Ha
First the worst
second the best
third the one with the hairy chest

top 5

first? (6th will do i suppose)

good morning all to the pros, the antis, the undecided and those who couldn’t give a kcuf.

yesterday lulu suggested some interesting possibilities. i have had a couple of similar thoughts too so i thought i would repost so today’s viewers can get a chance to view / comment / agree / disagree / threaten to sue / etc etc etc
——————————————————————————
689 Lulu Says:
November 30th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Theory:
Allegedly, imo, just musing.
What if Tanner was a surrogate and the surrogacy was performed in Holland privately using 2 specially selected embryos from a number of sources.
1 biologically Tanner/OBrien
1 biologically McC/sperm donor
1 biologically McC/egg donor
1 biologically McC
They were all fertilised together with the best 2 allowed to grow, selective abortion of the weaker 2
McCanns get 1 baby Tanner O/B get 1 baby on the agreement that no one ever questions the true parentage of the child they got.
McCanns foot the bill, Tanner does the incubating.
When babys are born they are simply divided between the 2 couples but as time goes on it becomes apparent that Maddie is different. This is exacerbated when the twins are born through more up to date techniques and are truly McCanns.
This causes resentment. Kate can not bond with Maddie hence all the photos of Maddie looking apart from the family and the video footage of Kate petting the twins while Maddie sits next to Tanners child.
Gerry loves child yet resents upheaval caused by bonding problem. Is asked for more involvement but feels unable.
Holiday is tipping point, resentment spills over, resulting in death of Maddie. K and G feel terrible yet released.
Can’t admit to being involved in death of Maddie yet unable to grieve because they have convinced themself that the is better off dead.…..
—————————————————-
842 an observer Says:
december 1st, 2007 at 2:52 am
edit …
i have posted a few comments addressed to tony bennet today which probably indicate that MM and the Tanner’s oldest are not twins.
this does not rule out the possibility that one or both of the Mc’s may not be the biological parents of MM. imo, the chatter does seem to indicate there may be some issues in this area but i can’t get my head around it.

teasing out your hypothesis in this area, how about if MM was indeed biologically related to one (GM/JT) or both (JT/RO) of the tanner o’brien pair. imo, if MM met an untimely end for whatever reason, who better to assist the MC’s in their trials than the other “parent(s)” of MM.

The Panorama programme may have given the PJ some extra material.

On it, Kate McCann said they were the ‘first to arrive’ at the Tapas bar, were joined by another couple (not named), and then she admitted that that couple left and they were on their own at the Tapas bar. This is rather different from the account of all the ‘Tapas 9′ being at the Tapas bar that night, save for the ‘tall man’ who was not at the table for most of the evening (Russell O’Brien). I’m not sure, did that story come from an unnamed waiter at the Ocean Club, or was it from the aerobics instructress/quizmistress?

No doubt the PJ will also check, if they have not already done so, who Gerry McCann had his *three* tennis lessons with that day, and each of the four ‘Tapas 9′ men will no doubt be questioned about their recollection of the ’social tennis event’ which was claimed to have taken place between about 5.30pm to 6.30pm/7.00pm.

David Payne might well be asked if Gerry McCann asked him to go to their apartment ‘to check that Kate was all right’ (version 1) or ‘to see if she and the kids were coming down to join them on the tennis court (version 2).

I dare say Payne might also be asked if he saw or heard the following while he was over there:

1) Kate getting Amelie and Sean ready for bed
2) Kate getting Madeleine ready for bed
3) Both Gerry and Kate bathing the children
4) Kate carefully and lovingly removing the bead in her hair (the bead that appeared on the 2.29pm photograph that day)
5) Gerry readig bedtie stories to the childrne
6) Madeline saying: “Mummy, I’m having such fun, this has been the best day of my life ever” - a claim made by Kate about 5 weeks after Madeleine’s ‘disappearance’
7) the three children actually being put to bed

From the previous thread

Dummy

Saying ‘They’ve taken her’ doesn’t seem at all odd or suspicious to me. I just assume that where Kate comes from ‘they’ can be used with a more general meaning. She clearly couldn’t say ‘He’s taken her’ or ‘She’s taken her’ - that would be too specific.

However, the interesting thing about that article (let’s put caution aside and assume everything was reported correctly) is that the family claimed she didn’t say it. Why such a hullaballoo?

I’m not English so it’s a bit difficult for me to say but to me it would be more logical if was said:
someone has taken her, instead of they taken her.

6 an observer

Thanks for posting your speculations, these are the kinds of questions that I have been pondering.

The McCanns could I think kill all this speculation with some further information; until they do, there remains an area of mystery about these births which were both IVF babies and born ‘on the same day’. There was an air of authority about the story in the Spanish newspaper which proclaimed that Gerry McCann was not Madeline’s father. They then robustly responded to Gerry McCann’s threat to sue the newspaper by saying, in terms, ‘bring it on’.

I have wondered about the agency in Holland that they used for the IVF treatment. Is anything known about it? Does it have an impeccable and compltely ethical track rcord? Or not?

maybe there is no body? They are just so cock sure of themselves. This has to be because they know the body will NEVER be found……..What if o brien is the perpertrator? Imagine if he hurt her, then the hid the body in his own apt or car? Ans the mccnaas knew nothing? I doubt this and really believe the mcanns guilty , but its not impossible.

13 cos he wasnt?

As to ‘theyve taken her’ - surely ‘Maddies not there’ or ‘She’s gone’ unless suspicious previously - but to admit suspicions that the kids might be targetted is to raise the question, why the heck leave them exposed like that?

I think the reaction - trying to change what she said - is the most suspicious thing.

there would be nothing suspicious indeed if he was seen, as he lives in the neighbourhood.

Fingering Murat again.? Tut tut.

Wish this would all end now.’Fess up so we can all move along….

14
Tony Bennett Says:
December 1st, 2007 at 9:38 am
———————————————-
tony, where is the suggested info which purports that the girls were born on the same day?
births have to be registered whether born in the UK or overseas. births are pretty much a matter of public record as far as i know. birth certificates for adopted children still show d.o.b. if not parents details as far as i can tell.
i have no issues with DNA suspicions. there may well be some issues here.
i am not against you. i just want to know why you think the girls are twins and were born at the same birthing

Hi all
Mr, Carvalho says in his book that M. wasn’t born ,in England

And in the end the love you take is equal to the love you make…

The Beatles, via Doonesbury

21 Ferdinand Says:

“Shouldn’t she also have said “Someone has taken Maddie.”, because “her” could have also referred to Maddie’s little sister. Why was she so sure that the tapas-8 knew that Maddie was meant, and not Amelie?”

…furthermore, “someone” would sound as if it was only one person, while “they” would obviously refer to more than one person. But she couldn’t have known whether it was just one person, or more than one.

And finally, even if Kate considered it highly unlikely, there was still the possibility that Maddie had wandered off.

So put that all together she should have shouted:

“One or more persons have most probably taken Madeleine!”