“That is about the only rational explanation that may support the abduction theory, the fact that they may have been so wasted they really didn’t have a clue what was going on.”

But reports have Portuguese police saying that although it was clear they had been drinking, they were NOT “so wasted they really didn’t have a clue what was going on.”

Of course if they were doing opiates or other drugs (possibly from the afternoon), they could been far more “wasted” earlier in the day than they were at 10PM. Not that I agree this ” may support the abduction theory”. It supports the “accidental death theory”.

November 18th, 2007 at 5:35 am
chenier Says:

November 18th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Wow, people

From The Sunday TimesNovember 18, 2007

News in brief
Madeleine kidnapper arrest ‘soon’

A private investigator hunting Madeleine McCann has claimed in an American TV documentary that the four-year-old is alive. Francisco Marco, who is paid by Gerry and Kate McCann’s wealthy backer, Brian Kennedy, said: “We are 100% sure that she is alive. We are sure she was abducted. We are very, very close to finding the kidnapper.” On BBC’s Panorama tomorrow Gerry McCann says: “I’ve no doubt Madeleine was targeted and that makes us sick to the core. I think the true word is predator

According to the Times
*****************************************

Yes Marco makes these outrageous claims. If this man is really a private detective - how good can he be to state on national tv that he knows the identity of the kidnapper; is aware of how the adbuction took place and Madeleine was in Portugal for 2 days before being transported by car and being handed off to another person in another country? Not very bright is it? Especially since Marco claims he knows she is still alive. Would it be prudent for a PI to announce all of this if they in fact had any concern at all f or the child’s safety?

They didn’t say who the wealthy McCann supporter was who is footing Marco’s bill. They also did not mention Metodo 3 or say if Marco is connected to M3.

———————————————————————————————————————————–
They do not mention that they will rescue Maddie, they just want the kidnapper? This reminds me of “the American girl” they claimed to have found in Morocco, they did not rescue her either. Claimed they reported it to Interpol, still no girl.

Cant wait to see the response!

It looks like at last they are cracking and admitting the neglect charge, thanks to Tony B!

Of course it might be said to be a change calculated to avoid charges which are much worse. Too late perhaps, as now most people (ludicrously of course) believe there is more to this, that they for some reason planned to dispose of their less than perfect (in their eyes not mine!) child.

Thanks! Excellent! Now perhaps these bastards can be prosecuted! First for neglect knowing there was a risk and second for breaking protuguese secrecy law.

Kate has said ‘There isnt a textbook is there’. Stupid bitch, does she think that normal loving and capable parents need a textbook which tells them not to leave their children alone whilst they go to the bar?

Gerry is admitting that they were concerned about security before they left their children exposed.

I hope Tony Bennett is reading these reportsd (as I know he will be!) because at last the McCanns are admitting they have failed in their parental duties, they left their children fully aware of the risk they were taking.

Have just read the Times on Line article to which you refer, written I think on 16th Sept. Am wondering if that writer is still convinced. 46 pointless paragraphs expanding on the theme that people only criticised the McCs, Kate in particular, because they were jealous of her looks and status and enjoyed treating the matter as a great Who Dunit. Not until the last 3 paragraphs, before blog comments, was there an admission that the McCs may not have done themselves any favours with their high profile campaign…

Now that writer has the benefit of understanding that the public are primarily concerned with the whereabouts of Madeleine, the inconsistencies in the stories of the Tapas 9, the dismissal of any evidence incriminating the McCs of more than child neglect, not to mention
the reluctance to produce DNA evidence from Birmingham, and a tendency to ignore the evidence from the cadaver dogs brought to Portugal from England, perhaps the writer will concede there is reason for concern over the mainly pro-McC reporting. From the blogs, where people can express well thought out opinions, it is more than clear that people are not reflecting anything other than concern for Madeleine and a desire to discover the truth, despite all attempts at a high level to have this suppressed

November 17th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Ian wrote

None of the other T9 conspirators (for this is clearly what they are) have spoken in public but they arent prevented from doing so. They choose not to, and in my opinion this is not to assist the police or prevent harm to Madeleine - but to protect themselves from charges of neglect.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
A spokesman for Portugal’s Policia Judiciaria said: “To speak out like this while an investigation is ongoing is illegal.

“It is a breach of the secrecy of justice laws and as such is punishable by up two years in prison. These laws are in place to protect evidence and for anyone connected with an investigation - be it a witness, arguido or police officer - to discuss the case publicly is not permitted
—-
Nuff said.

You may be interested to read the prompt reply I had from my Labour MP after sending him the petition letter regarding the outburst by Piers Merchant against the Portugues authorities:

” Thank you for your letter of the 12th November about the case of Kate and Gerry McCann and their missing daughter, Madeleine.

As you suggest, this is a very sad and tragic case and I sincerely hope Madeleine is found safe and well and returned to her parents.

I am concerned to read of your comments about the aparent undue “interference” of the Prime Minister in the proceedings and the impact this may have on the relationship between the Brtitish and Portuguese. I will be raising your concerns with the Prime Minister, asking for his comments on the points you have made and I will ensure you receive a copy of his response. ”

Have others had a response from their MP?

In my opinion they could have been quite pissed, if innocent.

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

That is about the only rational explanation that may support the abduction theory, the fact that they may have been so wasted they really didn’t have a clue what was going on. Of course, that doesn’t clear them of issues relating to obstructing/perverting a criminal investigation. I guess the whole ‘fund’ thing could then possibly be ‘explained’ as a massive guilt complex that snowballed and the ‘publicity’ enabled them to avoid facing up to their ‘role/responsibilities’ in the whole sorry affair.

Disappointing to me was that the show did not address British governments intense role in this saga and try to explain why. Also strange was that the Portuguese-American PI Maura obviously had a secret camera but they never showed any meaningful footage of his undercover work at the Ocean Club. Like, they never showed any video of him asking tthe employees questions about what they believe may have happened; what they thought or what they knew.

Anyone know where Anorak is?
Anorak has been shut down by the powers that be.
British government has seized Anorak’s forum files and is ransacking Anorak’s London offices.
Anyone know what is going on with Anorak? I think they’ve been saboutaged by Gordie. Head for the hills British people living in cities - you’ve been warned. The writings on the wall: No one is safe.

Sadly, I’m not making any of this up.

Glad to see you hear I thought you had said you were gone until shattering case smashing info blowing everything out of the water surfaced. Not complaining but you don’t sound like yourself. Maybe an appointment with a massage therapist is called for? I never heard you so ummm….mean before. Usually you are good natured when you make fun of others. Anyway, glad to see you. Could you explain how we can follow the evidence when we do not know what it is.