How would you know?

The Portuguese authorities were informed by the FSS that the results of the DNA tests were inconclusive, the Portuguese asked for more tests on the inconclusive tests, do people really believe that there is DNA evidence or indeed is there any evidence.

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

Yes, I believe there us evidence. Like you however I don’t know what this evidence is, nor the role DNA will play in any trial(s). Let’s wait and see if the case comes to trial(s).

A dreadful crime(s) has/have been committed against an innocent three year old girl, Madeleine. The people closest to her know rather more about the events leading up to and following her disappearance, in my opinion.

The only way to uncover the truth about their knowledge is via a trail(s). Of course, these very same people have been attempting to rubbish the investigation, people associated with the investigation, the evidence, etc, etc. In my opinion, it is whatever secret(s) about their lives that the McCann’s and possibly their friends, do not wish to “come out” that is their real motivation in preventing this case ever coming to trial(s). Madeleine’s fate has long since been a secondary consideration, in my opinion.

The only reason the Mccanns have been mad suspects is because of botched up DNA testing and straight out inexperience on the polices part, Im sure if there was anything concrete they’d be more than suspects by now! As for Murat, not even he knows whys hes a suspect.

You appear to be Hell bent on an all-out confrontation with an alleged “rogue Moderator”.
Is this the equivalent of a rampaging She Elephant?
Firstly, there are No rogue Moderators.

The prurient, grubby and dubious, theme you persist in reviving re this particular photograph is both contrived and unacceptable. The discussion and argument you present as being in the name of free speech are both a nonsense and I suspect you are well-aware of that.
My decision is that the issue is not suitable and not acceptable subject matter for here. You may find another much racier site would welcome your theorem. We do not.
I have been been made aware of it and have watched the cut and thrusts here with an increasing disquiet re motivations.
This is not an automaton decision and I state I agree with the Moderator.
Do not return to the subject. It will not be accepted and any further individual attacks because of a Moderator’s decision will end in a great sadness.
I doubt that sadness will be the Moderator’s.

and, just in case you have a doubt, I remain the Administrator.-agw

To Hideki

Hideki, your reference to ‘wayward’ moderator has been duly noted, perhaps clarify which of the 5 Mods and Admin you feel is wayward.
The subject of paedophilia has been banned and you directly informed of it some weeks ago.

If you do NOT believe the abduction theory , why do you persist in posting on the subject of paedophilia?

We were quite precise when we said we do NOT want to attract paedophiles to this site, yet you seem to ignore the wishes of the site owners time over time.

Your post has been pulled yet again, by another of the wayward moderators, the ones pulled yesterday were deleted by wayward Admin, today we are urging them to comment before deletion.

We don’t have answers from the police yet - but we do have 3 suspects from them. Would anyone trust a Murat sponsored investigation?

—-

Hideki,

(FYI, the “conversation” with Pilimary was about her stating that there were lots of photos of the child taken by professional photographer(s), in her opinion. I disagreed with her.)

Now, the following comments are not about any photos, but about your statements addressed to me:

Can you please show me one post where I have made “abusive comments”, as you claim?

Also, if you remember well, I am not pro-anybody. I’m just seeking the truth and gathering information to form an opinion when I see fit.

Hideki

“I have put your latest post into Moderation… I have to leave for work now. The other Mods may decide to allow your post after reviewing it.”

Fine, but why do you NOT put Cheryl’s and Daisy’s posts on the subject in moderation? If they continue to make comments, then you are presenting a one-sided view. JMO.

351
Daisy Says:

“Sorry, Pilimary, but which photos exactly are you referring to? There is obviously one professional photo which is the family shot with all of them sitting in front of a white (I think?) background. There is one more photo which apparently was taken by Mr. Grover, but I don’t see any other. Can you be more specific please, as I don’t agree with you.”

You don’t agree, and the Moderator has stated that he/she agrees with you and will remove any further posting on the subject.

Why are you pursuing this questioning, Daisy, when the Moderator has stated clearly that speculation about photos being sexually suggestive will not be tolerated, and will be removed?

There are lots of photos with make-up applied to Madeleine — if you don’t see it, then fine, you have your opinion.

But it is interesting that pro-McConn people like you come on this forum making abusive comments that people who DO see inappropriate poses and excessive make-up are “desperate”, etc. And how surprising that the Moderator actually took sides with an abusive pro-McConn poster and banned discussion of the issue.

Now that discussion has been banned, YOU continue to ask about it.
WTF is that about?

I have put your latest post into Moderation

I have to leave for work now. The other Mods may decide to allow your post after reviewing it.

Mods and Admin:”Daisy, we are in agreement with you on this topic, and further posts concerning it will be unapproved.If you see any more, please ignore them.”

Can I get a confirmation that this subject has been banned from discussion? Or is this just a wayward moderator, forsaking neutrality, and siding with the pro-McConns on this issue?

418
Cheryl Says:

“Saw those comments re the ‘ice cream’ pictures and all I did was wonder about their taste in ‘movies’ in their ‘telling’ remarks!”

Yet another pro-McConn making comments about posters who have posted about inappropriate pictures — even though Mods and Admin have announced that the topic is VERBOTEN.

If I am not allowed to state that the ice cream around the mouth may have been presented to look like a soft porn “cum shot” (in the original photo), why are those who abhor such a suggestion still allowed to post on the subject?

What is very odd to me is that IF photos of Madeleine were made with paedophiles in mind, and IF there were a lot of paedophiles who knew the girl, THEN we could assume that the McCanns may be correct with their insistent assumption that a paedophile was responsible for the abduction.

So I’m surprised all the pro-McConn people are NOT saying that the photos look “too sexy” and that the photos may have been in paedophile’s photo collections. This speculation SUPPORTS the Official McCann Abduction Fantasy.

“Sorry, Pilimary, but which photos exactly are you referring to? There is obviously one professional photo which is the family shot with all of them sitting in front of a white (I think?) background. There is one more photo which apparently was taken by Mr. Grover, but I don’t see any other. Can you be more specific please, as I don’t agree with you.”

You don’t agree, and the Moderator has stated that he/she agrees with you and will remove any further posting on the subject.

Why are you pursuing this questioning, Daisy, when the Moderator has stated clearly that speculation about photos being sexually suggestive will not be tolerated, and will be removed?

There are lots of photos with make-up applied to Madeleine — if you don’t see it, then fine, you have your opinion.

But it is interesting that pro-McConn people like you come on this forum making abusive comments that people who DO see inappropriate poses and excessive make-up are “desperate”, etc. And how surprising that the Moderator actually took sides with an abusive pro-McConn poster and banned discussion of the issue.

Now that discussion has been banned, YOU continue to ask about it.
WTF is that about?

……”"…….May 1st/2nd is most likely IMO.”
***********************************************
Tinsel Says: 897 /January 3rd, 2008 at 3:18 am

…..”"…..I am beginning to agree that things went wrong before May 3–..”"..

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

Welcome to the 2nd of May. ..the only way..

January 3rd, 2008 at 2:55 am
Denise

And if the McCanns had locked the door/ got a babysitter/ put the kids in the creche/ stayed in the apartment, Madeleine wouldn’t have got away. They’re the ones to blame here!!!

890
Denise Says:

January 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 am
If the portugese police were onto it that night Madeleine would not have got away, they are the ones to blame here!!

_________

REPLY: Karen, that is true. Whatever happened whether by a stranger or whoever by leaving those children alone that opened the door, so to speak, to whatever then took place…. However, Denise what you say is true also. That whole first investigation team was not prepared nor appeared even capable to handle such a situation from the very beginning. In fact, I remember reading the statement given by the new investigator, who replaced the first investigator, or maybe a higher up, that this was the first case like this they had handled over there. That is why they had to start from the very beginning with much time gone by and very valuable time that had been wasted by the first team with their ineptness. A true and dedicated investigator does not waste valuable time taking long lunch hours, imbibing with his cronies and making loud remarks for people and press to overhear and thus repeat for public consumption, which was his intention that is so obvious and was so obvious. This whole tragedy came about by parents stupidity in neglecting their children, at the least, thus through their stupidity opening the door for possibly an unknown party taking the child left alone, and then an investigating team totally inept in performing their job properly. As an aside, I have often wondered if any discipline measures have been or will be taken against the first investigator of this case. But then, we’ll never know that answer.

Im sure the Mccanns didnt pay M3 to release the statement that Madeleine would hopefully be home by Xmas! They are paying them to follow up what the police didnt do. After all we certainly have no answers from the police!

How is being a schoolgirl quaint? Not, that I am, I’m 19 and at Uni. But 35 is old for a sudden lurch into into kidnap, rape and murder (or even child trafficking). You’d think he’d start with porn, a child in his family or social circle, a girl in her early teens… that’s the usual path.

Where as - not that I favour it being the McCanns - a domestic disaster, a career and reputation saving cover-up and a media addiction - are more plausible.

Or - and I sort of favour this theory - it was someone who worked on the complex or a burglar.

They’re definitely paying M3 to release statements that throw the suspicion on anyone but the McCanns, even to the extent of releasing info about Madeleine sightings and random Pria paedos that have already been dismissed by the PJs.

Yes I know the Irish couple are talking to M3, but they also talked to portu police. Do you think, maybe the Mccanns are paying this couple to say this??

“The Pain of being Payne”

It was Mathew oldfield who did the check at 9.30 pm

Mr Payne was 6.30

But why are you looking at smoke and mirrors May 1st/2nd is most likely IMO
***
Thanks for the clarification on the 2 guys.
I’m just saying that the McCanns want these two men to say that they saw Madeleine on May 3 late in the evening to corroborate the abduction story as they are telling it.
I am beginning to agree that things went wrong before May 3–thus the many tennis lessons and herky-jerky dance of the kid-checking Tapas.