UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Chinagirl on August 27, 2013, 02:44:36 AM
-
Anne: .....Madeleine has probably gone from that planet 6 years ago
Angelo: .....she is most probably dead.
"Probably" does not mean definitely. Yet the two aforementioned posters, together with many other [ censored word] would deny the possibility that Madeleine could still be alive, and therefore decry the parents' efforts to find her.
Decent people find such an attitude to be despicable.
-
Anne: .....Madeleine has probably gone from that planet 6 years ago
Angelo: .....she is most probably dead.
"Probably" does not mean definitely. Yet the two aforementioned posters, together with many other [ censored word] would deny the possibility that Madeleine could still be alive, and therefore decry the parents' efforts to find her.
Decent people find such an attitude to be despicable.
You're dreaming, Chinagirl, saying Madeleine is probably dead doesn't kill her nor prevents people to hope she's per chance alive. You're the best illustration of this.
-
Anne, b oth your post and Angelo's went on to decry efforts made to find Madeleine, or to keep her profile high in the public perception because she "probably" is dead. This is the attitude that is despicable as probably does not mean definitely, and while ever her corpse is not found or there is no resolution to her disappearance, common humanity should decree the possibility of her still being alive, and therefore efforts made to find and recover her.
Just for the record, I am a pro who thinks it is likely that she was killed by someone subsequent to the abduction and her body disposed of at sea, which is why it hasn't and never will be found. However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable, and consider it imperative that the police services of both the UK and Portugal do everything in their power to find the child, or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
-
Anne, b oth your post and Angelo's went on to decry efforts made to find Madeleine, or to keep her profile high in the public perception because she "probably" is dead. This is the attitude that is despicable as probably does not mean definitely, and while ever her corpse is not found or there is no resolution to her disappearance, common humanity should decree the possibility of her still being alive, and therefore efforts made to find and recover her.
Just for the record, I am a pro who thinks it is likely that she was killed by someone subsequent to the abduction and her body disposed of at sea, which is why it hasn't and never will be found. However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable, and consider it imperative that the police services of both the UK and Portugal do everything in their power to find the child, or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
I'm not decrying the high profile efforts, I just think they aren't productive : if Madeleine is alive, she's fine and if she's fine, one day she'll find out who she is. It sounds very fairy tale, but it can't be discarded I suppose.
The sea brings back bodies one day or another. Sometimes it takes years for a bone to appear in a fishing net. A French doctor went sailing in high sea with his family on a rented boat. The boat sank after some days. The doctor was thought to have killed his wife and his 2 kids and to be living far away (quite a few sightings), because the ocean had brought remains of one child and then some time later of the other. But years after a bone of the father was found.
The priority is to know what happened to Madeleine. Actually I don't see how she can be searched if what happened to her is unknown.
-
Anne: .....Madeleine has probably gone from that planet 6 years ago
Angelo: .....she is most probably dead.
"Probably" does not mean definitely. Yet the two aforementioned posters, together with many other [ censored word] would deny the possibility that Madeleine could still be alive, and therefore decry the parents' efforts to find her.
Decent people find such an attitude to be despicable.
Absolutely not the case. There is no more evidence available that she is alive than there is that she is dead. In the vast majority of cases where a child is abducted and is not found within a short period of time the long term prognosis is not good. There will always be hope and nobody will blame you for expressing it but one has to be realistic as Anne and myself have suggested.
Your assertion that you are somehow decent by suggesting she is still alive whereas those who suggest she is probably dead are not decent renders your argument without basis and purely semantic.
Lets hope that SY do not go down that particular road.
-
Just for the record, I am a pro who thinks it is likely that she was killed by someone subsequent to the abduction and her body disposed of at sea, which is why it hasn't and never will be found. However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable, and consider it imperative that the police services of both the UK and Portugal do everything in their power to find the child, or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
I agree completely with the first part of your post as this is the most likely scenario. Where we disagree is the who and why.
-
I'm not decrying the high profile efforts, I just think they aren't productive : if Madeleine is alive, she's fine and if she's fine, one day she'll find out who she is. It sounds very fairy tale, but it can't be discarded I suppose.
The sea brings back bodies one day or another. Sometimes it takes years for a bone to appear in a fishing net. A French doctor went sailing in high sea with his family on a rented boat. The boat sank after some days. The doctor was thought to have killed his wife and his 2 kids and to be living far away (quite a few sightings), because the ocean had brought remains of one child and then some time later of the other. But years after a bone of the father was found.
The priority is to know what happened to Madeleine. Actually I don't see how she can be searched if what happened to her is unknown.
It doesn't necessarily follow that "if [she] is alive, she's fine and if she's fine, one day she'll find out who she is." One can certainly hope that this is so, because the alternative (being alive and not fine), is too horrible to contemplate. But whether she is "fine" or not, efforts still need to be made to find her and return her to her parents where she belongs. This is the reason the McCanns make efforts to keep her profile high in the public conscience.
So what if current high profile efforts so far have been unproductive? And if none of the many possible sightings have achieved anything? This is a common (and inexplicable) anti/sceptic criticism - that none of the sightings have turned out to be Madeleine, and no publicity has yet yielded any positive information about her whereabouts. I simply cannot understand the peculiar reasoning here. What does it matter if a million abortive sightings are made over the next x number of years - it only needs one to turn out to be Madeleine, and all the so-called "wasted" publicity effort will have been worth it.
The sea does not invariably "give up her dead," though often it does. If the corpse was disposed of far out to sea outside the influence of tides and onshore currents, it is unlikely ever to be recovered, or it could wash up on the shores of a country that wouldn't recognise its significance.
-
Go on, then tell us how. How did they manage to get rid of the remains and then go to dinner as if nothing had happened?
Who said the 'remains' as you put it were disposed of before dinner ?
You are very callous in saying that.
Meanwhile, there is a substance that covers approx. 70 % of this planet's surface.............................
-
Anne, b oth your post and Angelo's went on to decry efforts made to find Madeleine, or to keep her profile high in the public perception because she "probably" is dead. This is the attitude that is despicable as probably does not mean definitely, and while ever her corpse is not found or there is no resolution to her disappearance, common humanity should decree the possibility of her still being alive, and therefore efforts made to find and recover her.
Just for the record, I am a pro who thinks it is likely that she was killed by someone subsequent to the abduction and her body disposed of at sea, which is why it hasn't and never will be found. However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable, and consider it imperative that the police services of both the UK and Portugal do everything in their power to find the child, or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
If there is no evidence to support your theory, why do you think it's the most likely scenario ?
-
That is not what I said.
-
That is not what I said.
If you are replying to me, that is exactly what you said and I quote :
'However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable,'
-
I have to wonder if English is your first language ....
-
I have to wonder if English is your first language ....
Just answer the question Chinagirl. Why do you think the mostly likely scenario is that Madeleine was killed and disposed of at sea if there, in your own words 'there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so' ?
-
I am n ot obliged to answer your question when you are misquoting my original statement.
-
I am n ot obliged to answer your question when you are misquoting my original statement.
Then please point out where I am misquoting you ?
-
It doesn't necessarily follow that "if [she] is alive, she's fine and if she's fine, one day she'll find out who she is." One can certainly hope that this is so, because the alternative (being alive and not fine), is too horrible to contemplate. But whether she is "fine" or not, efforts still need to be made to find her and return her to her parents where she belongs. This is the reason the McCanns make efforts to keep her profile high in the public conscience.
So what if current high profile efforts so far have been unproductive? And if none of the many possible sightings have achieved anything? This is a common (and inexplicable) anti/sceptic criticism - that none of the sightings have turned out to be Madeleine, and no publicity has yet yielded any positive information about her whereabouts. I simply cannot understand the peculiar reasoning here. What does it matter if a million abortive sightings are made over the next x number of years - it only needs one to turn out to be Madeleine, and all the so-called "wasted" publicity effort will have been worth it.
The sea does not invariably "give up her dead," though often it does. If the corpse was disposed of far out to sea outside the influence of tides and onshore currents, it is unlikely ever to be recovered, or it could wash up on the shores of a country that wouldn't recognise its significance.
The parents can evidently do all the "efforts" they want to. As nobody does things or makes others do them without a motive, they must have one, I don't doubt it, but I don't think it's "high profile".
Searching a young child without a clue and after so many years is like looking for a needle in a haystack.
Reason requires to discover first why she vanished and how, instead of passionately sticking to the abduction from bed doxa that no evidence supports.
About your statement on the country that wouldn't recognise..., do you have a source ?
-
...
Meanwhile, there is a substance that covers approx. 70 % of this planet's surface.............................
Yep we all know, but Madeleine didn't go into the sea.. Not during that period anyhow and there is no reason to believe that she is not alive today. I have pointers that she was alive well after the abduction ... and where she was in the early days ... the actual spot. And she wasn't at PdL as all the red herrings were indicating <<< time wasters <<< If I were SY, I would be following up the peeps who put about these red herrings, and examining their motives..
-
Now you are online Chinagirl could you please point out where I misquoted you earlier ?
-
Quote from: Chinagirl on August 27, 2013, 03:40:17 AM
Anne, b oth your post and Angelo's went on to decry efforts made to find Madeleine, or to keep her profile high in the public perception because she "probably" is dead. This is the attitude that is despicable as probably does not mean definitely, and while ever her corpse is not found or there is no resolution to her disappearance, common humanity should decree the possibility of her still being alive, and therefore efforts made to find and recover her.
Just for the record, I am a pro who thinks it is likely that she was killed by someone subsequent to the abduction and her body disposed of at sea, which is why it hasn't and never will be found. However, because there is as yet no proof, or even evidence that this is so, I am absolutely supportive of her parents' right to hope that she is still alive and findable, and consider it imperative that the police services of both the UK and Portugal do everything in their power to find the child, or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
If there is no evidence to support your theory, why do you think it's the most likely scenario ?
I am bumping this post as I have not had a satisfactory answer to where I have misquoted Chinagirl. If this post doesn't illicit a response members will have no other option but to assume that she was not misquoted but does not have the manners to admit she was wrong
-
I am not wrong; I was misquoted; other members, including you, can assume what you like.
-
I am not wrong; I was misquoted; other members, including you, can assume what you like.
As you are unwilling, or unable, to substantiate your claim that I have misquoted you then I can only assume that you are standing by your initial post that you believe Madeleine is dead and her body was disposed of at sea.
-
Faithlily, do please stop stalking me, and read what I actually said. Of course she could be dead - even her parents acknowledge that, and if she is, then I think her body could have been disposed of at sea. I do not believe her parents had any hand in her possible death. If she is dead the death occurred after the abduction and at the hands of the abductor(s). However, because there is no proof or even evidence of this, I am fully supportive of her parents' right to believe she may well still be alive and findable, and the relevant police services should use every means at their disposal to find her,or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
I DID NOT state that she was "most likely" to be dead, which was your misquote. Read what I actually said.
-
Faithlily, do please stop stalking me, and read what I actually said. Of course she could be dead - even her parents acknowledge that, and if she is, then I think her body could have been disposed of at sea. I do not believe her parents had any hand in her possible death. If she is dead the death occurred after the abduction and at the hands of the abductor(s). However, because there is no proof or even evidence of this, I am fully supportive of her parents' right to believe she may well still be alive and findable, and the relevant police services should use every means at their disposal to find her,or at the very least, ascertain what happened to her.
I DID NOT state that she was "most likely" to be dead, which was your misquote. Read what I actually said.
Now you see Chinagirl that wasn't so hard, now was it ?
Of course your answer is disengenious to say the least. You said it was 'likely' that her body was disposed of at sea, it is there in black and white for all to read. That you are now trying to claim that the word 'mostly' is the sticking point is nonsense as it is obvious from your post that you felt disposal at sea, of a dead body, was your theory of choice ie the scenario you felt was MOSTLY likely and you now claiming otherwise is simply playing semantics to get out of a tricky situation.
And that is my last word on the subject.
-
Yep we all know, but Madeleine didn't go into the sea.Not during that period anyhow and there is no reason to believe that she is not alive today. I have pointers that she was alive well after the abduction ... and where she was in the early days ... the actual spot. And she wasn't at PdL as all the red herrings were indicating <<< time wasters <<< If I were SY, I would be following up the peeps who put about these red herrings, and examining their motives..
I have never laughed so much recently. What nonsense Sadie. @)(++(*
There is no evidence that she didn't go into the sea just as there is nothing which points to her being alive after her disappearance. You are just making that up for the sake of it Sadie and it is making you look really silly. @)(++(*
The sighting by the Smiths is in itself evidence that the carrier was heading for the beach and the sea. You even admitted this in another thread some time back.
-
If there is no evidence to support your theory, why do you think it's the most likely scenario ?
The employment of logic and intuition that does not directly accuse anyone does not require the same degree of supporting evidence as assertions that accuse (such as themccannsdunit)!
CG's point is that, while she thinks that is the most likely scenario, she absolutely supports the right of Kate and Gerry to believe Madeleine is alive, and to continue searching for her.
Those who insist that theMcCannsdunit are under an absolute obligation to produce evidence of what they believe.
-
The employment of logic and intuition that does not directly accuse anyone does not require the same degree of supporting evidence as assertions that accuse (such as themccannsdunit)!
CG's point is that, while she thinks that is the most likely scenario, she absolutely supports the right of Kate and Gerry to believe Madeleine is alive, and to continue searching for her.
Those who insist that theMcCannsdunit are under an absolute obligation to produce evidence of what they believe.
If it was my child Ferryman I would never give up but and it is a sad but, one has to face the real possibility that she is no longer with us.
Six long years have now passed, there have never been any sightings of her and nobody has been identified as a suspect. It does not look good.
-
Leave the McCanns in peace, Ferryman !
The sceptics doubt Madeleine was abducted from bed. Since it is a mere hypothesis that no evidence whatsoever supports, that doubt is perfectly legitimate and can't be qualified as "blindness" nor "hate" nor "mental torture" nor "corruption".
-
The employment of logic and intuition that does not directly accuse anyone does not require the same degree of supporting evidence as assertions that accuse (such as themccannsdunit)!
CG's point is that, while she thinks that is the most likely scenario, she absolutely supports the right of Kate and Gerry to believe Madeleine is alive, and to continue searching for her.
Those who insist that theMcCannsdunit are under an absolute obligation to produce evidence of what they believe.
Here we go again .
The Mccanns have perpetuated the abduction scenario, without an iota of proof.
Remember the Portuguese journalist asking what proof there was, outside a court after one of the Amaral hearings, and both parents getting rather angry , with their cliched replies.
Tell me 'ferryman', without an abduction, what do we have left ?
-
Everybody here, whether pros, [ censored word] or sceptics, will answer the same ...
-
The employment of logic and intuition that does not directly accuse anyone does not require the same degree of supporting evidence as assertions that accuse (such as themccannsdunit)!
CG's point is that, while she thinks that is the most likely scenario, she absolutely supports the right of Kate and Gerry to believe Madeleine is alive, and to continue searching for her.
Those who insist that theMcCannsdunit are under an absolute obligation to produce evidence of what they believe.
I am not disputing that ferryman. The question I asked was why did she feel that disposal at sea was more likely than other scenarios.
-
If it was my child Ferryman I would never give up but and it is a sad but, one has to face the real possibility that she is no longer with us.
Six long years have now passed, there have never been any sightings of her and nobody has been identified as a suspect. It does not look good.
I don't know how you can say 'there have never been any sightings of her' there have been many reports of sightings, whether or not it was Madeleine we will never know with a lot of them. The police came there was no child to see, there was no footage on a camera, they went away. That doesn't mean it wasn't Madeleine does it?
I think the garage sighting of a child with a man is very believable.
-
I am not disputing that ferryman. The question I asked was why did she feel that disposal at sea was more likely than other scenarios.
I'd have thought you'd have been intelligent enough to answer that for yourself.
Am I mistaken (in assuming you'd be intelligent enough to answer that for yourself)?
-
I have never laughed so much recently. What nonsense Sadie. @)(++(*
There is no evidence that she didn't go into the sea just as there is nothing which points to her being alive after her disappearance. You are just making that up for the sake of it Sadie and it is making you look really silly. @)(++(*
The sighting by the Smiths is in itself evidence that the carrier was heading for the beach and the sea. You even admitted this in another thread some time back.
No I am not making it up ... and it is up to you if you disbelieve me. There are strong pointers; several.
Yep I think it quite possible that Madeleine was carried down to the tiny beach / rocky cove after the Smiths sighting, but not to be disposed of, but transferred to a larger boat by a small boat that came in to pick her up. I believe this boat came in after a phone call, which was very probably made from the Staff Quarters .... but possibly from elsewhere.
It could have been this boat, but may not have been:
Excerpt from the Michael Shrimpton Report:
THE KIDNAP OF MADELEINE McCANN
16. In the afternoon of 3rd May the motor yacht Panic II, Dutch registry, owned by A (whose full details again have been communicated to AIVD in The Hague), pennant number P2006/39060, home port Hellevoetsluis Netherlands, built 1983, single-masted, single aluminium hull, length 10.2 metres, beam 3.3 metres, approximate standard displacement 3.5 tons, fitted it is believed with a 2-stroke diesel engine, positioned from Portimao, where she had arrived on the 1st, to Lagos. She waited there until about 1945Z, just before the marina was shut at 2000Z by lowering a lifting bridge, then moved out beyond the lifting bridge, where she was moored to a pontoon on the port side of the small canal leading to the open sea, where she waited.
SNIP / ---
According to the theory, Panic left Portimao at 21.15, having filed a destination of Albufeira. As no Albufeira record is on file she appears to gone past that port and on to Vilamoura where she arrived on 4 May, before leaving on 5 May to go back to Albufeira.
by Anon
Official Evidence of Michael Shrimpton's Report (http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.com/2009/08/official-evidence-of-michael-shrimptons.html)
If it were this Motor Yacht, it had suffivcient time to sail up the Atlantic coast to Sines and arrive there before dawn .... and sail back, quietly passing PdL and Lagos en route, to Vilamoura that same afternoon, 4th May 2007.
Then the hop skip and a jump to Albufeira the next day.
Entirely plausible .... and timewise fits in perfectly with the Carlos Moreira sighting at a roadside snackbar on the N10, due east of Lisboa. Have driven to both places and the times are totally feasible
Then it could, of course, be something to do with the Naomi Corlett, which some people find interesting., but altho there is interest in that, I dont have any timings or positionings to assess anything about it
Reputedly Sergey has connections with both boats .,.. is it tittle-tattle ? .... or an attempt to frame him? .... or genuine? How can we judge?
Or it could be some other boat altogether ... the name of which hasn't appeared on any websites that I am aware of
I see no reason to either believe, or disbelieve, Michael Shrimpton .... altho it is apparent his original document has been seriously altered, by silly additions, to make him appear a fool ... and devalue / undermine what he has said
,
-
I have never laughed so much recently. What nonsense Sadie. @)(++(*
There is no evidence that she didn't go into the sea just as there is nothing which points to her being alive after her disappearance. You are just making that up for the sake of it Sadie and it is making you look really silly. @)(++(*
The sighting by the Smiths is in itself evidence that the carrier was heading for the beach and the sea. You even admitted this in another thread some time back.
In the direction of the tiny cove or in an Easterly direction, Angelo. Let's get it right.
-
If it was my child Ferryman I would never give up but and it is a sad but, one has to face the real possibility that she is no longer with us.
Six long years have now passed, there have never been any sightings of her and nobody has been identified as a suspect. It does not look good.
No-body has been identified to US. This is not PT; we do not normally parade our suspects in public.
-
In the direction of the tiny cove or in an Easterly direction, Angelo. Let's get it right.
I think it's perfectly possible that Madeleine was removed by boat. It was certainly the quickest way of getting her away from Portugal and eliminated the danger of being stopped at roadblocks. I also think it is feasible that the abductor was holed up in a building somewhere waiting for instructions to take her to a boat at a pre arranged pick-up point and even possibly using that time to sedate her. Hence the delay between the JT sighting and that of the Smiths, who saw a man heading in the direction of the beach.
-
No I am not making it up ... and it is up to you if you disbelieve me. There are strong pointers; several.
Yep I think it quite possible that Madeleine was carried down to the tiny beach / rocky cove after the Smiths sighting, but not to be disposed of, but transferred to a larger boat by a small boat that came in to pick her up. I believe this boat came in after a phone call, which was very probably made from the Staff Quarters .... but possibly from elsewhere.
It could have been this boat, but may not have been:
Excerpt from the Michael Shrimpton Report:
THE KIDNAP OF MADELEINE McCANN
16. In the afternoon of 3rd May the motor yacht Panic II, Dutch registry, owned by A (whose full details again have been communicated to AIVD in The Hague), pennant number P2006/39060, home port Hellevoetsluis Netherlands, built 1983, single-masted, single aluminium hull, length 10.2 metres, beam 3.3 metres, approximate standard displacement 3.5 tons, fitted it is believed with a 2-stroke diesel engine, positioned from Portimao, where she had arrived on the 1st, to Lagos. She waited there until about 1945Z, just before the marina was shut at 2000Z by lowering a lifting bridge, then moved out beyond the lifting bridge, where she was moored to a pontoon on the port side of the small canal leading to the open sea, where she waited.
SNIP / ---
According to the theory, Panic left Portimao at 21.15, having filed a destination of Albufeira. As no Albufeira record is on file she appears to gone past that port and on to Vilamoura where she arrived on 4 May, before leaving on 5 May to go back to Albufeira.
by Anon
Official Evidence of Michael Shrimpton's Report (http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.com/2009/08/official-evidence-of-michael-shrimptons.html)
If it were this Motor Yacht, it had suffivcient time to sail up the Atlantic coast to Sines and arrive there before dawn .... and sail back, quietly passing PdL and Lagos en route, to Vilamoura that same afternoon, 4th May 2007.
Then the hop skip and a jump to Albufeira the next day.
Entirely plausible .... and timewise fits in perfectly with the Carlos Moreira sighting at a roadside snackbar on the N10, due east of Lisboa. Have driven to both places and the times are totally feasible
Then it could, of course, be something to do with the Naomi Corlett, which some people find interesting., but altho there is interest in that, I dont have any timings or positionings to assess anything about it
Reputedly Sergey has connections with both boats .,.. is it tittle-tattle ? .... or an attempt to frame him? .... or genuine? How can we judge?
Or it could be some other boat altogether ... the name of which hasn't appeared on any websites that I am aware of
I see no reason to either believe, or disbelieve, Michael Shrimpton .... altho it is apparent his original document has been seriously altered, by silly additions, to make him appear a fool ... and devalue / undermine what he has said
This was all checked out by the PJ six years ago Sadie. The owner of the Naomi Corlett confirmed that his yacht was not even in the area at the time.
Sergey was also checked out, he even had his phone bugged but the PJ could find nothing on him relating to Madeleine. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid? ?{)(**
-
This was all checked out by the PJ six years ago Sadie. The owner of the Naomi Corlett confirmed that his yacht was not even in the area at the time.
Sergey was also checked out, he even had his phone bugged but the PJ could find nothing on him relating to Madeleine. Back to the drawing board I'm afraid? ?{)(**
Oh are you suggesting that we should trust Amaral on anything? I dont.
Still other possibilities that I mentioned which could be so ... or Bernices suggestion is equally good.
Open your mind a little bit Angelo.
-
I don't know how you can say 'there have never been any sightings of her' there have been many reports of sightings, whether or not it was Madeleine we will never know with a lot of them. The police came there was no child to see, there was no footage on a camera, they went away. That doesn't mean it wasn't Madeleine does it?
I think the garage sighting of a child with a man is very believable.
I can say that because there haven't been any sightings of Maddie!! Every report was either false, mistaken or an attempt to extort money from the McCanns. Nuff said.
-
Sadie, I think you need to just wait and see what happens with the Met's investigation. You appear to be way too emotionally involved with this, and obsession really isn't healthy. Be careful.
Just wait and see? You are going way beyond the McCann's own investigations, and way beyond the contents of their book and their website - and there's surely good reasons for that.
Calm down 8(0(*
-
A shocking post shona.
I'm not sure if you mean Anne's original post, or my response. But, although I have huge misgivings about the McCanns, especially Gerry, I struggle when people make light of a situation that is every parents' worst nightmare. No wonder that you all feel so strongly. I understand where Stephen is coming from....basically, whatever happened to Madeleine is ultimately due to her parents. I'm sure that they weren't responsible for her death, but they WERE responsible for her loss. I also struggle with the fact that they seem to jump on the media bandwagon at every opportunity. Personally, I don't think that I would cope with the loss of a child as they did. And it breaks my heart that Kerry Needham never had the help, and high profile attention that the McCanns seem to milk at every opportunity. This is how I feel, nothing will change my mind, this is where I'm at. I'm sure they wouldn't have left their cash and jewellery on a bed for anyone to steal. And yes, I know that is not an original thought.
-
Please keep to the topic under discussion.
I have moved some posts from this thread but will reinstate them shortly under a new title.
-
I can say that because there haven't been any sightings of Maddie!! Every report was either false, mistaken or an attempt to extort money from the McCanns. Nuff said.
The sighting of the little girl in the garage with a man was neither, false, mistaken or an attempt to extort money from the McCann's. Nuff said.
-
My own view on this is that it would be highly unlikely that any abductor would parade their victim in public, whether it be in a taxi or a garage. If Madeleine was still alive after 3rd May 2007 she was well hidden and well away from prying eyes.
As for the theory that she was buried at sea which after all is the focus of this thread, it is a distinct possibility.
-
Sadie, I think you need to just wait and see what happens with the Met's investigation. You appear to be way too emotionally involved with this, and obsession really isn't healthy. Be careful.
Just wait and see? You are going way beyond the McCann's own investigations, and way beyond the contents of their book and their website - and there's surely good reasons for that.
Calm down 8(0(*
Yep, I have gone way, way past it.
Here I have limited myself. Just an odd theory here, and there, is just hopefully opening our perceptions and making us think more deeply
I am calm enough. No worries there, but thankyou for your concern 8(>((
-
Well after last night's efforts from you, I am no longer concerned ?>)()<
-
Well after last night's efforts from you, I am no longer concerned ?>)()<
That's fine then Lyall 8((()*/