——————————

Mods and Admin

Ok , prove it, use your journalist expertise and prove it!

“Who’s who in Team McCann
Esther McVey, 39

McVey has been friends with Kate McCann since they went to school together and is a board member and spokesperson for the Find Madeleine Fund. A former television personality - she appeared on GMTV and in programmes such as 5’s Company, The Heaven and Earth Show, Shopping City and Channel 4’s Nothing But The Truth with Ann Widdecombe - McVey now runs a PR firm in Liverpool, and hopes to become a Tory MP at the next general election. A former girlfriend of shadow culture minister Ed Vaizey, she narrowly failed to win Wirral West in 2005, losing by about 1,000 votes to Labour’s Stephen Hesford.”

Meejician Says

‘…. I now know that AN Other has been rather less than truthful about his/her educational background,’

*********************

There are lies, damned lies, and …….. C.Vs

No one here stated that they believe this.

You are a liar to write this, and may be subject to a lawsuit, Kris. Are you familiar with the law in your state?

I do not approve of your personal attacks, Kris. I made no assertions that require evidence.

May I suggest that you
1) get away from your computer, and get more exercise
2) stop constantly eating junk food
3) learn to read
4) give up journalism, you have no talent

Look at the McCann’s behavior if you want to “see how it could be done.” You are correct that there is “great risk” but IMO it was not the McCanns’ decision to make — they were persuaded or pressured to follow this course of action. Notice that the “great risk” falls upon the McCanns, but they may have had no choice, for the alternative could have been presented as a definite conviction on murder charges, proof of sedation and other heinous crimes. Quite possibly, if they did not agree to the plan, the corpse would not have been hidden for them, etc.

The “great risk” does NOT fall upon whoever has decided on the plan , however (T10, or whoever you imagine it). It’s not likely the McCanns could have been persuaded of such a plan unless their guilt was fairly extensive. For instance, if (hypothetically) T10 is a paedophile drug addict who has killed Madeleine, the McCanns are unlikely to take such a great risk. Yet even in that case they could have been persuaded that the risk was not too great, in comparison with charges connected with (hypothetically) selling sex services of a child, sedation of a child, child abuse and neglect, drug orgies, etc.

I’d assume T10 is just as anxious to get away from the mess as the McCanns, but he is more powerful, and it is not his child.

Even if this mystery man killed Madeleine, the McCanns are stuck not being able to rat on him, without having their own crimes fully exposed. If Kate is accused of killing Madeleine, she would be constrained to fashion a defense that leaves T10 (and Dianne Webster) out of the picture. So is this good news for pro-McConns? — a scenario in which Kate is “innocent”… of murder, anyway.

All hypothetical speculation.

The impulse is to assume they stayed in Portugal to pretend that they were determined to find the girl. But I think it is likely that they were not in charge of the decision. Someone had decided to make sure there was a media circus with the spotlight on them. What would “normal” parents have done? Probably stay for a while, (a month maybe?) and then AFTER ANSWERING ALL POLICE QUESTIONS, ETC return to work back home, dejected. No normal parent would want to be over-seeing a huge enterprise supposedly designed to get everyone in the world looking for their daughter — especially when police advised them that such publicity would endanger the child, not be helpful. The McCanns are not merely abnormal, they are incapable of imagining what normal people might be like. Thus they allowed someone to persuade them to stay there basking in the “limelight” until it shone too brightly and burned them.

“But if the cadaver dog story is true, then I suspect she was killed in Portugal at the resort, and then her body was moved around. But did it all happen on the last day of the trip? Seems doubtful. Perhaps it happened earlier.”

I agree that the corpse evidence is crucial for this — otherwise we would have the McCanns bringing a corpse with them (not impossible, seeing how deranged they are). If someone persuaded them to do such a thing, maybe they did. The girl could have died in England, and in fact the Mark Warner resort was then chosen as the spot to announce her disappearance. I don’t know if the forensics could explain this (for example could blood result from handling of a corpse, etc). If they planned to carry a corpse with them, perhaps they had some documentation with them (as doctors) giving them permission — otherwise too risky. Anything is possible with the McScams.

But I think the girl died on the first day there, and that T10 is involved.

Does anyone think T10 is a Jehovah’s Witness, and that there is a connection between Michaela, Murat’s girlfriend, and Brian Kennedy (also a Jehovah’s Witness)? How did Murat meet his girlfriend? Who introduced him? T10?…

I’m on my Palm out on the town so will make this brief. Governor Connally (not Connolly) was injured in the limousine with Kennedy. James Teague was a bystander injured by another bullet. Please read all the facts in that case. My friend is a top Kennedy Assassination researcher and Teague is his friend. Read all the facts and you’ll find Mr Teague.

“It would be interesting to ask that Guardian gal about when she last actually saw Madeleine, and how could she be sure it really was Madeleine at all? She herself wrote about how identical the blonde British children looked.”

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but O’Donnell FALESLY gave the impression that she knew Madeleine, by blabbering on about how she became “friends” with the McCanns. But she merely had dinner at the “doctor’s” table on Wednesday, and even had to leave from that early. She notes that one time she could not recognize Madeleine in a group, leaving the reader with the impression that this was because she could not see clearly at that time, or some such. The fact is that she had NEVER MET MADELEINE, and had NEVER SEEN HER. That is why she had no idea which girl in the group was Madeleine.

Indeed, when the police (in O’Donnel’s account) asked her about the photo, her response was ‘that is the girl you are meant to be looking for’. She does NOT say that the picture is of Madeleine. She can’t, because she does not know. She could only assume. That little phrase was obviously one of the snippets required by whoever commissioned her to write. How strange that O’Donnell is blaming the police for not knowing who Madeleine is, when she herself has never seen her.

How many people saw “Madeleine” at the PDL? Just T9 and the nannies, who were told that ‘this is Madeleine’. All other witnesses said they were even surprised to learn that the McCanns had children.

“I had considered it early on and discarded the idea, but there are so many holes now apparent, and the photo work that Stevo and others did raises the real possibility…”

Another thing O’Donnell mentions is the “Madeleine” bag hanging on a peg. (bag with her name on it) Presumably it contained items a child would use at the creche — non-perishable– and was left their every day. Why was that the only one left there? Everyone else apparently took their bag home and brought it each day.

Answer: the stand-in for Madeleine (for example Ella) would use that bag, but the parents would not want to be seen carrying a bag with Madeleine’s name on it, in case they ran into someone who would be inquisitive. This might depend on who was dropping off/picking up “Madeleine”, Ella’s parent or Madeleine’s parent. Too bothersome, so better to just leave the bag there. Just a guess.

December 17th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
629 bountyhunter
14 feet deep could also be a well
body in still water has been mentioned…
******************************************

This was Christine ( the Medium) who said Maddie would be found after a search at a dilapidated farmhouse, where there would be clues to follow, and that she was in “still water” - as opposed to the sea or a river .

Goodnight all. Remember to be polite and careful about what you say
—-
you are a dear, rest well.

I also think it would have been pretty impossible to organise things so quickly as well as appearing “normal” at dinner. I don’t really support the idea that she never arrived in PDL and that another child stood in for her. I think that would have been taking a very great risk and can’t see how it could be done. Children of that age know their own names very well and would have been vociferous about any puzzling changes. The day or two preceding 3 May would make more sense.
———————
I agree that she likely arrived, but a day or more proceeding is possible for whatever incident. IMO, I don’t believe it was a planned.

Remember to be polite and careful about what you say

Start>Run>tracert for the route from your computer to their current location in cyberspace

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whois for how to find more technical details

…Or just ask a moderator… they self-report extensive alcohol abuse (like many journalists), but always appear to be friendly, focused and informative (unlike many journalists).

Dr O’Brien, for example, who spent only a very brief time in public view at the Tapas Bar, is a specialist in ‘emergency’ medical intervention.

I also think it would have been pretty impossible to organise things so quickly as well as appearing “normal” at dinner. I don’t really support the idea that she never arrived in PDL and that another child stood in for her. I think that would have been taking a very great risk and can’t see how it could be done. Children of that age know their own names very well and would have been vociferous about any puzzling changes. The day or two preceding 3 May would make more sense.