December 29th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Grand Finale

You mean the killers might have a contact in the undertaking business? The October clues mentioned a “friend in church” but not a friend in undertaking.
**************

I have mentioned before seeing a photo posted by Stevor or Ian, I think, showing a crematorium under the auspices of McCann-Healey.

December 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
123. i-dont-believe-them.

Great post and very true. Even Mr McCann backs up your points according to David James Smith.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3040094.ece
*************

I am catching up with back postings so sorry if the points raised in The Times article have been dealt with. I feel the author has systematically tried to eliminate the validity of so many points raised by bloggers, by putting a very innocent and pro-McC spin on every aspect.

1. G not playing tennis from 4.30 because of Achilles injury, so why did he need MOldfield to check on Kate and the children?
2. Emphasis on glass of water before a beer before wine in the Apt, before consumption of wine at dinner - the quantity of bottles previously stated now being reduced to 6 and only 4 opened.
3. Interesting that Cuddlecat was a gift from Jon Corner - it made such a memorable prop.
4. Statedd that at 9.30 O’B found is daughter sick so JT returned to deal with her and O’B went back to the table, having only been away for 10 mins. No mention of his supposedly requesting a change of sheets and it previously being stated he was away for 50 mins.
5. Police supposedly called at 10.15 and it now being asserted that Sky were not alerted to the disappearnace until 7.30 the next morning, hearing from GMTV.
6. “It has been suggested” that the HRD dog was treated differently in the McC Apt from other Apts,( but dog nevertheless “supposedly” identified blood behind the sofa and under the tile). Likewise it is implied the dog was almost enticed into finding bodily fluids in the McC’s hire car (even thogh they were there to be found).
The article goes on in this refuting of evidence vein and is about as impartial as we could expect. No doubt it is hoped that it will be give due credence by the many who have only a superficial interest in the case because it has been written as being ‘authorative’ and appears in The Times.

You ask for the difference between the quad bike father and the Mc’s.
Well simply put my darling, he was with them and they were having fun.
Madeleine was alone and was probably terrified.
Um now let us see what the difference could be - loved and cared for versus unloved and abandoned.
Oh Maria, Maria.

“With all due respect, Ciara-Louise, I have quoted serious scientific research findings …”

Jane, try reading the whole articles, instead of quoting a sentence that on its own seems to support your hopes and wishes that Kate has a cadaverous cavern.

Cadeaverine is only present in vaginal fluid that has been subjected to laboratory manipulation with various chemicals. After treatment by these chemicals, the fluid is then analyzed for the presence of amines. One article you cited was talking about using chromatography to do the analysis. They could use sniffer dogs, and modify the Whiff test into a Sniff test, I suppose, but they are analyzing and quantifying the presence of various amines, cadaverine being just one.

There just isn’t any relevance to Kate’s vagina, except as good fodder for a few jokes. The idea of cadaverine oozing out from there, and staining the spare tire well in the Renault, might be suggestive of some awfully imaginative sex play, I must admit. How many couples were going at it in the boot of the car, I wonder.

A number of readers have said they were about to eat, but after reading your report, they were so disgusted they decided to refrain from having any sex at all. Please be more considerate of others, Jane.

I found it worthwhile and reassuring to read the comments that follow that article. Thanks for taking the time to point them out and summarize their content.

I could suggest further revision to your “21 Reasons”, but only from the perspective of style, not that of content. With regard to content, an ever evolving thing, I leave that to you and the other experts - yes, experts - on this forum.

I did not feel it right to make substantive changes, without permission.

Re Sally Clark - I remember the day she was found guilty and the venom the Press spewed on her. She was pure evil as far as they were concerned. I remember feeling completely indignant because, reading through the case, there seemed to be no real evidence against her. And the only forensic evidence, that at least one of the children had a bacterial infection which could have caused his death, was not shown to the jury.

Meadows, in my opinion, should have been given a long prison sentence, as should David Southall. I have seen the way experts like this work - it all gets very personal to them and in the end they are operating a vendetta.

The one good thing that has come out of this tragic case is that at last doubt has been thrown on what some of these doctors say.

See Jane, what are you worried about? Any suspicion about the McCanns is just a malevolent sick fantasy according to the British press. What can us freaks do up against that attitude?

You should see the comments below this article.

42 anti and 6 pro (3 of the pros are from the same anne from the USA)

Thanks for your affirmation, Maria.

***********

I love the word ‘affirmation’. It’s so kind of phallic, while at the same time suggesting cult.

December 30th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Jane 565

I’ve just skimmed through today’s posts. Yours have been outstanding. You make some crucial points of principle which I can’t help wanting to affirm despite my decision not to discuss the case itself here any more!

……………………..

Thanks for your affirmation, Maria.

Happy New Year to you too!

MEEJICIAN

Jane’s posts “irrational”??

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

I thought you’d decided to leave.

Is this just a protracted ‘hand on the door handle’ moment, as in B movies?

If so, can you let us know how long this take is, so that we can leave it on the cutting room floor when we do the final edit?

Meanwhile, those of you who support the irrational abduction theory had better start making sense, and should attempt to prove that your worrying confabulations have some grounding in reality. Otherwise I might have to prescribe a gentle anti-psychotic……..

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

The groundless allegation, the conspiracy theory, is that Madeleine McCann was abducted.

There is no evidence whatsoever to point to this fantasy in the minds of these doctors (39), as being a verifiable fact.

That’s OK! I can’t do those face thingies at all

Well….New Year is the time for resolutions…I WILL try….honest!

MEEJICIAN

Jane’s posts “irrational”??

Really have heard it all now!

Good night all.

We’re gossipping, get over it.

It wont effect Saints Kate and Gerry, unless they read it, and if they do they’re still not getting as much abuse as Tom Cruise gets on YouTube.

—————————-

Mods and Admin

So what was the point of the Panorama programme and of Bridget O’Driscolls statement? They were only ever raised in connection with the McCanns. Or are they not to be discussed by posters on here?
…………………………

Of course they should be discussed - in a reasonable manner - I’ve even tried calling obscene posters like Hideki ‘dear’ in the hope it might elicit a more reasonable response, but I still get a foul mouthful of abuse back.

‘So what was the point…’? In the absence of my brain, I’m exhausted and just off to bed, I would say: to show that there really is no rational explanation for many of these groundless allegations