Sue

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > > Indeed Narnia but I would say there are other > factors at play here > > 1) This particular thread makes a lot of people > uneasy. Argue all you like, it does. The sooner it > disappears the better xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Is this not just your personal opinion? Do you know what everybody who is reading the thread but not posting is thinking? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 2) It's upsetting not just for the readers but the > main participants, including the OP, appear to be > getting ever more agitated - to what end? Noone is > going to prove anything here, but the agitation > will continue. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Again, how do you know readers are upset, apart from those who have posted? My "agitation" (though I would term it frustration) was solely due to one other poster who persisted in posting material which a) made it clear she hadn't properly read my posts and b) just kept repeating the same stuff over and over again even when I had answered her points previously. How do you know the agitation will continue? Why is it necessary to prove something? Isn't a forum supposed to be for debate? I have stated why I started the thread, and it wasn't to prove anything. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > 3) From a forum perspective, the prospect of > someone saying something libellous on this thread > is higher than usual - again for all pain and no > gain xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yes and that is why I have tried to be very careful in how I have phrased my posts, and have also tried to stick to information which is in the public domain via the police files, rather than to information from other sources. I would say that the main libel here is in DJKQ stating that I had said that the McCanns killed their daughter, when I have said nothing of the kind. She has refused to remove this statement, as you can see in her posts. I have asked admin to remove it but have had no reply.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The thread spans five months and kind of > chronicles all the developments at the time. You > might find some of the comments of > interest....maybe. xxxxxxxx I doubt it. I was a member of forums devoted solely to the McCann case at the time. I've got no interest in reading or rehashing old stuff. I'm solely interested in what is known at the moment.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I've never been a fan of the Pogues since arsehole > sang with Van Morrison and changed the lyrics of > G.L.O.R.I.A xxxxxxxxx I didn't know that! What did he change them to?

Oh well if it's from 2007 I won't bother looking. Virtually everything about the case was speculation until the police conclusion and files were made public (or the parts of them that the police made public, anyway).

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The McCann debate has been had before in here. > For more than 5 fekkin pages too > xxxxxxxx Where? If I'd known that I wouldn't have started a new thread. I just did a search on McCann, but all that came up was the thread about young kids cycling to school by themselves, in which a comparison was made to this case. Is that what you mean?

katie1997 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Exactly the point I was trying to make earlier > Sue... xxxxxx Sorry, what is? ETA: Sorry Katie, I posted this before you edited your post above, ignore this post!

Fair enough Sean, but if you look through the sequence of posts, you will see that almost all my posts have been in response to points made by other people. If I don't reply it looks as if I am agreeing with them. :-S ETA: and if the organisations you mention say the same thing, and the press is withholding factual information (you surely aren't comparing this to David Icke's lizard theory?), then isn't that a bit worrying, regardless of who the organisations are?

Chick Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue you are sick and need professional help. > Please drop this thread. xxxxxxx Eh? What in your opinion is the evidence a) that I am sick and b) that I need professional help? Why should I drop the thread just because you don't like it? What is wrong with disseminating information which is already in the public domain but which the British press is on the whole ignoring? ETA: I have explained above why I started the thread. Please read the post. How does that make me sick?

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Grow up ffs....JC.....(and stupid smiley at the > end)....... xxxxxxx Why exactly are you continuing with this, DJKQ? I have explained above why I started the thread. Now you have descended to personal insults.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Truth or > theory...which is it Sue? xxxxxxxx I think this is where I just give up. You don't seem to have properly read any of my posts on this thread. Nor do you seem to grasp the fact that I am saying that I think that one particular THEORY, looking at available indicative (ie NOT CONCLUSIVE) evidence is the MOST LIKELY in this case, and that I COULD BE WRONG because UNTIL FURTHER EVIDENCE IS FOUND nobody will know. And that IF further CONCLUSIVE evidence comes along then we will know which THEORY, if any, was proved right, and what was the TRUTH of the case. And if that sounds patronising, then in this instance, and this instance only, it was meant to be, because I am at the point of making a lot of personal comments about you which I would sorely regret later on.

------------------------------------------------------- > DJKillaQueen Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- >.something you seem > unable > > to accept or comprehend xxxxxxxx And that's completely unpatronising, yes? :))

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >And whilst I admire your > crusade there are a ton of journalists who will be > the first to know if anything new comes to light, > and inform us all. It's their job after all. > > xxxxxxxxx Are you serious? Have you read my post of 02.33 above? Sometimes it seems as if you fire off posts without having read a word I've said :-S

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Bellenden Belle has put is succinctly. The replies > are obsessive and now patronising too. > > Sue, I keep replying with the same counter > argument...because the theory you keep listing > details of is flawed...something you seem unable > to accept or comprehend xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Pots and kettles here, DJKQ, I think. But at risk of again being called patronising, you don't seem to understand what a theory IS.

huncamunca Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I could tell what is is now privately considered > the generally accepted story behind this - > gleaned from someone who works closely with very > senior British coppery on intelligence matters, > but Wont, as it would send some posters into a > frothing, excitable frenzy. > xxxxxx Oh for God's sake :))

Bellenden Belle Wrote: > What exactly do you hope to gain by this thread > Sue? Why are you putting so much time and energy > into this? I'm actually more curious about your > response than the actual Mccann case. xxxxxxxxxx I have spent three years being very frustrated at the lack of objective reporting of this case in this country, not just in the tabloids but in the broadsheets as well. Whether that is due to the laziness of journalists in regurgitating press releases from the McCann's "spokesman", due to fear of litigation even for printing actual objective facts about the case, or some other reason, I don't know. In particular, I have been outraged at the way the Portuguese, the Portuguese police, and Sr Amaral in particular, have been slagged off and called names - bumbling, sardine munchers etc - as if they were some sort of Keystone Cops (they were probably called that as well, somewhere). The publication of the wikileak makes clear that there was British police involvement. That was not a secret before, but it was not exactly trumpeted by the press, who preferred to whip up the public's xenophobia by suggesting an incompetent foreign police force was not properly investigating a little girl's disappearance. It was the wikileak which initially led me to post on here, combined with Sr Amaral winning his appeal which enabled him to continue publishing his book in Portugal. I wanted to put some information out to counter what people have been fed by the press about the case. I'm not talking about the obviously fictional stories, I'm talking about a one-sided view which has mostly concentrated on "abduction" (though it is very noticeable that the word "disappearance" is being more widely used now). I'm not sure that will satisfy the posters on here who seem to think I'm on some sort of witch hunt, but at the end of the day I want to see the truth emerge about what happened to a little girl who has disappeared. If that truth is that she was hauled out of an apartment window by a stranger, then so be it.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- The other point of > interest is the Irish couple who saw a man heading > towards the beach with a child held in his arms. > xxxxxxxxx Ah yes, the Smith (I think his name was Smith) sighting. I've carefully avoided mentioning the Smith sighting. The McCanns have been strangely quiet about the Smith sighting, which hasn't been publicised amongst all these other "sightings" of Madeleine all over the world which are so beloved of the gutter press to keep their circulation up. What you fail to mention, DJKQ, is that when Mr Smith saw video footage on the news of Mr McCann carrying one of his younger children off the plane when the McCanns came back to England, he apparently realised that the man he had seen carrying a child (whom he had assumed was sleeping) on the night Madeleine disappeared was probably Mr McCann himself.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > You are right about the bias of those sites > Taper...none of them take an objective look. Sr > Almara is the closest to objective because he is > trying to piece together a theory that might make > sense from some of the pieces......but it's all > circumstantial. There are plenty of other sites which slag off Sr Amaral and treat the parents as saints. Anywhere where there is discussion of the case, as here, is going to divide opinion. That is why I posted last night a link to the McCann Files, which as well as opinion also have a great deal of the actual undisputed factual evidence available, such as witness statements. > I can totally understand why Mrs McCann would want > to beleive in abduction. You have, again, missed the point. The point is that she immediately claimed that there had been an abduction, rather than coming to the more likely conclusion that her daughter had woken up and wandered out of an apartment which according to Mrs McCann's own account had been left unlocked.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But Sue has presented NO evidence Impetuous...just > a theory presented by a Portuguese Police > inspector who worked on the case - who let's not > forget was fired as a result. He was not "fired as a result", he was taken off the case because - and this is from memory - he made comments about British involvement in the case to the press, and his superiors didn't like it. His replacement came to exactly the same conclusion as Sr Amaral. You can read the conclusions which the police investigation came to, which were published when the case was shelved. If you can't be bothered to find them, but would rather just continue firing off inaccuracies on here, then I'll find them and post them here. As a theory it's > plausible, just like many other theories, > including abduction but there is no hard evidence > to back up any of those theories and so to > conclude anything from it is just assumption. > No-one knows what really happened that evening and > probably won't until a body is found, if ever. Why do you have to keep on making the same point over and over again? And why do I have to keep on reiterating that yes it's a theory and has to be a theory because as you say there is no conclusive proof, and abduction might be a theory as well, as might being carried away by aliens, but there's no evidence for either of those whereas there is indicative evidence for accidental death and a cover-up. > > It's perfectly normal for cases to be closed when > they have nowhere further to go and then be > re-opened if new evidence comes to light. That is > where this case is at. Yes, the case has been shelved for lack of sufficient evidence at the moment. What's your point? > Thank goodness we do have courts to decide on > these things and the days of mob lynching are > over. Again, what's your point? Who's suggesting a mob lynching? Why do you keep on posting on here, saying the same old stuff over and over again, when you made what you said were your final words on the matter last night? It's just getting really boring, tbh.

mockney piers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Keep rubbing that groin with the base of your hand > sue....ooooh tapas 11 *sweat sweat* uh uh maddie's > DNA *grunt* xxxxxxxx Why are you being so offensive to me on this thread, mockney? I have already said that I have an interest in this case, and have had since it was first publicised. Do you not have interests in things? Is that somehow different, in your superior case?

taper Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Guilty as charged then xxxxxxxxx Mrs McCann had every legal right to remain silent, and quite obviously that does not make her guilty of anything. However if as she claims there was an abduction, it does seem strange that she would not answer the questions.

During eleven hours of questioning, Kate McCann exercised her right to remain silent and did not answer 48 specific questions. She answered only one question (the very last one) - was she aware that by maintaining her right to silence she might harm the hunt for Madeleine. These were the questions: 1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch? 2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn?t answer) 3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents? 4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa? 5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine?s disappearance? 6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted? 7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ?Tapas? and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment. 8. Why didn?t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn?t you ask them later on? 9. When you raised the alarm at the ?Tapas? what exactly did you say and what were your exact words? 10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ?Tapas?? 11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah? 12. Who contacted the authorities? 13. Who took place in the searches? 14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine?s disappearance in those following minutes? 15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance? 16. What does ?we let her down? mean? 17. Did Jane tell you that night that she?d seen a man with a child? 18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted? 19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way? 20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs? 21. Who did you phone after the occurrence? 22. Did you call Sky News? 23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor? 24. Did you ask for a priest? 25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine?s features, by photographs or by any other means? 26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie?s bed without moving? 27. What was your behaviour that night? 28. Did you manage to sleep? 29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling? 30. What was Madeleine?s behaviour like? 31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication? 32. What was Madeleine?s relationship like with her brother and sister? 33. What was Madeleine?s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates? 34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked? 35. What is your medical specialty? 36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services? 37. Did you work every day? 38. At a certain point you stopped working, why? 39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness? 40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children?s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy? 41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine?s custody to a relative? 42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication? 43. In the case files you were shown canine forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 47. When confronted with the results of Maddie?s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn?t explain any more than you already had? 48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter?s disappearance? And this is the only question which she answered: Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter? A. ?Yes, if that?s what the investigation thinks.?

Mick Mac Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sue wrote: > > > Their version of Gentleman Soldier still makes me > > laugh every time I hear it :)) > > " > > It's of a gentleman soldier as a sentry he did > stand > > He saluted a fair maiden, by a waiving of his > hand > > So then he boldly kissed her and he passed it off > as a joke > > He drilled her up in the sentry boxwrapped up in a > soldier's cloke > > xxxxxxxxxx It's not so much the words which make me laugh - he doesn't change the traditional words used in other versions much, if at all - it's the way he does the two voices, especially the woman's - "Oh come my gentleman soldier, and won't you marry me", for example, in a high pitched squeal.

I'm going to bed now. DJKQ, please don't post again unless you have something constructive to add, it's a waste of both of our times. Thanks.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The only person responsible for Madeleine's > disappearance is the person that took her or knows > what happened to her. > > Thankfully it's a rare thing. xxxxxxxx Jesus Christ. You can't give up, can you? Yet more "final words"? You've edited the post of 11.19 that previously just said "Whatever ..." to say something else completely :)) So - let's be clear about this - you don't think that the McCanns were in any way responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine, despite leaving her alone at night, night after night? Words fail me. Really.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Anyway...my final words are xxxxxxx You have to have the last word, don't you? If you haven't got anything more to contribute to the discussion, why bother? Why say these are your final words and then go on to say more? ETA: Oh, I see you've now removed your last post.