attempting to link them in an illogical manner to justify your desire to sue everyone re child neglect.

    Your first sentence is correct, and is in fact a more succinct summation of the point that I was trying to make. If these people really didn’t know anything about what had happened to Madeleine at the time the events originally occurred then they are potentially a ‘weak link’ in the alleged ‘pact of silence’. i.e. It’s bad enough that they could be charged with child neglect but now they are also potentially in line for all manner of other charges relating to obstructing justice. These people, if indeed they exist, may possibly be willing to change their witness statements.

    You can’t then link that statement to them deliberately lying in full knowledge of what may have happened to Madeleine. If they did this, then they are plan simple accessories and if proven should be charged as such. These people I would argue are less likely to substantially alter their witness statements.

    Hideki - POST EXTRACT

    I’m really amazed at how craftily and methodically you look for ways to paint the Tapas9 as “innocent” if they were not conspirators in the killing or corpse-hiding. Unfortunately for the Tapas9, their lies and lack of cooperation constitutes a serious obstruction of justice, in addition to the child neglect. No way to get around that — and likely this is what has provided the pressure to induce belated cooperation.

    COMMENT

    And I’m amazed at your inability to understand that there may have been people there that night who didn’t have the slightest clue as to the real events that someone(s) may have been attempting to conceal. If they were all complicit in knowingly concealing dreadful acts then so far as I’m concerned they can all go rot somewhere unpleasant for as long as the law will allow.

    If however, there are even two people who didn’t know the real reason why it was so important to fabricate a timeline that allegedly showed the children being checked ‘often’, then the investigators should explore every avenue to separate them from the rest of the group. Once the first cracks appear, the façade would hopefully crumble pretty quickly.

    If in the fullness of time, whatever that means, it looks like the Madeleine case will go cold and be ‘shelved’, then I think that is the time to pursue the Tapas 9 with every conceivable charge possible, including child neglect. That’s just my opinion, I make no apologies that it may not concur with yours.

14. 411 Hideki says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 6:18 am

    346
    Judith C
    “The comments made by both of them at different times have these pseudo religious overtones…”

    If you read my earlier post (on another thread) you know that I agree with your analysis. I do not consider that the McCanns are religious at all, but that they are USING religion just like they would USE their children (dead or alive) , would USE the media, would USE public sympathy, etc.

    Focusing on their quasi-religious sub-text allows them to lie “sincerely” and without feeling guilty about it. (Amazingly, it does not seem to help them sound sincere.) Another point is that when she is finally cornered, and Kate confesses, she can make public these coded messages as evidence that she was (albeit secretly) remorseful. Similarly, they could be used as evidence that she was mentally ill and in some kind of intense denial state.

    Clarence Mitchell runs parallel to the McCanns, being another “pragmatic” person who does not need to dally with useless concepts like “truth” and “lies”. His job is to manipulate how the public thinks. The McCanns’ use of religious “code” is without a doubt sanctioned by Clarence Mitchell, who realizes that he must have some options up his sleeve in case the McCanns are charged, and even convicted.

    The really horrible thing about this case is that not only are the McCanns lying and defrauding the public, making money on the death of their daughter, but also they are presenting themselves as symbols of grief-stricken parents. Furtherrmore, they are preparing to make a living in the future by playing this role. Thus, Gerry began (from very early on) to mention the “political issues raised by this case”, visited Washington D.C. to share his views, etc. Kate has said (through her friends) that she intends to work for child welfare (and for parents suffering loss) by setting up her own charity.

    This is a little like inviting the Devil into a Church on Sunday to deliver the Sermon. Just incredible.

    And it is for this reason I have NO tolerance for anyone supporting these detestable people, or for anyone who does not push for prosecution of child neglect.

15. 410 Hideki says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 5:52 am

    387
    Peter O
    “I think the ones with absolutely no involvement in whatever crimes may have been committed may now be extremely worried that they are about to get embroiled in something far larger than a ‘little white lie’ about how often they/others checked their children, in my opinion.”

    I see you have not grown tired of your “argumentation” that child neglect is not very serious, should not be prosecuted, etc. For your information, it is a serious crime that can bring a sentence of several years. Lying in order to cover up such a crime is NOT “a little white lie”. Frankly, I’m astounded that you would think so and publicly state such an opinion.

    Moreover, even if a Tapas couple did not know (to be hypothetical) that Madeleine was killed, if by lying about their own crime (child neglect) they interfere with the course of justice, then they ARE guilty of obstructing justice. It would further aggravate their guilt if they knowingly used their lies to cover up the killing (hiding of corpse, etc), but EVEN WITHOUT A KILLING, these people KNEW PERFECTLY WELL that a child disappeared, and that their lies would impact the investigation.

    I’m really amazed at how craftily and methodically you look for ways to paint the Tapas9 as “innocent” if they were not conspirators in the killing or corpse-hiding. Unfortunately for the Tapas9, their lies and lack of cooperation constitutes a serious obstruction of justice, in addition to the child neglect. No way to get around that — and likely this is what has provided the pressure to induce belated cooperation.

    The longer they continue to lie, and fail to correct their former lies, the more serious their crime, and (as a matter of course) the stiffer the punishment.

    Better late than never.

16. 409 Karen says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 5:02 am

    I looked a lot like Madeleine when I was 4. Murat’s daughter looks like her.

    It’s going to be like Elvis - she’ll turn up everywhere.

17. 408 Karen says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:59 am

    Kris

    I think after 6 months, they would have to at least subconsciously believe she’s dead.

    I think their odd choice of words is because they’re always thinking of the effect they want them to have on the hearer (they have an absolute faith in P.R. and spin) and because they want to emphasise that they are good, responsible parents (which I find selfish, in the light of the fate they left their child to).

    eg. When Kate said she regretted not being there ‘at that minute’ - the subtext was, I’m always with her, I was only gone briefly and the abductor took advantage of it.

18. 407 Kris says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:55 am

    Karen, or a total fabrication. Who knows. My daughter is Madeleine’s age and she is also dirty blonde and pretty as pie, and we once (several months ago, in summer) had someone call out “Madeleine!” to us. I think Madeleine looks like an awful lot of four-year-old girls, same cute pudgy cheeks, etc. (Even my daughter, who reads over my shoulder on the computer sometimes, comments, “she looks like me, mom!” when she sees Madeleine’s pic). SO I think it’s not surprising we’d have so many possible sightings.

    I do find it odd that so few people say they called out “Madeleine!” — like the person did to us. It’s the first thing I would do, too, call the girl’s name to see if she responded.

19. 406 Kris says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:52 am

    Agree with Judith C and others about the weird choices of words by the McCanns… and it’s interesting that it is very consistent, too. It’s something I’ve never been entirely clear about because, as an American, I don’t know if it seems weird because of the accent, or because of manners of speaking or particular cultural phrases, which are weird to me but not to someone British. Judith mentions the “at the moment she was taken” or “minute” she was taken.. “Taken” doesn’t mean death to me, but only, the minute she was removed from the scene. (So, this leaves room for them being there the minute she DIED, just not when someone ?? took her away).

    Then in the most recent interview, the six-month interview, Kate makes some truly weird word decisions– as Judith mentions — “she is in someone’s house” (God’s?)… and she’s “out there, somewhere” (in the ethers, like a ghost?). This most recent set of Kate statements actually were what more or less convinced me finally that Kate knows Madeleine is dead, the whole thing was sooooo very weird, but if taken in the context of Kate knowing Madeleine is dead, every word made sense suddenly. This does not tell us what happened– who killed her, or how, or who agreed, etc — but it does absolutely to me mean Kate knows Madeleine is dead.

20. 405 Karen says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:45 am

    Why would Madeleine’s kidnappers take her to Medjugorje? A town full of European Catholics who would know about Madeleine from all the publicity?
    I have a medal of Our Lady from Medjugorje round my neck at the moment - it’a a very, very popular place.
    Maybe it was a vision?

21. 404 Kris says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:45 am

    397- an observer- all posts with 2 links are held up indefinitely, especially at this hour. To avoid this, post one link at a time. this is a really good anti-spam measure from Anorak.

22. 403 an observer says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:44 am

    mods and admin
    please ignore my post 398 an observer Says:
    must be getting tired. previous post is there. must have been looking in the wrong place.

23. 402 Kris says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:39 am

    386- an observer. You’re saying Jane Tanner may have dyed her hair blonde sometime between 8:30 and 10, then dyed it back to brown later in the evening, or what?

    This is all Extremely Theoretical here– we dont’ even know for SURE that any Tapparati (thanks Ade) are actually changing their story, nor do we know it’s O’Brien/Tanner (yes, I know , one newspaper says so — so what?), nor do we know whether their changes are substantive as you mention or totally innocuous… One newspaper for instance said the couple simply wanted to “clarify” how much wine was drunk that night (ie, more than they admitted at first). So we are likely making much ado about nothing.

    Thanks for the link to that excellent Charlotte PEnnington story. The thing is, I think Charlotte is actually the only reliable PUBLIC witness to these events we have– along with the other nanny. The Tapparati cannot be believed (because even if only one or two knows what happened, we cant’ be sure which ones), and the waiter (who really had no substantive info anyway) seemed really flakey to me. So Charlotte is the only person who’s talked to the press with any credibility whatsoever, in my view. She made her statements publicly, allowing the press to use her name. She was not employed by the McCs. She repeated statements, did not change her story at all, and seems to remember the night clearly.

    So, if Charlotte is right, Madeleine was alive at 6 p.m.

    What does that leave us?

    Possibilities:

    - Madeleine died very soon after and the McCanns together covered it up … This seems really weird and unlikely– how do you kill your daughter and 2 hours later sit in a tapas bar and act normal?

    - What if only one McCann knew, and had someone else from the T-9 help?

    - What if one of the Tapparati is actually the kidnapper/muderous party and the McCanns don’t know? This idea is given very little attention, given the actual statistical likelihood of possiblity.

    - Then there’s always the off chance a real stranger abduction happened.

24. 401 an observer says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:39 am

    mods and admin
    i responded to i 8 tapas’ post 391 some time ago.
    last time i looked my post was here but showing awaiting review by moderators or words to that effect.
    it has since disappeared. i didn’t think there was anything wrong with my post which had two url’s.
    do you know where it has gone?

25. 400 Child Daycare Information » Blog Archive » Madeleine McCann: In Medjugorje ‘Miracle Town’, Trust And The (Day Care News) says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:31 am

    [...] Anorak - Catrina cold be genuinely mistaken. without corroboration we don’t know how reliable the 12:30 sighting is. the accuracy of the day care records are unknown to us. imo, if the last photo was faked it can only be to create a “confirmed” last Read More [...]

26. 399 Karen says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 4:14 am

    Wanderer

    That apartment would be so creepy at night - I don’t know why they’d feel it was so safe to leave them.

27. 398 Tinsel says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 3:34 am

    I wasn’t much for the conspiracy aspects, but today’s article in El Mundo makes it clear that O’Brian is intimidated ….

    SNIP>
    “The lobby surrounding the McCann is frightening”

    The lawyer from one of the persons that wants to change his testimony criticizes the lobby around the parents of Madeleine – story published today in “El Mundo”.

    “My client must keep secret what he can do help the search for the truth and this is not due to the law secrecy in Portugal. That is is quite revealing of the strange circumstances around this case”, says the lawyer of one of the two McCann friends that were at Tapas Bar, on the night of May 3, and decided to have a close cooperation with Police, as “El Mundo” published, last Tuesday. “He is not afraid of the McCann but the economic and political lobby that exists, around that couple, frightens any person.”

    … sounds like some of the millionairs involved are pressuring the Tapas to cooperate. But why?

28. 397 Wanderer says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 3:04 am

    ‘REVEALED: First picture of the Portuguese holiday apartment where Madeleine vanished’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=493021&in_page_id=1770

    Not a great picture, but maybe someone’s been interested in seeing the set up a bit more. (although the beds were probably moved as well)

29. 396 Uta Hagen says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 3:02 am

    387 — Peter O — “I think the ones with absolutely no involvement in whatever crimes…are about to get embroiled in something far larger than a ‘little white lie’ about how often they/others checked their children…some of the Tapas group were “played a line” on the evening of May 3rd, by someone(s) who may have had a much greater crime to hide…”

    I agree 100%. I think one or two of the Tapas Nine actively helped the McCanns cover up Madeleine’s accidental death, while the rest of the Tapas Nine thought they were just keeping all of them from getting prosecuted for neglect for leaving the lids in their rooms while they ate at the restaurant.

30. 395 an observer says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 2:41 am

    391
    I 8 Tapas Says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 2:06 am
    ————————————————–
    i 8 tapas
    have a look a this. charlotte pennington sates the last time she saw the family together was at luchtime on the 3rd. doesn’t refer to high tea at all.
    fwd to around 2mins 10 secs
    keep watching to get to the stage where CP talks about events around 10:00 pm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTnxZr-ju-c
    this came from here
    http://forums.mirror.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=9782&start=1350

31. 394 I 8 Tapas says:
    November 12th, 2007 at 2:06 am

    192
    Taybie the Saxon Says:

    November 11th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
    Here we go, Ms Pennington saying SHE gave the kids high tea as well:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483715&in_page_id=1770

    Why did the Dispatches programme skate around that part of the story?

    She also says the twins had been taken out of the apartment when she arrived even though recent timelines say they were removed at 2am.

View comments: 424 to 394 - 393 to 364 - 363 to 334 - 333 to 304 - 303 to 274 - 273 to 244 - 243 to 214 - 213 to 184 - 183 to 154 - 153 to 124 - 123 to 94 - 93 to 64 - 63 to 34 - 33 to 4 - 3 to 1