I totally agree with your statement. I am a single mum too. It is hard work and I have to push myself to the background. But it is worth it!

I am home tonight. All my friends are out doing things. My four year old is already asleep. I am here for her. It is because I want to be here for her. The Mc Cann’s have taken a big risk. Not a lot of parents would have done this. They pay a high price now and the only person who really got desperately hurt was this innocent little girl and her brother and sister of course too, who might never see her again.

Britain would have lost the war if it was not for the Americans “butting in”…you need a history lesson..or better still watch “A Fish called Wanda” and crazy American Kevin Kline..Thats where we “crazy” Americans get our history..from the movies ( Yeah believe that one)..his remarks exemplified the “crazy” American…do hope you put this debate to bed…Cheryl you are in over your head.

Your retort as it stands was insignifcant and truly an overeaction to what was stated…. doubt it will serve any purpose to participate in your convoluted dialogue….what I said will suffice for lack of interest in what you have to say on that subject. will continue to comment as I see fit.. hopefully you will have something plausable to say…

December 10th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Cheryl

Hopefully you have found a discussion /sparring partner in Meejician?

____________

Interesting and intelligent person, June. See you on the Forum shortly.

Hullo, all–who wrote the part about how the Tapas 9 may have moved Madeleine’s body to Morocco, to be planted on the property of a pedophile there?

That is some brill thinking–really!

Is this from Hideki, or PeterO? Would explain why kate “just knew” that Madeleine had been taken to Morocco.

They would have had to have had help from outside the Tapas 9, though, wouldn’t they? I am not sure of the timeline….who was where….maybe someone could have quickly taken the body to Morocco in that same hire car, which would explain the corpse fluid….or else, they moved it much later from one car to another, which would also explain the corpse fluid….

But could it have happened? Oh, yes. Wonder what Stevo thinks.

As for the “treated like a princess” comment from Gerry, that indicates some inner-circle deal, and that could be anywhere, even a royal inner circle. Remember the wild, crazy, infamous book written by the American Baronness Sherry about her marriage to a Belgian aristocrat? i will see if I can find the reference.

Hopefully you have found a discussion /sparring partner in Meejician?

December 10th, 2007 at 7:20 am
877
Cheryl
Meejician

Cannot figure out why war policy has anything to do with Ramsay’s or McCann’s?
It is like comparing apples to oranges!
If you are discussing war policy that is a whole other issue.To state personal info as to what the USA ’s policy might have been during the war is absolutely ludicrous
_________________________
REPLY:
Good Morning! What war policy are you speaking of? What did you take out of content in a missive I was sending to Meejician? I do not believe I stated I gave what you JUST inferred personal info as to what the USA’s policy might have been during the war. Further since you have taken it upon yourself to respond to a missive I sent Meejician kindly get it straight what ALL we were discussing, what he said to me, my responses to him, and what other subjects and examples were brought up in discussions. We exchanged several missives I suggest you read them all!

Talk about how misunderstandings and misstatements get started on here - this is a prime example!

“Are you the bloke at the party who likes have all eyes on him when he speaks, boring everyone in to a coma with the sound of your own voice?

Are you the guy who demands to know who everyone is, while no one wants to know who he is? The guy too drunk to remember who is who anyway?

“Looks like i’ve got some stiff competition in here.”

Looks like you better fix yourself another stiff drink…

That is my point ..The points made by Hideki were valid against the McCann’s so called abduction theory…But it is my understanding that gerry presumably thinks that Madeleine is being cared for like a princess. Again, there is no concrete evidence of any of this. Unless as stated they(McCann’s) have certain knowledge we the public are not aware of???

I’ve just had a quick look back to when Garth arrived yesterday (I was here a short time only). Once ‘he’ was here the bickering started big time. I dont know why Mods and Admin allow people like ‘him’ to post - he doesnt add to a debate, just starts attacking people.

“paedophilia, which I accept is sadly a possible factor in this case…”

The McCanns have INSISTED that it is a factor. And so have their hired detectives. Most people would think of it as one of many possibilities for an abduction (versus revenge by someone who hates the McCanns, a motive of ransom, etc). But from Day 1, the McCanns KNEW it was a predator. How truly strange!

Edit…..

“There is, in my opinion, a world of difference between raising the spectre of a dreadful subject such as paedophilia… and the need to explore the specific details of possible ‘acts’ or their consequences. ”

Edit…

“The specific details of any alleged acts and their potential consequences can be no more than wild speculation in this case.”

This depends on what you mean by “specific details” (a redundant term, BTW, for specificity is what makes a detail a detail) and “wild speculation” (why not just say “irrelevant” speculation?).

Edit…

Could it be that the girl’s body was moved to Morocco, and that Metodo3 is being fed information that might eventually allow them to find the body? Perhaps the body would be “planted” on the property of someone who is known to the police as a paedophile?

None of this is “wild” speculation. It’s the McCanns who have given us WILD SPECULATION — speculation (without the slightest basis) that there is a paedophile abductor. Why shoule we not speculate about why they made that wild speculation?

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

Hideki – I have to say that is quite possible one of the most balanced and objective discussions of this subject I have ever read. Thank you.

Nor can I really argue with your line of reasoning. You have described a thoroughly plausible chain of possible events. All we currently lack is the evidence to prove it.

Perhaps the only possible alternative I can offer as to why the McCann’s and M3 should consistently push the paedophile line, in my opinion, is as some kind of bizarre “sympathy” sham/there has to be a bogeyman etc.. i.e. An extension of the PJ’s accident theory and the McCann’s are trying to shift the blame/gain public sympathy. As you have commented several times, the dreadful fate that awaits any poor child at the hands of a paedophile person or group is really sickening beyond belief. If the McCann’s are allegedly fabricating the whole paedophile “story” simply to deflect from their own culpability, then I think this is possibly “sicker” than the poor girl having actually suffered such a fate. All just my opinions, etc.

You make very good points in the case for/against McCanns’s abduction theory. Although I was under the impression gerry thought Madeleine was being cared for by the abductors and treated like a princess?

Cannot figure out why war policy has anything to do with Ramsay’s or McCann’s?
It is like comparing apples to oranges!
If you are discussing war policy that is a whole other issue.To state personal info as to what the USA ’s policy might have been during the war is absolutely ludicrous.

The McCanns have INSISTED that it is a factor. And so have their hired detectives. Most people would think of it as one of many possibilities for an abduction (versus revenge by someone who hates the McCanns, a motive of ransom, etc). But from Day 1, the McCanns KNEW it was a predator. How truly strange!

So we have the McCann leaping TWICE to conclusions that normal people would not have jumped to. The FIRST is abduction itself; as several have pointed out, Kate did not even bother to check adjacent apartments, etc. She has herself stated that she knew right away it was an abduction. The SECOND is that the abductor is involved is a member of a paedophile ring. Even had there been some clear signs of a possible abduction (which there were not), what normal person immediately assumes that a paedophile was involved? And yet this is what the McCanns story has been from the outset.

Now the McCanns gave some nonsensical reasons for immediately knowing it was an abduction: cuddle cat placed high on a shelf, shutter of window open. They lied about the shutter being forced open, and then changed their story from locked to unlocked doors so that their abductor had a way in to the apartment. Jane Tanner added her “suspect”. None of this points to immediately knowing that there was an abduction; it points to gradually changing and embellishing one’s story to facilitate the belief that an abduction took place. And absolutely nothing in this points to a paedophile.

Though the McCanns made a nonsensical effort to show why we should believe an abduction took place, they have NEVER SAID A WORD about why they firmly believe it was a paedophile.

This can only mean that they are HIDING SOME KIND OF KNOWLEDGE about what happened, knowledge that would lead us to believe a paedophile was responsible. Yet they cannot possibly share this knowledge without implicating themselves, directly or indirectly.

At the very least, the McCanns claimed a “predator” was responsible because someone told them to claim that. In that case, what I have just said then pertains to THAT person.

So IMO the McCanns had to have had at least an indirect knowlege of paedophile activity and an indirect acquaintanceship with paedophiles.

This is the MAJOR FLAW of their fabricated story, IMO. It’s very interesting that not a single interviewer asked the McCanns what evidence they had that a paedophile was involved.

“There is, in my opinion, a world of difference between raising the spectre of a dreadful subject such as paedophilia… and the need to explore the specific details of possible ‘acts’ or their consequences. ”

Yes, there is a difference. First, let us remember that the McCanns are the ones who “raised the spectre of this dreadful subject” and they are also the ones who are silent about any details that led them to raise it in the first place.

“The specific details of any alleged acts and their potential consequences can be no more than wild speculation in this case.”

This depends on what you mean by “specific details” (a redundant term, BTW, for specificity is what makes a detail a detail) and “wild speculation” (why not just say “irrelevant” speculation?).

There are some basic details that are extremely relevant to speculate about. It is very relevant whether or not an intruder sexually assaulted the girl in the apartment (even if he then abducted her). Such an assault would provide an extremely strong motive to get rid of the body. The nature of the molestation could explain blood or other bodily fluids being found. The police would be far more likely to pay attention to any samples of semen found in the apartment, for example.

Another poster recently pointed out that the McCanns thoroughly cleaned their apartment, just before claiming that a paedophile abducted their daughter. This behavior is just utterly bizarre and suspicious.

Later on, through Metodo3, the McCanns apparently expanded their knowledge of paedophiles, claiming that the abductor paedophiles were most likely in Morocco. Again, not a shred of evidence was presented that there are suspicious paedophiles there. These “wild” claims were based on a few sightings of blonde girls, later discounted. No witnesses provided any information that would indicate paedophilia.

Metodo3 has no history of sleuthing paedophile rings — how do they know paedophiles in Morocco are responsible? Again, it could be that they are just saying what they are told to say — but then WHO is tellling them to say that and WHY?

Could it be that the girl’s body was moved to Morocco, and that Metodo3 is being fed information that might eventually allow them to find the body? Perhaps the body would be “planted” on the property of someone who is known to the police as a paedophile?

None of this is “wild” speculation. It’s the McCanns who have given us WILD SPECULATION — speculation (without the slightest basis) that there is a paedophile abductor. Why shoule we not speculate about why they made that wild speculation?