1st June 2008
"Mum21,
I am convinced that Viv will eventually destroy and dismantle her own blog.Her and I have chatted since the DE days and I have always been openly friendly toward her and supportive of her views. However, if she can alienate me (as she most certainly did tonight), then she can probably alienate anyone. I can honestly say I have lost all respect for her now, and see her as little more than a jumped up conspiracy nut! (this is after over a year, mind you, of seeing her as free-thinking and analytical type of person). I resent being conned, and wish I'd never posted at her site. And I'm sure that others will soon enough come to the same conclusions". By Bianca
I sincere hope they do Bianca, but I am not holding my breath. If they can stay ensconced there when the comments have been designed to invent and see appalling abuse that just isn't there, then I have no hope for them at all.
The aim of today's story is to open as many eyes as possible to the vile tactics of that hell hole blog.
http://justiceformaddie.blogspot.com/2008/05/murder-case-mccanns-would-now-like-to.html
To replicate the relevant posts showing the sort of behaviour one can expect if they go against the vile grain.
To warn decent people who take the time and trouble to visit this blog, what they may have in store for them.
For those that have been maligned on that site today's story is to give you a right to reply and as we cannot go over there and do so, we are asking that we and others be able to do so here.
Todays story was suggested by Chinadoll - thank you China.
Supertroll said...
"I always knew that she was a bully and a resentful woman, but it was the day she gloated to an anonymous troll (me) thinking I was a McCann:
'But my children are alive and well'
That was the day that she showed how absolutely evil she is. Losing a child is the worse pain a person can experience, and she was gloating about that to someone she thought was the person who had lost a child.
She has since murdered that little girl a thousand times over with her and her perverted friend's sick theories which she knows that are lies, but that are allowed because they may cause damage to the McCanns.
There are really no words to describe such an empty vicious human being.
I am off, but will be back tomorrow. Good night everyone."
ST
02 June 2008 00:54
This is a one off only as a special request, for those that have been utterly appalled at the depravity and the depths to which this person and her ugly perverted followers have sunk and because this blog in particular has come under a sustained and vitriolic attack for months.
389 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 389 of 389Absolutely PMSL now.
I haven't seen helen for a while, I guess she is out working.
Mac flashing?
Joking apart, he has done that already and imo, he knew it would not go down too well with certain posters, but is so damned arrogant, he did not give a toss.
I hope he gets brought down a peg or two in due course.
Don't start on the Highway Code again Rosiepops lol
He is so arrogant that is probably his own ugly backside.
Anyway,
When I came on here this evening, I was in the middle of doing a post for the forum and I have it saved on my tab bar.
I best get it finished.
Goodnight Rosiepops
Sleep Well
I sent her up to grid between H9 and H 12.
I hope not Rosiepops,
That would be an even bigger aside to the more refined posters on that blog.
Goodnight
CK
x
Me too, must get up in the morning have things to do and an important meeting, need to get an early start but really looking forward to it.
Night China sleep well take care xxx
I hope she is on grid HP sauce (Happy Sauce) lol and just ignoring you
Rosie/China
I know you will see this later.
I was called away, pesky thing called work.
Hopefully catch up tomorrow.
Cheers
Diane
Good morning all,
I'm going to post here even though I'm sure none here will believe me - but if you took the time and trouble to visit Biancas blog you would see that what I write here is correct.
" ... but has clearly been blog reading all over the place as she pops up and agrees with Jojam, when Joajm pops up to specifically mention me out of the blue!
I took what swedishmum said to me on board and I let it go, yet she does this and this is not the first time she has done something like this to me either!" (Rosiepops 03 June 2008 23:34)
Yesterday I went on Bianca's blog to wish her luck with it. I also said that I believed "Anonymous" (who later turned ut to be Jojam) had a point when she said that she hoped Bianca could remove herself from the addiction to McCann blogging.
I specifically made clear that I DID NOT have anything to say about other posters but that I meant that Bianca would be wise to distance herself.
That is what offended Rosiepops. But since Rosiepops obviously is in control of not only her own writings and thoughts but of mine as well, I'm sure you will all prefer her interpretation of what was written.
Hi Swedish,
I believe you even if no one else does. I know what it is like when what you have said is misunderstood. Regrettably it has reached a point now where it seems impossible to post on more than one blog without coming under fire. I, like you, can see good and bad on all blogs and also like you found it difficult to find one where I could have my say without getting banned. To be honest I have now reached a point where I just pray for the day this case is concluded one way or another and all this name calling and nonsense stops. Hopefully then someone will set up a blog where we can all meet up for a chat about nothing in particular and when and if that happens I am sure when people really get to know each other they will find they actually get on very well with some they argue with now. I have never bothered myself with who is who, double ID's etc. If people get pleasure talking to themselves, sad as it is, they can do what they like. I have however observed how some have gone from posting sensible (although I do not necessarily agree with) posts to ranting like a moron. I fear some have lost their sanity over this and have lost themselves completely. Very sad and totally unnecessary as let us face it, none of this stupidity and name calling with bring the poor child back.
Have to dash now, hope we can catch up somewhere at some time and just be "normal"
Before anybody asks what good I saw on Viv's blog. The answer is, a lot of reasonable posters moved over from Alsa's site when it closed, because like me they had little choice. I personally was never really comfortable on there but got through by not commenting on some of the way out theories. I noticed many who I used to like to communicate with no longer posted and there were few left that I could talk to, you know the rest of the story, I got myself banned
I never expected to find Gina and Swedish chatting alone on this blog.
Now if I say hi 'cuckoos', you will, I hope, know I'm joking!! Because I am.
One would think by now that the police would have something however in my opinion I feel they all let down this little girl. Yes Kate and Gerry made the biggest mistake of their lives and they will take that to their graves. Sadly their lives are ruined what they once had is gone and that is truly tragic for all of them. The person who took her is the worst in my opinion and I don’t want him/her/them to get away with this crime however the errors made by the police have failed (in my opinion) this whole investigation if one can call it that. This has turned into a witch hunt by the police and public on this family however where is Maddie in all of this? Kate and Gerry have always said where is Maddie in all of this? Truly disgusting in my opinion which turns my stomach. The most important question is what are the police doing/done to find her?
Hi & Bye all!
Gian Lol…. I was not aware you got banned!
Hi Mandz,
I do the opposite to you, I do not go for a cuppa I come back with one so not here for long.
Yes I got banned from Viv's site because I told her I did not agree with something she said about Madeleine being abused by her parents. She said she did not mind me having opposing views, however Leigh let fly at me for using the blog as a chatline and I let her have it knowing full well it was a set up and I really did swear at her big time. To quote Leigh, "I don't give a damn"
Hi Tulip
Swedish and I knew we were cuckoos, however there are a lot of people who have not yet realized the have gone cuckoo:-)
Gina and Tulip,
How nice to see you both! And no offence taken Tulip, I usually only make the same mistake once :-) (not always but usually)
Though I must admit that I wonder if I have gone cuckoo when things I write is misunderstood in the most different ways. May be I should refrain from using a language that isn't my own. But, of course than my posts wouldn't just be misunderstood, they simply wouldn't be understood at all.
Well, seems I can't win whichever way I choose ...
Gina, hope you had a lovely time in US and I'm impressed that you managed to squeese in some server demolishing as well. Most of us would have been far too busy doing other things.
(I don't know if you're still on Mandz, but it's good to see you too)
Hi Swedish
Was just about to go and you popped up. Hope all is well with you. Yes, I am amazing. My ability to be at least five different people, I can blow up blogs in USA from Spain etc. etc. yet I cannot even work out how to get my avatar on.
Gina,
avatars are tricky (I think it was Tinkerbell who helped me)
Hi Swedishmum Gina & Tulip!
Gina!
LOL….! Pathetic they banned you for that!
Anyway off out now to enjoy the sunshine. Have a good day all…
Rosipops, I have no doubt you will delete this reply to you that I have also left on My Say blog.
Rosipops, I do not presume to consider myself morally superior to anyone.
Rosipops said "You only started to criticize me because I pulled you up over the way you over reacted and unfairly launched an attack on another poster."
No Rosie! I did not launch an attack on another poster, ther was a missunderstanding for which I appologised. You then proceded to attack me with false accusations that when asked to justify you could not, deleting my posts each time I asked you to. A case of 'Pot calling kettle black'
As to my interest in blogs, I look at them occasionally & sometimes become involved....I do not 'score them' as you put it.........I do however know how they can damage mental well-being.
I work within the field of mental health & see first hand the damage internet blogs, chatrooms & social networking sites cause to people who have an addictive personality or associated disorders.
I am therefore not as unqualified as you think..........although you may choose not to believe me.......it does not bother me what you choose to believe.
I do not hold any grudge against you or any other bloggers, life is to short for such nonsense.
Nobody suffering from any major disorders on this blog, Jojam. No addicts, no disordered minds -- at least no more than the general population as a whole.
It's your prerogative to tour blogs and make diagnoses if that's what floats your boat. I just don't think the blog mods here particularly appreciate hearing about them, that's all. If opinions required will ask for same.
However, if you want to observe some truly damaged minds I can point you in the direction of a few blogs that should keep your analytical skills honed for many a long and interesting hour.
Hi everyone,
I've never been utterly convinced that Madeleine was abducted. As I said many times on the DE website, I hope that Kate and Gerry McCann did not (accidentally or otherwise) harm Madeleine and subsequently attempt to cover it up in an astonishingly high profile way, but I'm prepared to believe that they may have done this.
My impression of Viv, Docmac, Leigh3 etc is that they started off from a similar viewpoint -i.e. an interest in the story and perhaps even an open mind - but gradually became convinced of the guilt of the McCanns. In my view they are now characterised by closed minds, i.e. a 100% belief in the stories leaked apparently by the PJ (e.g. the sniffer dog evidence) and a 100% disbelief of e.g. Jane Tanner. Docmac came up with a scenario which explained very convincingly the presence of incriminating material in the hire car. However, none of them have adequately been able to explain why, if there is so much forensic evidence, the McCanns remain arguidos after 9 months and haven't been charged with anything. Perhaps they are right and maybe charges are imminent, but I seem to remember Docmac promising major imminent developments back in December.
However, over the months, their view have become more and more extreme. Viv seems to believe that Gerry actually set up Madeleine's disappearance for financial gain, that Kate and Gerry did not want Madeleine (despite going through IVF). They are foaming at the mouth in anticipation of charges being brought against them even if the charges cover the abandonment issue. This to me underlines their vindictiveness and hatred for the McCanns.
Claudia is simply obnoxious - if you disagree with her you get a mouthful from her and are accused of all kinds of things. I was almost physically sick when I saw the "praise the PJ" blog...
I actually tried to post on Viv's blog - I quite enjoyed debating with them - in particular when not directly discussing the McCann case, I found that Docmac was quite an interesting person to chat with. But Viv clearly doesn't want any dissent on her blog - fair enough I suppose - and she didn't bother to reply to my email...
I would like to be able to post - especially when Viv comes out with "facts" that are basically exaggerations or simple falsehoods - and especially when she uses still photos to make sweeping judgements of the McCanns' attitude. If they smile, it displays them not caring for Madeleine - if they frown it displays that they can get very very angry - so angry that one could imagine them harming their 3 year old daughter...
They are entitled to their opinion - I sincerely hope that they are wrong in their judgement. My reading of the PJ's evidence is that they don't have any and that they are looking at every possible scenario. I find this particularly strange bearing in mind the forensics its purported that they have discovered...
somewhere the media stories depart tangentially from reality - we may never know the true story.
best wishes to everyone
Hugh
Well said Tulip,
I hope Jojam takes your advise
Jojam the internet maybe damaging if one is addicted however we are all sane normal people here who do take breaks (cuppa)however as Tulip mentioned we can point you to the unhealthy woolly thinking blog site? A psychiatrist would have a field day with them!
eeeekkk this is a tester am i doing this right??lol
clair yes you are!
Hughbforty,
Lovely to hear from you.
Indeed, after nine months, the pj still seem to be scratching their heads, or some other part of their anatomy.
In the interim, the McCanns have been given absolutely no information about the investigation, or indeed, been asked to return to Portugal, to assist further - which they continue to state they would, if the same were requested. They continue to do all they can to find Madeleine and inter alia, promote the Amber Alert system.
It is my opinion, that this couple have been treated and continue to be treated in an inhumame manner and the extension after extension of their arguido status, only adds to their torment.
I also believe, that the conduct of the pj and their pathetic and selective secrecy laws are further damaging Portugals reputation and has the capacity to affect their tourist industry - which could have a knock on effect on the average hard working Portuguese citizen, which would be a further outrage.
As for the blog you are referring, it certainly cannot stoop much lower than it has. As you say, not only do they manipulate the news/photos etc., but they also invent so called facts and theories that in some cases, I can only describe as being perveted/cussed and deviant in nature.
Best wishes to you too Hugh and I hope to chat again soon, either here or on our forum.
Notdoc in a mac,
As usual, nothing of any calibre coming from you, I see and certainly not your avatar.
Well done Clair,
You still around?
Hi Mandz - hope all is well with you.
Just going to sweep away the dirt!
Nice one Sass
And don't forget the air-freshener -- Febreze has a lovely fresh scent and is very effective.
Hi Hughbforty
I have never been convinced Maddie was harmed at the hands of her parent’s. Not because I think parents are not capable of such wickedness but because of the whole scenario – it just does not make any sense that a couple (doctors trained to save lives) would go on holiday with their friends and harm their child accidental or otherwise then call on the world media and ask for Scotland Yard and FBI to come and investigate their crime? Hide her on two separate occasions in an unfamiliar environment where police, public, dogs, and high media spotlight was on them. I also do not believe they got their friends to lie for them and family all risking their own lives and family. The fact that it has been so long and still three suspects convinces me even more so along with the deliberate leaks.
The catalogue of police errors are unforgivable and I think they are trying to cover themselves shift the blame and protect their tourist industry. Ameral should never have been allowed to take this case on when he is a suspect himself. Of course I cannot say 100% sure however it’s just my take on it. As Chinadoll said why have they not asked/requested the McCann’s back to Portugal? In my opinion the evidence I believe this is all circumstantial and perhaps manufactured.
Hi Chinadoll !
Nice to see you and good post as usual!
Good point you made the other day re: Mccann’s 18 texts where did they get this information from?!
That's better, the stench has gone!
Tulip,
Frebreze lllllllooooooollllll
I think it was necessary to open the doors and windows too.
Right off for my break ....Going for a walk to keep the mind sane and DVT away.....
Mandz,
Exactly, the things they have been accused of, via illegal leaks, if not so very serious, could read like some twisted comedy.
Nice to see you too.
Just been reading that Kate and Gerry may be planning a break away in the summer, good for them, after what they have been subjected to over the past 14 months I dont blame them one iota.
I wouldnt deny the twins a holiday either. Of course it will be painful for Kate & Gerry without Madeleine, its another milestone without her.
I just hope they are allowed to enjoy their break, where ever it maybe, in private.
I agree Tinks, infact I just made a post on our forum on the subject:-
Holiday Plans
The McCanns have done everything possible in their endeavours to maintain as much normality as possible for the twins. All their nursery school friends are probably excited about their holidays and chatting about same. They are a family for goodness sake and this is normal family conduct.
What annoys me, is the likely rationale behind the announcement of the holiday, as actually, it is nobody elses business but theirs.
My view on this, is that because of their arguido status, they have to inform the Portuguese authorities if they are away from home for more than five days. They know fine well that after doing so and jumping on a plane, a leak will appear from Portugal - probably reported by 24 horrors slating them for enjoying themselves whilst Madeleine remains missing - possibly accompanied by smiling happy photos of the family, as 24 horrors will have an undercover photographer waiting at their destination.
In this regards, I hope they manage to find a tranquil and private place to go (very private at that) where the slimeballs won't be able to milk this family further
Hi China
In my opinion, the McCanns are best to make announcements of what they are doing. For the most part, no one will care, but it definitely takes the sting out of any leaks that may surface from Portugal.
Like this holiday. Only true morons would see anything wrong with this holiday but as Calcite said, there will be something wrong with it but the anti's, either showing the McCanns dont care, or how dare they spend their own money in such a way, you know the usual crap.
But by announcing the holiday, it automatically removes all questions of it being secret, or underhanded or against the terms of the arguido status. IMO, the McCanns have been honest throughout the investigation, so it is no surprise to me that they would honestly tell that they are going on holidays.
I hope that they have a nice time and try to relax and show the twins some fun, away from home. It will be hard for Gerry and Kate, and I feel for them.
I see the lunatics have finally taken over the asylum, those people are really and truly unhinged. I just wonder who it is next that will have a very public breakdown.
With regard to the holiday, why should the twins not be allowed to have a happy family holiday?
However, it is not this that is getting to Vile, what she has realised is that her stupid fantasy posts about the McCann's being charged with murder are not going to happen and this has really p****d her off. She was positive behaving like a salivating dog on heat last week about this and now she realises it just isn't going to happen.
Dianeh,
I agree with every word you say.
The McCanns will continue to do the right thing whilst being wrongfully chained to the arguido status and at the same time, attempt to have a normal family life - as normal as possible, under the circumstances.
Hi there Rosie,
So she has finally twigged that she jumped the gun, yet again. A bit slow on the uptake don't you think?
Jojam
If you do not like to be criticized for making posts and attempting to diagnose someone over an internet, then I would suggest you refrain from making remarks like you made yesterday. How dare you mention me, who do you think you are? You do act morally superior and you are a hypocrite, because here you are yet again criticizing other people for blogging while doing exactly the same.
You work in that field? And the you enter a blog and make some flippant remarks about a serious mental health issue and about someone you have never met? Who the bloody hell do you think you are?
Don't try and wriggle out of it, you came on this blog and made a series of posts unfairly attacking another poster and I deleted your comments and you got annoyed and you had in fact caused a problem just a couple of weeks before and I did reply to you, you just did not like the answers.
Now go back to your self help group your chair is empty and take their advice and stop trying to diagnose me, you stupid girl, grow up.
I have read you on posting on Viles blog, how come you never went on there giving them the benefit of your moral superiority? Oh I did See you try it one and someone had a go at you and you behaved like the coward you are and totally capitulated. As much as Bianca annoys me at least she puts a name to her posts and she stands by what she says, as I do and as every other poster that posts here.
Same as you Swedishmum, you felt you had the right to comment about a post that mentioned me, it is not the first time you have done this, in fact you launched a completely unprovoked attack on me once on the DX. Stop being so disingenuous, you know you liked that ill informed uneducated post made by Joajam or you would not have commented on it, do you honestly think that people cannot see it?
If you want to post here that is fine by me, we do not agree and probably never will, but I am not afraid of that, but it would be nice if you could show a little respect, the same as I have shown you and others from 'that place'.
I am off now China, I have had a really long day and have another early start tomorrow.
Take care xxx
XXX God Bless Madeleine xxx
Tinks I agree they should go on holiday and try and have as normal a life as possible. It is up to them their call their decision their business and no one else’s. As you said they do have two other children to consider.
Hi Rosie, woolly thinking vile is truly one liar in my opinion. The utter garbage that comes from her is truly unbelievable and as for taking some photos of this heartbroken innocent couple and cutting and pasting their body parts and making up sick jokes is quite disturbing. The more she posts all the more to pass on.
As for holiday exactly they are damned if they do and damned if they do not so quite right McCann’s go for it.
Hi Mandz,
Whatever they do is wrong, so they best just suit themselves.
If they did not go on holiday they would be accused of not caring enough about the twins to take them away.
This is just because Vile has realised that her loony tunes blog, now looks stupid and irrational and full of psychotic comments and that none of those strangely disjointed people will have their dearest wish met, which is the McCann's charged with something they did not do!
Having realised this, the host who is a sandwich short of a picnic decided to say that three people have decided to change their story, which is errant nonsense. Apparently according to the loony three people went back to PDL last year to change their story on June 11th. And they based this on a report from that bastion on knowledge no other than the sewer rag 24 Horas!
This report was on 13th July 2007
"THREE friends of Madeleine McCann's parents confronted suspect Robert Murat over his alibi during a tense five-hour grilling.
Fiona Payne, Russell O'Brien and Rachael Oldfield told Murat they saw him near the McCanns' holiday flat just after Madeleine vanished - contradicting his claims he had an early night. The extraordinary face-to-face showdown was set up by detectives to discover whose story was true."
What a strange thing to do enter a room and have a five hour heated argument with then then only suspect and insist that he was in a place he says he wasn't, just 2 days after meeting in secret with the PJ and changing their stories.
Of course they have not changed their stories at all and 24 Horas is lying, just like loony Vile and the loony vilettes are lying.
They still maintain that they saw Murat outside this apartment and they have been joined by approximately another dozen people that also claim to have seen Robert Murat where he swears he wasn't. (After changing his official story once of course)
Rachel Oldfield has since said in a Radio 4 interview, that she has never changed her statement, this was about 2 months ago I think.
Still let the loonies on viles deceive themselves, they re all barking anyway.
I wonder if it because the PJ suspect that Murat was outside the apartment, is why he is still an arguido?
Funny phenomena this, the loonies make so much about the McCann's being arguidos, but they never mention Murat is still an arguido and the longest one too.
I sometimes wonder if the vile loonies are of this planet.
Rosie am I seeing things? I just posted to your below post however your post has now appeared below mine? Lol
Mandz
The comments and pictures on that site are so deeply disturbing that you know have to seriously question the mental welfare of the author of that blog as well as the co authors, which they all are, so in the event that if something should happen, they will all get into trouble. For those that think this is unlikely to happen because libel is a civil action, well they should think again, because what is happening on that blog is no longer a civil matter, it is actually criminal for a number of reasons.
I'm sure it will be dealt with in good time!
Bye for now...!
That Nasty, Twisted, Evil Pervert ECOLAB has just written this on the Vile site:-
Ecolab said...
Nancy
You might be very close to the truth!
Eight not seven sedated children in one room. Why not. A pact is made.
A lurking man outside monitoring the car park area! A free master bedroom - take your pick among the children!
A holyday to be financed - swinger rumors.
Loli pictures of Madeleine!
*they taken her*
David Paine: "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business."
David Paine: "We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."
They were all up to something very rotten - The Tapas 9/10. Ugly parentsship! I`m disgusted
Saturday, 7 June 2008 13:05:00 o'clock BST
I sincerely hope that other posters on that site, object to the content of the above post. Who would want to post alongside such filthy scum as Ecolab?
Please do the decent thing and speak up.
Hi China
I would like to say that I am surprised at the filth coming from that blog, but however, i am not, i have seen this coming for months and have been trying to warn people about it.
You would automatically think that no matter what we think or who did what that both camps antis and pros alike culd unite on this one thing and kick the likes of Ecolab into touch?
You would think that China, I would think that, in fact most moderate normal minded people would think this, but then those that post on that blog are not normal minded people are they?
In order so that she does not lose even more posters, the author of that blog is prepared to have paedophiles posting on there. Where are all the normal minded people?
If people cannot now see what the likes of notdoc, Viv and ecoli lab are doing on that site, then they really are as bad as them.
Don't forget China that Dolores was actually agreeing with the perverted paedophile talk on there last week!
I just do not think that there are any normal minded people on there.
I used to disagree with posters like 'I Can't Think Of a Name' and DrDoom and others on the DX all the time and they used to annoy me and I dare say I annoyed them, but never once have I heard them mentioning any filth like this, hell, I never even heard of this disgusting comments from Duncan of the mad Diddlydoo, it is doubtful that even Mum24 would have even written such depraved filth.
No wonder Dr_Val and all the others do not touch that filthy depraved blog with a barge pole.
So what does all this say for them rest of them that post on there?
Rosiepops,
It seems you are right so far. I have just popped in to take another look and guess what? Two and a half hours after that filth was published and they are having a discussion on football/sport.
Not a single comment has been made by any of the posters, so far, in objection of same.
I hope one or more of them will yet, find the strength to do the decent thing and speak up.
Quick hi and bye!
Now you have written that Rosie, what are the bets that a whole bunch of ex-Dx people are going to "turn up" and tell Vile what a "marvellous job" she is doing!!!
I would question every poster who backs up those sick thoughts/posts? They refuse the possibility of abductor/s they back slap police errors and take photos of this little girl who is still missing and her family and cut and past and brush up things that are not there and try and convince people these photos are real. Take Ecolab who said in a post something like: he was up all night and his alleged child asked “Daddy why are you spending all this time with your pencil and ruler staring at a photo of this girl”? I don’t buy it that he has a child however I don’t know. In my opinion I think people throw in these comments to make people think they are something they are not.
Hiya Mandz
Just looked at the sick psycho blog from hell and I saw Nancy had been talking amongst herself for quite a while.
I really wonder what they are like in real life on that blog. I would hope nothing like they seem to be.
They still haven't got the idea that the reason we aren't on the blog is because we are on the forum. In one of Nancy's conversations to herself she noticed that not many people post here. Well, duh, how many times have we said we are nearly always on the forum now?
I was banned from your forum so I cannot read it. I was just wondering why others who still post on Vivs site can read it. I am only presuming of course that all the copied posts on there come from your forum and am therefore suprised you have not blocked them too. Just interested that's all
Gina
Depends on which IPs we have.
Sass
Thanks Sass, no point going into detail with IP's with me I do not understand all that. I just thought that you would have had the IP's for those who are commenting on the posts. Anyway, no to worry, I am off to bed now. Good night
Night Gina!
Gina, are you on a mission to be banned from as many blog sites as possible – Lol..!
Anyway no one on for a chat!
Hi Sass! Hope all well !
Hi Mandz, no not on a mission it is just nobody loves me, boo hoo :-)
Hi Gina,
Whilst you may not agree with every aspect of the pro forum, we have many other areas/topics that you might like to comment on - apart from keeping up to date with our views lol.
Try re-registering again, after all, there has been a lot of water pass under the bridge of late and I would not like to think that you only have access to the bile from the vile blog.
Just an idea.
I always remember you describing yourself as a cuckoo - well, even cuckoos need a place to roost and whilst I have, on occasion, found you irritating in the past, I have never ever found you offensive.
I mean the above in good faith Gina
Thanks China. One thing you do know about me is that I am useless with computers so I do not know what you mean by re-register. I do not have your forum address anymore. I just saw it once on Vivs site and when I went to have a look what they were talking about it said warning you are banned and I could not read anything so I just did not give it a second thought after that.
I am off to bed now as I am grumpy. I am sick of the weather here in the Costa Blanca, rain rain rain, it is rotting my cactus plants and making me go rusty. Will look in again sometime tomorrow. Thanks once again
Gina,
The forum address is actually on the front page of this blog, but nevertheless, here it is:-
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/index.htm
We have had the most glorious weather here on the SE coast of England and I hope you benefit from some of the same soon.
Take Care and Goodnight
China I was just about to post to you to say I had just noticed the address on this site. I clicked on it and hey presto I was unbanned so can now read but not post. I will take a look at it tomorrow as it seems it is a bit like the 3A's in format (not content) and I never got my head around that site.
Thanks for your help, nite nite
No problems Gina,
The link to our forum that you read/accessed on Vivs site obviously seems to say that those using same, are banned. Anyone wanting to take a look at our forum, should access same via the link shown on the front page of this blog.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/index.htm
It is nothing like the 3A's - Anti McCann, Anti Empathy and Anti Humanity. You get what it says on the tin.
Glad to have been of a little assistance and once again, Goodnight.
China I did not mean the content was like the 3'A I just meant choosing a thread. I just took a look and chose this thread
Gina's post has been deleted and her membership at TWS cancelled....
If you read it you will understand why I will not be posting on the forum, I would be as welcomed as a boil on the butt. Really must get some shut eye now. Take care
Gina,
Just about to go to bed and saw your last post. When you stated:-
"Gina's post has been deleted and her membership at TWS cancelled...."
From memory, that was when you got banned from the vile site and naturally, you were a topic of conversation and we all unanimously agreed how unfairly you were treated.
BTW (by the way) I think it was Christabel or Helen that named Viles site as TWS - meaning simply, that womans site. It was never an insult, or even a slur on you. Just a way of describing their pit.
Hope that makes sense?
Buenos Noches
Hi Gina (hope you're fine!),
I notice that you’re not competing with me for the title “most offensive and rudest blogger” in this part of the blog world anymore. I’m starting to feel like I'm the only cuckoo left :-)
Hi Swedishmum & Gina,
Hope you are both well.
No Swedishmum you are not the only cockoo, I'm one too & still sitting on the fence.
Hi Jojam,
I love company so you're more than welcome to join me on my fence!
Hi Swedishmum,
I would love to join you on your fence, if I knew where. I don't like to sit on the fence in a war zone.
Hi Gina!
The forum has a collection of different topics to discuss not just Maddie.
Bye!
Hi China - Thanks for info. as you said it is all water under the bridge now so those who want to talk to me can, and those that don't can just ignore me.
Hi Mandz, I am pretty busy at the moment but when I get time I will read some of the other threads and if I feel I have anything to say that others may find of interest I will post and see how it goes.
Just had to publish this post by viv...
viv said...
Hi All
I would have been frankly amazed if Gordon Brown and Socrates had met and not discussed the McCann case. This is a very high profile and serious case requiring close co-operation between the two countries which they head. It would be their duty to see that happens and to protect a very old and close relationship between the two countries.
I am sorry but some people wish to see conspiracies where there is simply no basis for that. To suggest that either government would have some vested interest is seeing that a couple of serious criminals are not brought to justice is frankly absurd.
Viv x
Tuesday, 10 June 2008 22:25:00 o'clock BST
For once I totally agree with her that anyone who believes this case is being hindered by govt interference is a an absolute idiot ... that accounts for most who post on viv's site .
Ban them all viv , ban them all ....
Hi Swedish & Jojam. Hope you are both ok. Guess us cuckoos will have to get off the fence but with my logic how we can do that I do not know. This is the way I see it, do we believe Madeleine was abducted because Jane Tanner said she saw the abductor or do we believe that Madeleine died in the apartment because the PJ claim to have evidence that points towards that theory. I suppose if we want to be flippant about it we could say we think she died in the apartment and then was carried off. That seems to cover both stories. Personally I am remaining on the fence as I suppose anything is possible. I still feel the whole group were wrong to leave the kids and should have been made accountable for that but I also feel the same way about the women who left her two year old alone while she went partying. I feel this case has gone on so long now more time is spent arguing with each other which is understandable because what else is there to say about the case, we have no new actual facts. I have doubted for a long time if the truth will ever be known and I cannot she why the PJ are taking so long now to either charge them or lift the arguido status. I see it is impossible to post views on this case on either site whilst on the fence as if you say anything bad on this site about the McCanns you get attacked and if you do not say enough evil things about them on Vivs site you get banned - No win situation so not playing that game anymore. Hope we catch each other some time so we can catch up. I am off to bed now but will try to look in in the morning to see if you are around. Take care
Good Morning Gina,
You have just about summed up my feelings on the case...and the blogs. I don't think the truth will ever be known...because I don't believe anyone knows the truth of what happened that night. Not the police or the McCann's.
I do believe the case was handled badly from day one...and I do believe the PJ are trying to save face. What other reason would they have for constantly extending the secrecy on the matter. If they had the evidence required to make charges...then they would have done so by now.
I do not believe the McCann's killed their daughter...either by accident or pre-meditated. Neither do I believe...as has been suggested by Viv's blog...that they sold her.
I do believe they were very wrong to leave the children alone....and my God they have paid the price. So has Madeleine. This is something that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.
Good Morning Mum,
As I have said many times I just simply do not know what happened and am still open minded. I am going to try and put my further opinions on the case without getting into an argument about it.
I now also wonder why the PJ are "stalling" for want of a better word, I cannot see what else they hope to find out that they do not know already. I also now feel that if the McCanns had nothing to do with this, their strategy was probably what they felt best, although I still think they could have handled it better. If they want to travel all over the place in order to feel as if they are doing something useful then ok, but by the same token if they want to leave no stone unturned and do everything possible they should have also all gone back for a reconstruction as requested. I am sure if the PJ intend to arrest them they can do so without luring them back to Portugal under false pretences I don't think they can just say "got yer" once they land on Portuguese soil. By not going I feel the McCanns have not demonstrated that they will do anything as said by them many times, and they have made the PJ determined to be as difficult as possible.
Regards all the other theories, well I would have thought that if you were going to sell a child you would sell the one that could not speak out so much and whose memory would fade quicker. Let's face it Pro or Anti everybody just wants to know the truth and until that happens if it ever outs people will make up their own ending.
Forgot to say Mum,
Back in the days when we all used to "debate" and there were a lot more neutral and intelligent posters, some of the theories and suggestions that were put forward must have given writers a lot of material to write a book, not one necessarily about an abduction, but many many others aspects. Wish I had bothered to save some of the comments myself now I could have used them to write a book myself, but it would have been a comedy of course!!
Gina,
Your last comment reminded me of a poem I wrote recently...called "Bloggers". One day I may even make a page for it and stick it up on my site.
Then it would be a case of guess who is who. te he he
Mum, I want to be BooHoo me me:-)
Have your read this
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id87.html
I wished I hadn't because it has got me thinking again. No, I am determined to switch off from this case.
How are you?
Perhaps they did not want to return to Portugal for this reconstruction because the reconstruction itself was a red herring and because they knew it was not going to help one little bit?
The reconstruction only emerged when the PJ were getting a bad press.
The reconstruction was not going to be made public, so would not have jogged any memories.
The reconstruction had to be done using the McCann's? Why?
Why put them through this immense pain and anguish? For what reason? So the PJ can file it away and forget about his too?
The PJ admitted it was not really important so why do it?
The PJ has all the facts of this case, so why did they not just go ahead and do the reconstruction using actors?
The PJ did NOT need the McCann's present.
Why did the PJ not take up the offer of the BBC Crimewatch and Gerry McCann who offered to do a reconstruction at the time?Madeleine disappeared?
Could it be because the PJ knew fully well this reconstruction would not take place and this is why they brought it out and on a day when the PJ were getting hammered in the press?
Also at the time the McCann's were receiving a good press over their EU visit?
First the leak about Madeleine crying which was taken completely out of context and then the emergence of this reconstruction hot on the heels of the leak!
This whole case is littered with this PJ counter reacting against any positive press the McCann's received, why?
Not just a case of the PJ not knowing, more a case of possible corruption and this is a way of masking it.
I believe that this will all come out as I believe that whoever is pulling the strings behind the scenes has made a fundamental error in forcing Murat to sue the British press.
Open season here no matter which way that case progresses, whether it goes to court, or it gets dropped, big big news just waiting to come out there.
I believe that we will discover what happened to Madeleine, where she was taken and I do believe that she will be found and I believe IMO the key lies with Murat, Malinka and Michaela, Luis Antonio and a few others in the background.
This is another type of Casa Pia-gate just waiting to erupt.
Roll on because when it does perhaps Madeleine will be returned to her rightful place and the people that think they can use and abuse children and take them from their parents ought to feel very very afraid!
One more thing Re the reconstruction:
Where would Robert Murat be?
With his mother?
Outside the apartment?
With Michaela?
With Tuck Price in a bar?
All places where RM was said to have been?
theoretically the PJ should place him outside the apartment because this is where around 15 eye witnesses say they saw him!
Anyway I am off now, things to do, would not want to be accused of this being my life or anything like that.
Bye see you later. (maybe)
Gina,
Ref your 11.15am post and in particular:-
"If they want to travel all over the place in order to feel as if they are doing something useful then ok, but by the same token if they want to leave no stone unturned and do everything possible they should have also all gone back for a reconstruction as requested. I am sure if the PJ intend to arrest them they can do so without luring them back to Portugal under false pretences I don't think they can just say "got yer" once they land on Portuguese soil. By not going I feel the McCanns have not demonstrated that they will do anything as said by them many times, and they have made the PJ determined to be as difficult as possible."
.............................
In the interests of clarity, I would like to state that the McCanns have never refused to return to Portugal, nor have they been requested to do so by the pj.
The pj requested the presence of the entire tapas group - although my understanding is that this request was leaked to the press via unnamed sources, prior to notification being received by the parties concerned (remember all the outrageous stories about demands for private planes, five star hotels etc?) They further made it clear, that if the whole group could not attend, then the reconstruction would be cancelled.
Let's not forget that the so called tapas friends had already voluntarily presented themselves for interview by the pj, without legal representation and had fully complied with all aspects of same.
It is my opinion that the pj would have asked the parties concerned during the course of those interviews, whether they would have been willing to attend such a reconstruction and the pj knew fine well what their responses/views were.
Rosie, you said
IMO the key lies with Murat, Malinka and Michaela, Luis Antonio and a few others in the background.
...................................
This may be a possibility and it may also be a possibility that the PJ are leaning towards that theory too and wanted everybody who was there that night in place where they claimed to be to walk through it "exactly as only they could" and at the same time let them go head to head with witnesses giving conflicting statements. I am not saying the McCanns had anything to gain, but they certainly had nothing to loose. You just have to put your own pain aside and do whatever you can to get things focused in the right direction. People who are not so wrapped up in all this see the PJ were seen to be still doing something (for whatever reason in others opinion is immaterial) and they McCanns and their friends were seen to be not co-operating.
I know we are never going to agree on this view so lets leave it and either not talk or talk about something else
China,
Because none of us know the true reason why the PJ wanted this reconstruction it is difficult to argue the pros and cons of who should have done what and why, so if you don't mind I personally prefer to leave it where it all is,
"a total mystery"
Once again,
The McCanns have never refused to return to Portugal and apart from requesting (not ordering) the attendance of the entire group, the pj have never asked K & G to return as a couple.
Indeed, the McCanns made it clear via their spokesman that they would attend the proposed reconstruction if required - it was the pj who made the stipulation that all were required to attend, or it would be called off.
China I know the McCanns said they would go back and I agree with what you said
"it was the pj who made the stipulation that all were required to attend, or it would be called off."
But it is no good trying to reconstruction something with half the people missing. I once tried to bake a cake leaving out a few ingredients that I did not have and the result was it was a waste of time
Let's face it, the pj have made it clear that they doubt/disbelieve the accounts given by the tapas friends of that fateful night. Assuming the pj still feel the tapas friends are involved in some way with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or indeed, in the covering up of something or perverting the course of justice etc., etc., then try putting ourselves in their shoes. They have been questioned time and time again, have assisted at every opportunity with regards to this farce of an investigation, yet here they are - a year post incident being asked to return for a reconstruction. If they truly are suspected of anything illegal/untoward in the case, then knowing same, would it not be reasonable to question the motive of such a reconstruction?
Is it reasonable to request that witnesses in an investigation attend a reconstruction (knowing full well what the pj think of their roles in the matter) In other words, if the pj think they are guilty of something (even if they know same to be totally untrue) then whey would the pj invite parties they suspect of being guilty, to attend a reconstruction, which the pj could then twist/use to attempt to incriminate the parties further.
If I thought I had been unfairly treated/implicated in a crime, I would elect not to participate in something that could be used/misinterpreted to incriminate me further.
If on the other hand, the pj are seriously considering the abduction theory (rather than the group conspiracy theory) then why are the McCanns still arguidos?
Gina,
I agree with your statement:-
"But it is no good trying to reconstruction something with half the people missing. I once tried to bake a cake leaving out a few ingredients that I did not have and the result was it was a waste of time"
..........................
Indeed, the pj had the opportunity to do a reconstruction within weeks of Madeleines disappearance. They were offered input by the world respected BBC Crimewatch programme - all at a time when the family and tapas friends were available and keen to do all they could to assist.
The pj declined and once again, missed the valuable opportunity of undertaking same at a point in time when it was pertinent to do so and could have been of huge value.
The pj are now trying to bake a cake, not only without the full ingredients, but without an oven imo.
Hi All,
What get’s me is that people think “taken from her bed” nah the chances of that happening! For a start her parents were not in the flat. Who would have thought Jamie Bulgar would be taken from a shopping centre by “children” still in school yet it “happened”.
Abduction can happen without anyone “seeing”.
There are many cases of children who have vanished – no evidence – no witnesses. The little boy who went missing in Cyprus last seen playing in the street then “vanished” no one saw him being taken yet he is still missing to this day.
As for the children not waking up: It is more than possible the abductor drugged the children. Maddie was crying the night before so perhaps this was the abductor/s reasons? Gerry stated he told the police that he thought the kids were drugged however the police did not bother doing a blood test?
Another thing that gets me is that people say no evidence. Well as adults we do question things and ask basic questions like why did the police not bring in expert help when they clearly lack the necessary expertise with these rare cases? Look at the catalogue of errors – why was this allowed to happen? Why? There is your answer – in my opinion the police were not up to the job they lacked the necessary skills and expertise with these cases and they refused Scotland Yard and FBI help?? I’m suspicious of this.
Ps Yes Rosie why all these witness accounts of Murat yet he denies being there??
Bye for now..
China personally I could not see the point of a reconstruction a year later, either with Crimewatch or anybody else. This case has had so much publicity I don't think there is anybody left who may know something that has not already come forward. However as we have said before they ways police forces work in different countries varies whether we like it or not and they go about things in what appears to us a very strange way. Ending on a good note, The Spanish police have just cracked a paedophile ring of 55 people, I would not even second guess what they may have done to break into that and to be honest I don't care if they beat it out of one of them, these people are now going to get what they deserve.
Off now, have a good day
Mandz,
Why no evidence?
I always remember the comment about the appartment being 'the worst preserved crime scene' which imo answers most questions as to the lack of physical evidence of an abduction.
The pj did not even cancel the cleaners on the morning of 4th May and the cleaners stripped the beds as they usually would when guests are departing their accommodation. The bedding and indeed the beds, should have imo been sent off for forensic testing/examination. Just one example of the investigating officers lack of experience and direction in dealing with such a case.
I am convinced that there was evidence in that appartment, but it was not found by the pj, as the pj were not looking for it. It is now lost and the pj have been exposed for the amateurs they are/were with regards to this investigation.
Gina,
Well done to the Spanish police.
Enjoy your afternoon.
Gina
They simply do not have to have the McCann's or their friends there to do a reconstruction.
Crimewatch do it with actors, why do the PJ want to do it with real people involved?
If the PJ were that interested in doing this reconstruction, why don't they approach BBC Crimewatch team who have vast wealth of experience? I am sure they would help them out, probably jump at the chance.
IMO this was done to make the McCann's look bad, as China said they would have been asked.
It is a nonsense brought about by a wish to muddy the waters further.
Are the PJ really as thick and as incompetent as they have presented themselves to be?
Or is this ridiculous catalogue of errors from start to finish, just a smokescreen to divert attention away?
Rosiepops,
Perhaps if the pj did a reconstruction of their handling of the crime scene and actually looked at their own failings and the consequences of same, they might be able to answer so many outstanding questions ie lack of evidence, to name one example of same.
Better still, it is NOT too late to have an independent/outside police force review the file. Why will the pj not accept so many offers of help in this regard? As we keep saying, what have they got to hide? What is in that file that they seem terrified of having exposed? Why the renewal after renewal of arguido status? All imo to suppress the real truth.
Hi Gina,
Thank you for the link...which I have now read.
I don't know the answers anymore than you...and at this point in time I refuse to make anymore guesses. There are enough of those floating around in cyberspace without me adding to them. None of us know what happened that night...not even the police.
I could start on the subject of Robert Murat....but that would be unfair of me because I would be guessing. Like the McCann files...it is all supposition from what we have heard in the media...not factual evidence.
I notice on Viv's site they still go on about Kate's words "They have taken her"...but Kate says that is not what she said...she says her actual words were "Madeleine has gone". So who do you believe?
Other than all that...I am fine. Thank you for asking.
Hi Chinadoll,
That was my point people say there is no evidence she was taken from her bed however this is due to the catalogue of errors. I also believe evidence was there for the taking however sadly this did not happen and the question is why? When are they going to be made accountable for there failed actions? Where is their accountability and responsibility in all of this? This whole investigation is flawed.
Also JT did see a man carrying a child. He has not come forward to be eliminated.
Bye for now off to make tea!
I agree China when will they hand this case over?
What are they afraid of?
Goodness they won’t even hand it to the McCann lawyers?
Mum21 Hi nice to see you!
As for they have taken her? I used this when my house got broken into “they took my car”? they took my TV etc!
Bye!
Gina
It wasnt the Spanish police, it was an interpol operation involving many countries. In Aust, they netted 120 paedophiles. And they are still arresting them, there will be more.
And they have rescued 4 children that were identified from photos.
And in Aust, they gave good details about how it was done. It was about an upload of porn onto a respectable website (by a hacker) and Interpol found it. They then left it up for 30 hours and had 70 million hits (there are that many sick people in the world). The various police forces of the world then traced the computers from the website. It was very clever. It actually happened months ago but they are still arresting them now.
I was very proud of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) involvement, as I know that we have a dedicated team here that work with other countries for this very reason.
I am glad that Spain had a good result as well.
Mandz
I dont think the kids were drugged at all. My two are good sleepers, especially if tired. They will still just lay down on a couch at someone's house and sleep through a party.
And the twins were probably tired, running around on holidays.
And I believe the McCanns have run tests on the kids hair to prove that they werent drugged. At least that was reported here, by sources close to the McCanns.
Dianeh,
What an eye opener - in particular:-
"And in Aust, they gave good details about how it was done. It was about an upload of porn onto a respectable website (by a hacker) and Interpol found it. They then left it up for 30 hours and had 70 million hits (there are that many sick people in the world). The various police forces of the world then traced the computers from the website. It was very clever. It actually happened months ago but they are still arresting them now."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but the link was posted on what others thought was a respectable website - in reality, it was an invitation to other perverts to access depraved and inhumane filth and abuse of our children?
I am overjoyed that they have infiltrated this filth and despite the innocent posters involved, have uncovered and exposed the real and sinister members.
Chinadoll
It was a respectable website. It was broken into by a hacker and then it is hidden. The paedo network then leaves clues around the internet pointing those that know what the clues mean, to the website.
It headlines over here and always blamed on a hacker.
Just goes to show that our taxpayer money can be used on good things.
There were 25 or more countries involved but not all of them chose to go public with their involvement, mostly because they are still arresting people. Whereas I think the cat was out of the bag here, and I guess in Spain as well, so the Federal Police have come out and said what they have done.
This led them to individual paedophiles, as well as paedophile rings. The porn was the worst stuff imaginable, it made the officers who had to review it cry. But they were determined in their resolve to catch the bastards.
In some cases, the paedophiles had to supply original porn to join. That is depraved. We had teachers, consellors, sports coaches, laywers, from all walks of life. One of the teachers killed himself and another one tried to. And the one that disappointed the AFP the most, was one of their own officers (Federal Police) has been charged and has fronted court already.
And I believe that they scan the photos looking for missing children, so these photos should have been scanned for Madeleine. I wonder if it was scanned for JOanna, considering that she is meant to be dead (according to Portugal).
Good Morning Diane
I did not have much info on the paedo swoop this was all that was in our local paper. This is a global problem and I sincerely hope every country does all it can to stop these disgusting perverts
Nationwide paedophile
ring smashed
Two arrested in Alicante Province
By Tom Cain
NATIONAL POLICE have arrested 55 people nationwide in a major operation against child pornography on the internet.
Two of those detained in this week’s raids at addresses all over the country were in Aspe and Alcoy, with the latter being a student of computer technology.
Other arrests were carried out in Cataluña, Aragón, Melilla, Madrid, Basque Region, Valencia, Asturias, Murcia, Castilla-La Mancha, Castilla León, Canary Islands, Balearic Islands, Galicia, AndalucÃa and Navarra.
Police say they have seized a total of 179 computer hard drives, 19 lap top computers, 17 computer towers, and more than 2,500 cameras.
They say that the seized equipment contains thousands of pornographic images of children as well as videos showing children being abused or ‘groomed’ for sex.
An investigating officer said that those arrested come from all walks of society and include university professors, architects, a local policeman, civil servants and retired people.
One of those arrested, a 19-year-old youth, was caught after the mother of a young girl denounced him for forcing her daughter to pose naked via a webcam connection.
Another five people were picked up after they were linked to a video showing a brutal sex attack on a 13-year-old girl.
tcain@cbnews.es
Hi Swedishmum,
Read your comment, Yes a good place to park your fence, I hope to perch on it with you sometime, take care.
Hi Jojam I left a message for you and SwedishMum 10 June 2008 22:53, don't know if you saw it. Hope all is well with you both.
Hi everyone,
Believe it or not, I only just realised this blog was here. I think the "blog wars" are making me a bit daft, because I actually had it in my head that your new forum is the only chat-site you run.
Oh well, I'm here now, so better late then never? (or maybe not?).
Anyway, about Viv: let me just say that I completely agree she is a bully and an ego-maniac, and furthermore, that her theories on the possible nature of Madeleine's demise (being that of course, no-one is certain whether poor Madeleine is actually deceased or not) go into far too much detail and are often rather gruesome. As it has been widely reported by the world's media that the PJ think Madeleine's parents may have killed her, you expect people to speculate a little bit. However, for my mind, Viv often crosses the line of what is reasonable, especially because much of what she discusses she states is "fact", even though there is no way she can adequately prove it as so.
These things about Viv bother me, and yes, she is very much the "thought police" of late. I was disgusted at how she banned me from her site for no legitimate reason - right on the spot, without even granting me the right of reply!
However, I also want to add this: it really is completely unfounded for anyone to call Viv a "pervert" (which strongly suggests sexual deviancy) as there is simply no evidence that this is the case about her. While she often speculates on the in's and out's of murder scenarios (which I grant you is tasteless and rather disturbing) I have yet to see her say anything of a sexual nature about Madeleine or for that matter, any other child. To accuse (or even infer) someone of being a sexual deviant, particularly where it concerns children, is a very serious thing, and must be based on genuine evidence that this is the case. Real pedophiles download disgusting images of children on a daily basis and deliberately involve themselves in occupations where they will be in close contact with children all the time (such as Scouts and Guides, kids clowns, and even school teachers). They do not (that I have ever heard of, anyway) spend hours on the internet each day chatting to other adults about an ongoing criminal investigation! Furthermore, Viv's site is full of information about child neglect and abuse and even how to spot the signs of such things, which, suggests a genuine empathy for children (something that is strongly lacking in pedophiles!).
I agree it is probably not libelous to make accusations about anonymous bloggers. However, if you have been taking notice of world news lately, you would see that the police use the internet to infiltrate pedophile rings all the time, and while I'm sure they are not easily fooled as to who and what to look for, it is still incredibly irresponsible to suggest another poster is a pedophile when you know you have no evidence to back it up.
I have every reason to be disgruntled by Viv and as I said above, I most certainly am. However, the same way I refuse to label the McCanns "killers" without adequate proof, the buck stops at labeling Viv a "pervert" when I know full well there is no evidence that this is the case!
Thank you for letting me have my say here and also the other night at Supertroll's - I appreciate it. But please think about what you say a little more closely, and try not to let your emotions about the McCann case cloud your judgment to the point of labeling innocent people as the worst kind of scum on the planet (i.e; child abusers).
Bianca.
P.S. I would happily label Viv an "ego maniac"; a "control freak"; a "wannabe Sherlock Holmes", or even a "frustrated Gothic novelist" (based on some of her highly speculative murder theories). Still, NONE of these things amount to being a sexual pervert or worse, a "pedophile", and so I must re-iterate again how highly inappropriate and irresponsible I think these labels are (even when only inferred).
Thank you.
Bianca
For a start there is more that one definition for the word pervert.
1. to affect with perversion.
2. to lead astray morally.
3. to turn away from the right course.
4. to lead into mental error or false judgment.
5. to turn to an improper use; misapply.
6. to misconstrue or misinterpret, esp. deliberately; distort: to pervert someones statement.
7. to bring to a less excellent state; vitiate; debase.
8. Pathology. to change to what is unnatural or abnormal.
9. to convert or persuade to a religious belief regarded as false or wrong.
–noun
10. a person who practices sexual perversion.
11. Pathology. a person affected with perversion.
12. a person who has been perverted, esp. to a religious belief regarded as erroneous.
On this blog, this woman will be spoken about in the terms she herself has earned, why are you here doing her bidding for her? It is not going to get you anywhere the woman is beyond redemption.
You made a comment that you have allowed the blog wars to go to your head, I suspect this is true, had you more of your wits about you, you realise just what has been said on that blog recently and what they have all agreed with.
Vile has said that Madeleine was sexually abused from an early age and when she could no longer make money for her parents they murdered her.
If you do not think this is the product of a warped and perverted mind, then you do not understand the situation over on that blog.
Equally another member 'ecolab' supposedly a teacher of children ? the age of the children. This MAN has repeatedly been making sexually explicit comments about Madeleine being a Lolita, etc.
This is mild compared to what he and Viv have been saying, there are many examples of it and I have no intention of repeating them again on here, they are disgusting perverted comments and I stand by what I said.
If you knew anything at all about children and how these paedophiles work, you will know they search out and find blogs like Viles to go on.
If that isn't bad enough you then get posters like Dolores etc agreeing with them!
Just be cause she decided to put a piece up on the front of her cesspit of a blog about abuse of children and their protection etc, doe snot make her Mother Theresa all of a sudden.
If she was really serious about protecting children from abuse she immediately STOP the abuse if Madeleine McCann which goes on, on a daily basis on that filthy place and she would stop abusing this child and her parents herself!
All that on her blog is just a front, to try and cover up the perverted filth she has allowed on her blog for the past few weeks and it doesn't fool me, not for a single second and I would not congratulate her on it, having seen straight away why she has put it there, nothing to do with protecting children, but only to do with protecting herself because she has done wrong.
You give yourself a grand title like;
Children_Deserve_Protection
Yes they do and Madeleine needs protecting from people like that discussing her as if she is a commodity.
If I were you the next time you feel like coming here and defending that awful person, you may actually do some research first, you obviously have no idea what has been going on there and quite frankly, how someone that calls himself a doctor, (notdoc) and another a primary school teacher(Bath Theory) carry on posting on a site that demeans children especially little Madeleine, is beyond belief.
Like I would want those people anywhere near my grandchildren, no way. they need routing out and preventing from going anywhere near these kiddies.
All very well giving yourselves a fancy title, but if you cannot walk the walk, what is the use of it?
Goodbye Bianca, I am going out now, so if you reply I will not read it until later
"Vile has said that Madeleine was sexually abused from an early age and when she could no longer make money for her parents they murdered her." -[Quoting Rosiepops]
Well if she really said this Rosiepops then I agree it is demented!
Obviously, these claims are extremely serious, and as Viv has no evidence whatsoever to back them up, it is insane that she would even CONSIDER making them!
Rosiepops, I was in no way attempting to do Viv's "bidding" for her (why would I want to - I'M the one she banned .. remember?) but merely trying to be fair when it came to some of your more controversial claims. I can't STAND Viv, and I think her blog has descended into little more than a joke. However, I really think sometimes these blogs (on both sides) border on hysterical, and I find myself compelled to take the middle ground between two ludicrous (no Gerry reference intended!) extremes.
Okay Rosiepops, maybe Viv IS "perverted" in some way .. who knows? But just the same way you are not really Gerry McCann (as Viv has claimed so many times before) VIV is not a pedophile (which, whether you admit it or not, is something the Pro's strongly infer!). The accusations from both sides have always been pretty potent, but lately they have been getting even worse, and quite frankly, I am beginning to find it all rather disturbing!
Madeleine was (is?) a lovely little girl and it is obviously a terrible shame that she has gone missing. I don't think there is any decent person out there who wouldn't jump for joy if she was somehow returned to her family tomorrow. However, at the end of the day, Madeleine is just a news story (to us; obviously not to her family and friends) and it's not really worth any of us becoming this venomous and verbally threatening toward people over the internet who ultimately have nothing to do with us, and like us, have nothing to do with Madeleine!
I agree that Viv's posts can be very twisted and you wonder where on earth she gets some of it from! But at the end of the day, it is the McCANNS she is insulting, not you or the other Pro's, so as offensive as her ramblings may seem, it's really up to the McCanns to sort it out and not you. They dealt with the Daily Express okay didn't they .. so who knows .. you may get your wish and they may deal with Viv's blog one day too (??)
I have been very passionate and outspoken on these blogs before and always WILL be when it comes to the issue of parents protecting their children and child protection issues in general (hence, my screen name!) but even I draw the line at labeling other bloggers with terms that are usually only used by the police and criminal psychologists!
There are LIMITS Rosiepops, and that's all I was trying to get across in my post about Viv!
Thanks.
Bianca,
I would state here and now quite emphatically, that Vile has certainly never been inferred to as a peadophile.
I believe some of the posters on that blog are extremely disturbing, and the ones that tend to make perverted ramblings are those that are in some way involved with children.
Vile has encouraged some of the contents these deranged posters have made, she has even agreed with them and backed them up, therefore to condone it, imo makes her just as bad.
You seem more concerned about anonymous posters on the internet being venomous & verbally threatened, yet what about the people in this that are not anonymous, people that are very real, who are receiving hate mail as a result of blogs like Viles, surely that is more important.
Bianca
It is no surprise to you of course that I agree with Tinks. By the way I have never called Vile a paedophile, I get pretty annoyed that she allows people on that blog that may have these tendencies and then agrees with them to get at us, but I have never called her paedophile.
One other thing you mention is that you rightly say that it is a shame that Madeleine has gone missing and of course it means more to her family friends, however, I believe that it does and should mean much to us also because if we stop believing and stop doing the decent thing, then evil has won over bad.
What keeps us pros and the more decent minded reasonable people like yourself keep coming here and keep doing this, is because we care, we care that Madeleine is missing, we care that people are saying the most appalling things.
That's a good thing not a bad thing and while, Vile and places like the 3A's are there espousing their filth and lies, then I will be here to redress the balance.
We just cannot allow people to be persecuted and tried by media and the internet when they haven't even been charged with any crime.
Tinks & Rosie,
I agree with your comments and would like to expand on this comment from you Tinkerbell :-
"You seem more concerned about anonymous posters on the internet being venomous & verbally threatened, yet what about the people in this that are not anonymous, people that are very real, who are receiving hate mail as a result of blogs like Viles, surely that is more important."
...........................
The following may be of interest with regards to libel and blogging:-
Another UK Libel Discussion
A few days ago Tim at Bloggerheads kicked off what will hopefully be a wider discussion on the Brit blogosphere about the problem of UK libel law. He kicked off with the notorious Laurence Godfrey vs Demon case of 1999, which has resulted in immortality for the name of a physics lecturer. Since then:
…it has been generally accepted that ISPs and other providers of web hosting services can under UK law be sued for libel over material transmitted through a largely automated carrier service.
Things are different in the US; Section 230 protects the providers of carrier services and instead puts the legal onus on the true publishers; those who consciously present, arrange, edit, coordinate or create content for publication (e.g. the submitters of comments, the authors of blogs, the editors of portals, etc.)
The practical upshot of this is that libel threats made against ISPs in the UK usually result in the ISP shutting down websites that are the subject of complaints. The most famous example of this was last year, when the billionaire Alisher Usmanov managed to have several blogs (including Tim's) taken off-line when one made allegations about his past business practices in Uzbekistan; Usmanov happily admitted that he preferred this route to that of going after the author of the allegations, as this way he avoided the publicity of a court case.
Another case, from 2006, deals more specifically with authorship. As the Times reported at the time:
A prominent member of the UK Independence Party won an unprecedented £10,000 in libel damages today from a woman who waged an abusive campaign against him on an internet bulletin board.
Michael Keith Smith, who contested the Portsmouth North constituency at the last general election, brought High Court proceedings against Tracy Williams, who was a contributor to the same Yahoo! discussion board.
Ms Williams, of Tomlinson Close, Oldham, Lancashire, used a pseudonym to post claims that the 53-year-old chartered surveyor was a "nonce", a sexual offender, a racist bigot and a Nazi.
Addressing him as "Lardarse" or "Lardbrain", she also alleged that he had sexually harassed a female co-worker, had been charged with soliciting boys and cottaging and that he was a sexual deviant of the most perverted kind.
...[The judge] said that although the libels were available to the whole world through the internet, it was likely that few people had read them and many of those who did would have dismissed them as "ramblings".
Nevertheless, he awarded Mr Keith Smith £5,000 general damages plus £5,000 aggravated damages to reflect the way Ms Williams - who had met a request for an apology with contempt - had behaved.
The result was hardly surprising, but it did mark a precedent and received considerable media attention: write libellous comments on a discussion board, and you are liable. Even though the readership may be limited, discussion boards are like publications, rather than like private conservations down the pub. One positive outcome of this case, it seems to me, is that the judge set a reasonable sum for damages, rather than the absurdly large figures that have been seen in the past. However, the report does not make clear if everything presented by Keith-Smith was accepted to be libellous: obviously, calling someone "Lardarse" is rather less serious than labelling someone as a sex offender.
Although Williams chose not to defend herself in court, she has made some statements about the case on a new discussion site which she runs. According to her version of events – which is supported by another group member, Ed Chilvers – the libellous comments appeared in the context of a forum in which various members all hurled abuse each other while discussing politics, and the judge was not fully aware of this. If this is in fact the case, then a ruling from 2007 which I blogged here may be of some significance. This was the case of several directors of a football club, who were seeking a court order to reveal the identities of abusive posters to a football discussion forum. The judge ruled that:
"I do not think it would be right to make an order for the disclosure of the identities of users who have posted messages which are barely defamatory or little more than abusive or likely to be understood as jokes," he wrote. "That, it seems to me, would be disproportionate and unjustifiably intrusive."
Among the statements regarded by the judge simply as jokes was the claim that the directors had spent club money on prostitutes. This defence of "little more than abusive" can also be seen in relation to US libel law, where insults with criminal overtones such as "traitor", "phony", and "chicken-stealing idiot" have been recognised as "incapable of defaming because they are mere hyperbole". Of course, against this it can be argued that comments which are obviously jokes when seen in context may take on a different complexion when seen by someone else months later, perhaps in isolation on the results page of a Google search. And while this defence might cover "racist bigot" and "Nazi", sliming someone as a "sex offender" can have such serious consequences that even as a joke it ought not to be accepted (Tim rightly denounces Paul Staines and his various commentators for this tactic).
Although the media has since lost interest in the case, Keith-Smith and Williams have continued their dispute on their respective discussion forums. To avoid possible legal hassles, I'll decline to link to the sites, but neither one is particularly edifying: Williams' site has some useful information about Keith-Smith's political activities and associates, but one has to wade through pages of abuse (both against Keith-Smith and against other posters) to find anything of substance, while Keith-Smith's is mainly a collection of right-wing screeds against the modernisation of the Conservative Party and on the evils of immigration and such.
Keith-Smith has also since the court case reportedly tried to get Williams' new website shut down on criminal grounds: Ed Chilvers says that in 2006 he was investigated by the police following a complaint by Keith-Smith of "malicious communication", and Williams just a few days ago reported that she had recently been arrested but that no charges were brought. Indeed, although the site contains much that is abusive about Keith-Smith, I haven't seen anything that seems to me to be either threatening or an invasion of privacy, particularly given Keith-Smith's position as a public political figure (another distinction more developed in US libel law than in the UK). The police decisions in these cases may be of wider significance and interest.
Following her defeat in court, Williams declared bankruptcy, and she maintains that Keith-Smith has not received any money from her. This loop-hole in the law allows bankrupts to pretty much say what they like; the Tory MP Julian Lewis – who was in the receiving end of libellous articles by the late Simon Regan, who published Scallywag magazine while bankrupt – has called for more extensive criminal libel laws to be introduced.
As another bit of incidental background, it should be noted that Keith-Smith is known to be rather litigious, and in one previous case he brought the defendant pleaded provocation. This was reported in 1997:
A Tory has admitted throwing a bucket of water over a former colleague in an election day bust up. Mike Keith-Smith, who campaigned for the UK Independence Party, brought the private prosecution after Conservative councillor Frank Worley threw a large bucket of water through his car window. At the time Mr Keith-Smith was shouting four-letter insults against Tory leader John Major through a hand-held megaphone, Portsmouth magistrates court heard. Mr Worley's defence lawyer said the councillor had faced "enormous provocation"…Worley, a councillor on Portsmouth City Council, pleaded guilty to the assault. The Chairman of the bench said it was a "foolish incident" and gave Worley a conditional discharge for six months.
9:57:28 PM comment [] trackback []
http://blogs.salon.com/0003494/2008/05/26.html
............................
We all know that the McCanns are aware of the low life blogs, but are fighting a bigger battle at the moment. That does not mean to say that when the main battle is won, they will not turn their attention to same and obliterate the vile sewer comments made in the name of their dear daughter Madeleine. They will do it imo, not only for their own benefit and exoneration, but that of the twins - who should never have to have the misfortune of happening upon such filth when browsing the internet at some future date.
Comments made on TWS about Madeleine being sexually abused, will not be regarded as hyperbole, nor the direct accusations of premeditated murder and all the vile comments associated with same.
Then there is the issue of inciting others to join in the frenzy with disgusting selected editing of photographs, not to mention disseminating lies as facts.
Shame on you and those that continue to support your sick theories and lies. For those of us who have expressed our disgust (in no uncertain terms) if that upsets the odd blogger (who seems to be offended because of what they perceive to be a personal slight at being banned from such a filth pit) then so be it.
At the end of the day, you are not walking in their shoes. How would you feel if this was your family, your loved ones, your life?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/208/208821_bloggers_beware_of_libel_trials.html
That news report is dated
24/ 3/2006
Bianca
What is the matter with you? When are you going to stop telling lies about me? And when are you going to stop attributing things to me that I do not think and have never written?
You said:
"children_deserve_protection said...
Mum21,
You said of the Pro-McCanns:
"Not one of us believes Kate and Gerry were right to leave the children alone at night...not one of us!"
I'm sorry Mum21, but this is wrong. I distinctly remember arguing with Rosiepops one night in the JFATF blog that the McCanns neglected their children, but Rosiepops insisted that what the McCanns did was "not child neglect". Her attitude toward what the McCanns did was very casual, with her saying something to the effect of: "Oh for goodness sake, it wasn't neglect! They thought it was safe and were trying to replicate the baby listening service provided by the nannies".
In other words, the McCanns were NOT wrong to leave the children, but made an innocent mistake.
So please do not fool yourself into thinking that "not one" of you thinks this way.
Obviously, there are different levels of child neglect. Madeleine was probably a well cared for child before her abduction, and I'm sure she was never allowed to go hungry or cold, etc. However, this does not mean (and this is aimed at Rosiepops) that she was NOT neglected on that particular holiday, and that this neglect was not serious. Obviously, it was serious enough for her to be abducted (you can not abduct a child if its parents are there at night. Or, if its parents are NOT there, you STILL probably couldn't abduct a child if at LEAST the doors are left locked!).
By not being present in the bedroom while their tiny children were sleeping is bad enough (with the potential for a multitude of things to go wrong, including one of the kids waking up and choking or drinking poison). But then, to simply walk away and leave the doors unlocked is completely and utterly outrageous act, worthy of the scorn it has obviously attracted (including from child care professionals).
The fact that Rosiepops does not recognise this makes her as negligent and criminal as the McCanns themselves.
Furthermore, she needs to keep in mind that "neglect", under western law, is usually defined as falling under one of two categories: either "chronic" (meaning week in and week out neglect) or "single instance" (meaning failing to supervise children around a swimming pool or when crossing a road, etc). Based on this, I can't see how what the McCanns did could be classed as anything OTHER than neglect, and based on the nature of their particular neglect, my personal take is that it should be classed as "semi-chronic" (and leading to abduction)."
10 June 2008 12:41
I honestly do not know why I bother with you.
I have never once condone them leaving those children, not one, ever - Got it?
I spoke about levels of neglect and how a judge would probably assess those levels of neglect, so stop telling lies about me, you can be really infuriating when you go off on one like this, for goodness sakes calm down and think about what you are writing, this is not the first time you have done this to me.
I do not mind you posting here Bianca, even if you do slate me, or disagree with me, just please do not tell lies about me, or attribute comments to me that I do not even think.
How on earth can I be as 'negligent' as the McCann's? I did not leave my children, I wasn't even there, you do write stupid things.
And I do not need to know anything Bianca, especially from you, who appear to know absolutely nothing, yet write huge long posts preaching to everyone about it, and you are so aggressive, please calm down.
By the way neglect falls into more than two categories, I am not a legal person and do not profess to be, but you are making statements as if they are fact.
"Semi chronic neglect"? What a load of nonsense you write Bianca, what the hell is 'semi chronic neglect' when it is at home?
'Chronic' means long standing or 'recurring''semi' means part, so can you explain what part long standing neglect is and how you think the McCann's fit into this bizarre category?
They took their children on holiday, they fed, bathed and put them to bed where they fell asleep, they then went out and ate dinner 89 steps away returning at regular intervals to check their children and they did this for 5 nights.
This in no way be construed as chronic it is simply not long enough and I also doubt if a judge would find it as overtly neglectful.
To bring a case of child neglect as you claim, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that Madeleine was abducted because she was left on her own and as there are plenty of cases to point to where children have been abducted while with their carers, this is not something that could be easily proven.
So before you "aim" things at me at least have the sense to check your facts out first.
China,
I think that Vile and her associates actually transcend libel, I think they constitute stalking and harassment.
Rosie
On the neglect thing, I also think that to be guilty of neglect, a person would have to intend to neglect the children. (As stated in the British press a few weeks ago) And the McCanns did not intend that. They truly believed what they did was safe and that they were caring for their children. And so did the other parents in the Tapas group. And additionally, it has since come to light that other people have done the same thing.
So although I would never leave my children alone even for 5 minutes, it is pretty clear that there have been a number of people who thought that doing such a thing (making regular checks from a close place) was safe for their children,and that they were looking after them.
It was poor judgement on the McCanns part, and on that of the other parents, who were just lucky that tragedy befell the McCanns and not themselves. And it is in my opinion, the same type of poor judgement that results in a child drowning because someone accidentally leaves the gate open.
When I wrote the above sentence, I just thought of Madeleine and how unlucky she was that she was the one taken. It could have been any child, and it was dear little Madeleine. And it shouldnt have been any child. People who steal children need to be dealt with very very harshly.
I also think that after all this time, if the PJ/Judicial system were going to charge the McCanns then it would be done already. To be honest, nothing has changed in 12 months, they are not more guilty of neglect now than they were 12 months ago. So if there is a case to be had, then it should have been brought up already. If not,then it should be made clear that neglect charges will not be forthcoming.
Leaving the children alone that night, is a mistake that the McCanns are going to regret for the rest of their lives. They have lost their precious daughter because of it. And poor Madeleine, who knows where she is or what has happened to her. Talking about neglect in my opinion deflects away from the real issue, who took Madeleine and where is she. The abductor is the truly guilty party, and this is where the efforts should be concentrated, not on a couple who are suffering from their loss, and who have not even been charged with anything. And lets not forget it is over 12 months since she went missing.
Rosie
I dont know if it is harrassment and stalking, but it certainly is libel. In my opinion,it is Libel Per Se, which is a more serious form of libel. Libel per se, refers to libel over serious matters, that are so serious that once proven, damages are autmotically assumed. One example of Libel per se is accusing someone of murder. With Libel per se, once it is judged to be Libel per se (given a set of guidelines and legal precedence), then trying to hide behind opinion isnt an acceptable defence. The one and only defence is to prove that what you say is the truth. And use the example of accusing the McCanns of murder, those who say it cannot prove it, so therefore are guilty.
Glad I am not one of the anti's that have been accusing the McCanns of murder, abuse, fraud, all of which are considered as grounds for Libel per se.
Hello again Rosiepops et al,
Hopefully, the following exchange (copied and pasted from my blog "My Say") should help explain a little better where I stand all of this. Please take the time to read it carefully.
Thank you.
=====================================
[QUOTING "Anonymous"}
Bianca...
You friend Viv is not a pervert you say...
if you want the rest just say...
viv said...
Hi Ecolab
Sadly, I have to agree with you, I also believe Madeleine, from about 3 years onwards looks like an abused child and yes, I believe it is sexual abuse too. I think little Madeleine became surplus to requirements and got used as a money earner for her parents, even after they killed her. I have always thought this case will have some real shocks in store when we get to hear it all and I have not changed my mind about that. Stalker was right they are hiding a big secret and it is notable that WE get accused of supporting paedophiles, the sickening hypocrisy never changes tack.
Viv x
Sunday, 11 May 2008 17:37:00 o'clock BST
June 12, 2008 12:21 PM
Blogger children_deserve_protection said...
Anonymous,
Well firstly, it's obvious Viv is NOT my friend, so could all you Pro's (or whoever) please stop saying that she is? It's starting to bug me!
Anyway, about her post to Ecolab -
To me, this post speaks of someone who has very much let their imagination run away with them. Since we started at DE, I have seen Viv's ideas about what happened to Madeleine gradually grow more fanciful, and it's apparent that she has now reached the status of full-blown conspiracy nut!
Furthermore, I can understand how these "theories" of hers would offend people, and frankly, even I was starting to get sick of them (even before she banned me).
We don't know, NONE of us, what really happened to Madeleine, so it's very unfair to this little girl to be spoken about this way when there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these things are true. If Madeleine had been previously known to social services, or even if she was covered in obvious bruises, then I MAY say Viv was justified in some of speculations, but since none of this is the case, then Viv is completely out of line! (She is always talking about Madeleine being "bruised" but I have had a good look at the photo in question and I honestly can't see it??)
The problem though is when we go from accusing someone of being a "conspiracy nut" or just a "bitch" (and both titles suit Viv just fine if you ask me) to implying that someone is actually a "pedophile" (which is a serious criminal and pathological disorder). Just being twisted or having an over-active imagination does not make someone a sex-predator, and since this is what the Pro's constantly seem to be implying (not just about Viv but about many of the anti's) then I feel I have a duty to speak up about it - even if it IS for Viv!
We may be anonymous bloggers but the police are constantly trawling the internet for sex offenders and to even SNIFF in someone's direction that they may be a "pedophile" is an incredibly irresponsible and reckless thing to do! I have always held back on calling the McCanns "child killers" because I know full well that there simply isn't enough proof to tag them with such a dastardly label. The same goes for implying someone is a "pedophile", which no-one in the modern world should DARE do unless they have genuine evidence to back it up!
Bianca.
June 12, 2008 11:27 PM
Tinkerbell,
I'm sorry, but the Pro's HAVE inferred that some of the Anti's may be sex predators (or somehow be supportive of sex predators). You yourself referred to me as "dangerous" and said that my "dealings around children should be vetted". What does this imply if not pedophilia?? I am well used to insults going back and forward between the opposing sides, but when I read these comments about myself on your blog I honestly felt like throwing up! Not only are they completely unfounded and the total OPPOSITE of everything I am, but they are DANGEROUS, and hence, I felt quite terrorised, like if I DARED have an opinion about the McCanns that didn't suit the Pro's, the Pro's were going to come out with these despicable claims and use them as weapons to shut me up! (and anyone else they didn't agree with!).
These tactics are very base; very low, and contradict what you claim your main aim is: is it "justice for Madeleine and all the family" or "bringing down anyone who disagrees with your opinion"??
I have never sent the McCanns hate mail, never suggested that they sexually or physically abused Madeleine (or any of their other children), and never said that they were killers. When the newspapers first started reporting the "manslaughter" stories I briefly speculated at DE about if and how this could have happened (including how they may have disposed of Madeleine body) but I soon decided it was largely implausible and so settled on the abduction theory.
The only thing I have ever been pushy about is that they neglected Madeleine, which I think I have every right to be (and obviously so do many people out there: Have you seen the results of the Shield's Gazette poll (at my blog), or read the latest comments on YouTube?).
You are not the McCanns and you do not OWN this news story. It shouldn't be a case where if anyone has an opposing opinion to yours, you will simply pull out your sidearms and start shooting pedophilia claims at them. It's one thing to call someone a "bitch" or even a "highway whore" (which has a decidedly comical edge to it, if you ask me!) but when you bring in crimes against children you are playing a totally different game! This is why I do no label the McCanns as child killers, and why none of you should be inferring anyone is a pedophile!
Rosiepops,
I have to go out now and don't have time to write a considered response to your post, therefore, I will respond to you a bit later (provided I am still allowed on this blog, of course!)
Bye for now,
Bianca.
P.S. You call me "aggressive" Rosiepops but don't you think it's only natural that people will get a bit hot under the collar when pedophilia accusations (or even just inferences) are being thrown around? It's a nasty subject that brings out people's most primal instincts. I would literally flatten anyone who inferred something like that about me in real life, so that may give you a bit of insight into how I feel about all of this right now!
"children_deserve_protection said...
Mum21,
You said of the Pro-McCanns:
"Not one of us believes Kate and Gerry were right to leave the children alone at night...not one of us!"
Bianca,
I was telling the truth...not one of us does believe it was right to leave the children alone.
But..I did NOT say they are guilty of semi chronic neglect, because I do not believe they are guilty of neglect. I believe the McCann's are loving and caring parents...who made a gross error of judgement. As have, "and still are" very many other loving parents. I have witnessed over my very many years of taking holidays in this country and abroad, loads and loads of parents doing exactly the same as the McCann's did.
If the McCann's are to be charged with neglect...then so must thousands of other parents be charged with the same.
Also all the holiday resorts here and abroad who offer a child listening service (listening at the door at set intervals)should be charged with offering an illegal service.
I also find the sexual abuse comments on Viv's blog to be a disgrace...because they are unfounded and libellous. If they are willing to sink to those depths in their comments...then they deserve the contempt we show them.
As for you, Bianca...you are becoming a bore with your bombardment of longggggggg posts. You are making yourself look stupid in both our eyes...and the anti's. It is not our fault Viv banned you. If you have issues with Viv...then sort it out with her.....not us.
You have a blog of your own...go bore yourself with them there please.
Thank you
Hi Gina,
I read your post the other day, but since I don't feel really comfortable writing on a blog where I'm not exactly wanted (we have a Swedish saying that goes something like "being invited with the elbow" and that's how I feel here) I haven't responded. Well, I do now and hope you'll see this post before its probable/possible deletion.
Bianca has been so nice to invite me and Jojam to park our fence on her blog (my-say-okay.blogspot.com) so I'll probably stay there when and if I've got something to say in the future.
I hope both you and Jojam are fine!
Bianca,
I'm not going to bother replying to you again. You do not read anything properly before you go off on one of your predictable rants.
Bye!!!
And Swedishmum, I dont know why you had to make the comments you did either, was your last posts deleted. Glad to see you use our blog to pass on your messages!
Mum 09:06
Well said.
TTFN.
Sorry Tinkerbell,
I didn't really mean it like that, I meant that you probably would delete it since I included Bianca's blog in it.
No, my last post wasn't deleted. As far as I know "only" one post I've written here (or anywhere, come to that) has been.
Morning Tinks.
Just popped on here before I go outside to enjoy the sunshine.
If Gina is looking in...Good Morning to you.
Swedish Mum...Good morning..I hope you are well. You are most welcome here...as long as you don't keep repeating what we have to say on Viv's blog. There is no need to...after all it seems they spend more time lurking over here than on their own blog.
Good morning Mum21,
I'm just fine thanks and hope you are too!
Since I haven't posted on Viv's blog for more than a month now and hardly ever repeated things from this blog when I did I don't think it's very likely that I would do that now.
(I appreciate the sense of humour in your latest post though)
Swedish Mum,
I don't post very often anywhere at the moment. After all there is no news to post about...is there?
And as for the blog wars...they tend to get a bit tedious and boring. What I don't read being said about me...then why should I worry or retaliate. I do believe Viv's lot have now gone way over and above what any normal persons mind could possibly think. When a blog stoops to posting cartoon type pictures of the McCann's..with evil captions...then that is the time I stop looking or taking any interest in what that blog has to say.
No matter whether a blog is anti or Pro McCann...they are all in the name of a missing child....Madeleine.
When you see pictures like I have mentioned displayed on a blog which is called "Justice for Maddie"...then I KNOW this blogging game has gone too far.
Mum21,
Madeleine seems to be completely forgotten most of the time (IMO) and - as you imply (please correct me if I misunderstood you) - the blog wars seem more important to most posters nowadays (also IMO). And no real news anywhere.
No, posting isn't really that interesting anymore so personally I stay away from it as much as possible - with an exception now and then to say a few words to "friends" I've found on various sites. And since I for some reason have taken a liking to the most differing personalities, it makes me kind of suspicious in most posters eyes. You're only supposed to like one kind of poster - not posters on both side of the fence.
Swedish Mum,
No, you did not misunderstand me at all. I do understand the retaliation...it is human nature when you constantly get attacked...as Rosie does.
But I have decided, for me...to just not read what they say about me anymore. I have faith in my beliefs...so to hell what others think of them. I know what sort of person I am...so again....to hell what internet bloggers think of me.
Mum21,
You're right of course about human nature and the need to retaliate. However, it has now gone so far that people see attacks where none are meant. And when that's the way too many choose (it is a choice they make IMO) to interpret other's posts - then it's not my game any more (not that it ever should have been a game).
I'm off for now, hope you'll have a nice day!
"It is not our fault Viv banned you. If you have issues with Viv...then sort it out with her.....not us.
You have a blog of your own...go bore yourself with them there please." -[Quoting Mum21]
Actually Mum21, Viv was already being heavily discussed before I got here. I am hardly the one who raised the subject of "Viv" on this thread!
Rosiepops,
Okay, well let me alter my initial claim slightly then, and say you argued a JUDGE would probably not deem the McCanns guilty of neglect (or at least, have quite a tough job proving it).
Fair enough?
But still, you seem to be of the view that the McCanns were not neglectful, and this is something I highly disagree with (as you well know by now).
To say they were "wrong to leave the children that night" still falls short of actually using the "n" word .. the big "n" .. which none of the Pro's seem to want to commit to (including Mum21).
It makes me wonder: WHY were they WRONG to leave the kids then? (as you phrase it). Why was this not the RIGHT thing to do? Could it be because it was neglectful?
I well understand that there are different categories of neglect, and that neglect is not always easy or straightforward to prove in a court of law. But still, given that Madeleine and the twins were left on their own not just once but five times; given that they were all under 4-years-old; and given that the doors were left unlocked, I feel confident that this surpasses the sentiment of "wrong to leave the children" and falls well into the category of "neglect" (INCLUDING by legal definition).
In terms of what KIND of neglect, well, given that it ended in abduction, I think it would probably come under the category of "failure to supervise". It wouldn't be "single instance" because they failed to supervise several times. It wouldn't be "chronic" because Madeleine was not left for weeks on end. So that's why I came to "semi-chronic" (which, incidentally, is a perfectly legitimate clinical and sub-categorical definition).
Obviously, we will never see eye to eye on this subject and that is fine. But it does leave me wondering why "wrong to leave them" (five times) doesn't translate to "neglect" in the Pro-McCann mindset.
Thanks.
Bianca I am not really getting involved in this play on words between you and Rosie on this neglect issue. At the end of the day whatever you call it it will make no difference, the poor child is missing. It is up to the PJ to decide if under their laws what they did is chargeable or not. As far as I am concerned they did wrong and call it whatever you like it was plain stupid and selfish and people of their calibre should have had more common sense. There are no excuses for what they did IMO-
This is a hi and bye as off out now
Hi Gina,
I agree there are no excuses for the McCanns selfishness, but I also believe that the PJ should have kept up the search.
I know we can't always take newspaper stories as fact, but why would the McCanns hire private investigators if they really thought the PJ were still looking? I doubt they would, which makes me think that the reports about the PJ stopping the search were actually correct.
Perhaps the PJ DID find suspicious DNA evidence, but this still shouldn't have been enough to convince them to stop looking for Madeleine. After all, this "evidence" was not conclusive, and as far as we know, still may not be.
Who's responsible for Madeleine being missing?
Number One: Her parents, for failing dismally in their duty of care toward their daughter by leaving her unsupervised in an unlocked bedroom. She deserved better.
Number two: Whoever snatched her. Just because she was alone and vulnerable, did not give anyone the right to abduct her.
Number three: The PJ. The DNA evidence simply wasn't conclusive enough to confirm manslaughter (if it was, wouldn't the McCanns be in jail by now?) so why did they stop looking for Madeleine? Had the DNA evidence spoken 90 percent of a manslaughter, it STILL wouldn't have justified abandoning the search, because even if there is the SLIGHTEST doubt, one must keep looking!
Just want to add:
I know full well by observing the Lindy Chamberlain case in Australia how so-called forensic "evidence" can be proved dismally wrong.
Lindy was actually sent to jail on the strength of this "evidence" (for killing her daughter Azaria), but was released two years later when the matinée jacket Azaria had been wearing was discovered miles away from where the Chamberlains had been camping, just outside a dingo lair.
Not only were the charges of killing her baby then quashed (as obviously, a dingo had done it, as Lindy had originally claimed) but the forensic evidence was re-examined with some shocking results (for example, the "foetal blood" that was supposedly found in the Chamberlain's family car turned out to be paint!).
I know that forensic science has progressed a lot since the 1980's, but DNA can still be a very tricky area, so the possibility that the PJ have made a mistake is always there.
Like the McCanns, the Chamberlains were incredibly negligent (taking 9-month-old Azaria, who had a chest infection at the time, up to Ayers rock during a freezing winter, then leaving her sleeping on a tent floor with the flap unzipped .. AFTER the local indigenous people had warned her that the dingoes that wandered the site were known to menace people's children!).
In an indirect way, the Chamberlains WERE responsible for Azaria's death. However, Lindy was not a murderer, so it was wrong to jail her for such.
P.S. I say "obviously a dingo had done it" but even though Azaria Chamberlain's mauled matinée jacket was found outside a dingo lair, her body was never actually found, and in actual fact, the case remains officially unsolved.
As far as I'm concerned the McCanns made a serious error of judgement, but it wasn't made with intent to bring harm to their children.
Christ what price they have paid for their decision, who are we to inflict more pain on them. Whatever you think of them, at the end of the day their little child has been stolen, nobody deserves that, least of all Madeleine. You wouldnt wish that on your worst enemy.
These children wasn't left running riot, abandoned for hours at a time or starved of love and affection. On this night, they were bathed, read a story and then tucked up safely in bed.
They was on a holiday complex which was well advertised as being a safe, family friendly resort. I believe the McCanns when they say they felt safe enough to dine close by, if they didnt feel safe then I do not believe for one minute they would have left the children.
I believe what happened thereafter, is an absolute tragedy that no-one least of all Madeleine deserved.
There is only one criminal in all of this, and thats the person that illegally entered that apartment and took this little child, if it wasnt for that sicko she would still be with her mummy and daddy.
The McCanns face a life sentance of uncertainty, guilt, grief and regret, I think that is punishment enough. Anybody that feels they still need to stick the knife in are a sad excuse for a human being.
Tinks, well said and that avatar - love it! Cracks me up every time I look at it.
Mum
Well said I agree.
Bianca,
Again, I did not say that, I said a judge would determine the level of neglect, there simple. I wish you would take the time and trouble to actually read what people are saying. Since when has anyone inferred that you are a paedophile? Tinks certainly has not, I haven't, in fact I have never read anything of the kind, I think it is how you read it.
you seem to have a problem with red mist, you read something, misunderstand it, the mist comes down and you then rant.
Bianca no one doubts that you feel that way you do about your children and children in general, if we did suspect you were of the Vile and ecolab kind of comment, I can assure you your posts would not be allowed on here, we do not like even reproducing them on here.
It is a shame you carry on the way you do, if you didn't you would find people more willing to communicate with you.
Gina,
beg your pardon? There is no play of words- thanks.
Swedishmum.
Just what is it you are trying to say? No one is removing your posts, great that you can pass your messages on here and they do not get removed. You are treated politely, pity I am not afforded the same courtesy, but hey ho that's life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes I do retaliate, but only in measured response, when I see how often I am attacked on TWS and the 3A's by people I have never even heard of, let alone communicated with, why should I not defend myself? It is a wonder, given that I am attacked 24/7, that I do not actually retaliate a hell of a lot more than I actually do! It is all very well for others to say they would not do as I do, that is for them, I do not tell them how to act and what to write and what not to write and of course, they are not the subject of these personal attacks day in day out. As for quietening people without insults, yes it can work, but I do not see much evidence of it on TWS, people like notdoc simply ignore those kind of posts, they prefer to attack me and they do this because I believe, that deep down they know the things I am saying are correct and because I do not dress them up in flowery prose (believe me I could if I wanted to - words do come easy) they realise that many people actually understand what I am saying and they just want to shut me up, well tough, the lady 'aint for shutting up!
I will say what I see fit, when I see fit to say it and no one is going to stop me.
What is more I will keep saying it and shouting if necessary until someone starts listening and something is done in Portugal about the disgraceful state of affairs, that people can have their child abducted, nothing is done to find her, the most appalling catalogue of errors follows and the parents end up being treated in the most inhumane fashion. If decent people ignore this disgusting state of affairs then humanity goes back years nearly to when we forced kiddies up chimneys and threw women in debtors prisons!
As someone I like and respect very much said to me very recently, "keep on being horrified Rosie" and I fully intend to;)
Madeleine is mentioned a lot on the pro forum, in fact if it were not for Madeleine I would not be posting today.
There is no news at the moment, so what is new? There has never been that much news has there? Plenty of lies and leaks and smears, but precious little news.
However, what there is, is a child missing and an inept bungling police force NOT doing a thing to actually find her and there is a clear and unequivocal attack on two people's human rights.
If this is not news, then I am afraid, I do not understand what actually is news.
Well said Rosie 19:01.
Hi Bianca
Your 18.18 post just about sums it all up but none of us really know if the PJ stopped looking or not. I think it is fair to say there is a limit to how far any police force can search and certainly not worldwide for one child and spend so much time on one case as Metodo are able to do. However IMO it is time now to either charge the McCanns or lift their Arguido status, as far as I am concerned the PJ either have enough evidence or they do not and this is now becoming a farse.
Hi Tinkerbell,
I agree with your post 18.58 with the exception of this "I believe the McCanns when they say they felt safe enough to dine close by,". I think this has been debated to death and I have never changed my view that if you cannot see the apartment or hear your children if the cry or call then it is not safe. I think many of us have listed all the dangers of leaving children in this situation. But hey, it was only once sentence I disagreed with, so things are looking up ;-)
Blimey Gina, they must be, lol. There's hope yet!
Hi Tinks
Has the eviction taken place yet? I am being forced to watch america's got talent.
Holland beat france BTW Oooh la la
No va va vroom!
Yep, eviction has taken place, it was Steph the young girl. Shame I thought she had some mileage with Rex. Gosh what a name, sounds like a bloody dog.
Glad Holland won, I'm championing them in our absence!
France must be borderline whether they go through now, is that 2 loses for them ?
I wonder if they have been able to secure anywhere private for their holiday? If any family need a break it is them.
yes I think it is!
My son is championing Holland too, he was saying yesterday he thought they could cause a big upset, actually I said I was enjoying this tournament because I am not suffering the nerves with watching your country play.
I do not mind if Germany or Holland win. I like Germany and you can never quite rule them out. I have seen the come back from the dying embers many a time!
I was just thinking the same thing. I was wondering whether Richard Green has a holiday home where they could maybe stay. I'm so grateful for the support he has given this poor family.
Nite Tinks, yes where there is life there is hope, but my be hope at the moment is that there is some fuel at the garage tomorrow and some deliveries of water in the local shops, it is so hot sitting in the car in a petrol queue and sooooooo boring too
Lol, I know what you mean, it is pure agony watching England play. I've really missed the build up and the sense of unity and pride it brings. I dont think they realise how much it means to the fans.
If Phillip Green does have a place I am sure he will offer it as will any of their other benefactors. The twins have every right to have a happy time, they are totally innocent. I just hope they can enjoy their twins.
I am just sending you an email would like you to read something I was sent today.
Oops, Philip Green! I thought when I was typing that, the name didnt look right.
Yes, you have me intrigued!
Sorry Gina, I missed you there,
Good Nite.
Stephanie got evicted?Oh dear i thought she was good! I had convinced myself that mario was going! hasn't he got a huge neck?
Regarding this neglect issue, I feel this is another red herring, because apparently under Portuguese law they would have had to bring charges for it by now and as they haven't, I believe this was just another leak to try and blacken this couples character.
Have you ever seen such a vicious hate campaign being waged by a supposed civilised modern police force?
I wonder how long I would last on big brother before I got evicted - don't answer that - Good night all
ha ha Gina, what if we were in there together?
Rosie I think it would be an absolutely hoot we would all be climbing the walls to get out and away from the ear ache we would all be given each other :-)
But the good thing we would provide the entertainment and we would be kept in until the last!
I bags you for cleaning duties and I'll do the cooking.
I bags you for cleaning duties and I'll do the cooking.
50/50 is the deal until we are sure we can trust each other not to set booby traps and loo sending dinner delights.
Ok, that is me done for the night, nearly passed midnight, time to have a few laps on my broomstick before bed. Adios amigas
Gina
that could be our first row in the BB house.
Please do not circle too low over my house I don't want you setting the neighbourhood cats off and the toads croaking.
night Gina sleep well.
Seems to be a glitch on the forum.
Am sure it will be back soon.
The McCann’s did not have faith in the PJ from the word go. We heard this right away from Gerry’s sister. We also heard this from border control in Spain who reported they were not informed and if they had been they would have “LOCKED DOWN”. We have heard experts comment - we have seen TV footage from where journalist were standing right at the McCann flat (no cordon off scene) we have listened to experts comment on video footage where the dreadful and unforgivable mistakes were being made whilst taking forensic evidence & we have watched the police sitting at borders in their car when they should have been out stopping cars - we have heard from people who were searching for Maddie comment on the lack of police presence and no organised search “every man for himself” – we have listened to people who say the police did not even chap their door to ask if they saw anything - I could go on and on but cannot be bothered. The police in my opinion failed this little girl so when will they be made to stand up and take account of their failed actions?
As Rosie has said a red hearing just another bloody stupid leak to get at this couple and make the world think they are still doing something. Well you do not fool me.
As for the big “n” word if anyone was really that passionate about this then they would be going on about the whole group who also left their children not just the McCann’s. So obvious they are just out as usual to attack this heartbroken couple. And they have their sentence – move on.
Rosiepops,
I know that you yourself have never accused me of being a "pedophile" or even inferred it (and I appreciate you acknowledging my dedication children's issues).
However, what ELSE can it mean when someone says another person is "dangerous" and/or that their dealings with children should be "vetted"? You talk about "filthy talk", well THIS is filthy talk Rosiepops, as I am the complete opposite of "dangerous" when it comes to anything to do with children! Obviously, these comments (of Tinkerbell's) strongly infer that I am some kind of threat to children, which is an utter and abominable lie!
Anyway, to Tinkerbell herself - there is no WAY you and I will ever reach any kind of agreement on the neglect issue, so I am not even going to respond to your claims about who is and is not a "sad excuse for a human being"
To Gina - I agree with you: If one can not see or hear their children at any given time, then quite obviously the circumstances are not "safe"!
Back to Rosiepops: I think you put a lot of my comments down to "ranting" or the "red mist" when in actual fact, I am just passionately arguing my position. But anyway, about "neglect" and what the judge would say, etc, I'll accept that I misunderstood your post, but will state again that you DID seem to be saying that the judge would have a tough time proving that the McCanns intended to neglect their children.
Phew! I'm exhausted. Gonna give this a rest soon I think!
Bianca, I did say I wouldnt respond to you again, but I'd just like to say "whatever". I reiterate if you choose to not read things properly (which is not the first time) then its your problem.
You are right, we will NEVER EVER agree on the N issue. Children do deserve protection from the type of scum that prey on them. This scum needs to be hunted down. I do think it is dangerous, while there is a sicko out there, people like you are focusing attention on the McCanns when the focus needs to be on the scum that prey on these innocent little children. IMO someone is getting away with this crime and is no doubt waiting to pounce again on some other unsuspecting family.
But before I do (I know .. sigh!)
I have been thinking about something just in the past day or so that I thought may be appropriate to post here.
I'm not sure how original the theory is (for all I know, it's been suggested many times before) but here goes anyway:
Understandably, there has been a lot of discussion about how, if Madeleine was abducted, the twins didn't wake up or Madeleine scream the place down upon being confronted by a stranger?
It's a good question, and frankly, one can understand people suspecting that perhaps the children were sedated at the time (hence, their apparent silence).
But what about this - As most people would know, especially parents, when a child is lying down asleep and you want to move that child to somewhere else (usually if the child has fallen asleep while you've been out visiting), the most natural thing to do is pick the child up, moving their body from the horizontal (lying down) position into an upright (vertical) position that is held against your body (probably with the child's head tucked under your chin, and cradled by one of your hands). This is the most common thing to do. However, it is also something that almost always wakes the child up (as the child has gone from lying down to basically, sitting up). The child will stir and probably ask what is happening, to which the parent will undoubtedly respond by assuring the child that it is just a temporary interruption, and that they'll be back home in bed very soon, etc. Upon receiving their parent's re-assurance, the child will likely fall asleep again, and be quite easy to put into the car for the journey back home.
So what I'm thinking is this: to avoid this scenario of the sleeping child waking up, the abductor may have strategically avoided moving Madeleine from horizontal to vertical, and SIMPLY LEFT HER HORIZONTAL. He would have known that the shift from lying down to sitting upright would have disturbed her, and furthermore, that there was no WAY he could have re-assured her that everything was okay and gotten her to go back to sleep again! The abductor would have realised that upon waking up, Madeleine would have seen it was a stranger and screamed the place down. Even if he'd (she'd?) then gagged Madeleine, Madeleine would have been wriggling and trying to break free and very awkward to shuffle into a waiting car. Amidst this chaos too, the other children would have likely woken up.
We know that Jane Tanner claims to have witnessed a man ("bundleman") carrying a child spread out horizontally over his forearms not long before Madeleine was reported missing, and it is possible, I believe, that the above scenario may explain this. It may seem like a lot of trouble to go to and a very awkward position to try and carry a child in, but if you were determined not to wake the child up, and were only interested in shuffling that child into a waiting car as trouble-free as possible, you may just put in the effort!
It is worth thinking about anyway.
P.S. My supposition about the "waiting car" is not meant to imply it was necessarily a professional operation. I'm sure that random perverts and loners drive cars too!
Tinkerbell,
I'll see your "whatever" and raise you a "whatever"!
Whatever!
HI BIANCA, I just read your last post with your theory and although anything is feasible I suppose, do not loose sight of the fact that the abductor could only do this if he went out of the door and if he had be would have bumped into Jane Tanner. Therefore he has to either pass the child out of the window to a accomplish or climb out carrying the child. To do this without disturbance of her has always been a big question mark. However if the McCanns did use sedatives to ensure their children slept whilst they were out, then they made the abductors job a lot easier and less risky. However we will never know the truth IMO
HI MANDZ re the last paragragh in your post. I have repeatedly said that ALL the tapas group did the same thing, and if charges are made it should be against all of them. I think once when I mentioned this to Claudia she said the charge is more serious if something happens to the child and that is why the PJ are only likely to charge the McCanns. I am a its black or its white sort of person so I think that is a stupid scenario. If it is a crime to leave kids unattended it is and that is that as far as I am concerned. However I do not think any charges will be made at this late stage, what's the point now.
HI to anyone else around, its a lovely day here in the Costa Blanca today and I just popped in for a read and a cool down but back out again now to roast. :-)
PS BIANCA, I forgot to say that when thieves break in over here it has been known on many occasions they use chloriform, to me it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the abductor (if there was one) gave Madeleine a whiff of something, just enough to ensure no harm but she would not wake for a while
Good Morning Gina,
Seems I may have missed you again.
I believe it is more than likely the abducter gave her a sniff of something to stop her waking up.
But, like you...I doubt we will ever know the true story of what happened that I night. In fact I have my doubts that Madeleine will ever be found. It has gone on far too long. And that is my honest opinion. I like to believe she is still alive...but in my heart I very much doubt that she is.
Hi Gina,
Yes. That certainly adds complications to the theory. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps the abductor (and yes - if there WAS an abductor) may have left via the (unlocked) door, but then hid behind a bush or something until he thought the coast was clear. Perhaps, when he thought Jane was far enough away, he then decided to emerge with Madeleine, not realising that she (Jane) had spotted him?
This theory sounds forced, I know! But then again, not much is very straightforward about this case it seems!
About the chloroform - this does seem to make sense, although if he used it to temporarily silence Madeleine, wouldn't he likely have had to use it on the twins as well? And if so, would this have left any trace behind? (scientific question).
Hi Gina,
Yes absolutely if there were ever going to be charges then it’s everyone not just the McCann’s. If what clawd said was true then what about the Irish couple (in Portugal) who allegedly got drunk and could not be woken to look after their three young children.
There children got taken into care yet they got their children back the next day - no charges and flew back home. One rule for everyone else and a separate rule for the McCann’s. Anyway I don’t believe for one second they will be charged.
Tinks
Like you my main anger is with the evil son of a bitch who came into their environment and took this small child. My anger is also at the investigation.
Mum21,
Like you I think perhaps the children were giving something to sniff to keep them in a deep sleep. Gerry stated he thought it was strange the other two did not wake up? We know that Maddie was crying the day before and that perhaps there was something in this? Perhaps the abductor came that night and the children got a fright and were crying hence he came back the next night and gave them chloroform? Who knows?
By SUSAN MILLER
May 2, 2008
FBI Agent Analyzes McCann Case
co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas recently spoke with former FBI Special Agent and profiler Brad Garrett, an ABC News consultant, who discussed the details surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Reports said the Portuguese police arrived on the scene soon after Madeleine vanished, and left soon after, a fact Garrett called "unusual." Garrett, who has worked on several high-profile missing persons cases, including that of Chandra Levy in Washington, D.C., said investigators would typically form a "command post right inside the resort. You start collecting information, and everything comes back to a lead detective in a room, and that's how you go through the information. You prioritize what needs to be done. ... You want to be right in the middle of the action so you can make snap decisions as to what should be done at any given time."
Garrett added, "You put people in places like airports, ports for boats" and you secure the scene as well as the resort so that everyone coming in and out is vetted.
From his experience, Garrett said that typically, in an investigation like this, the police would obtain and review surveillance tapes from the resort and any surrounding areas. And police would generally have a set team of law enforcement in place from the very beginning.
"Every case that I've worked like this you usually have a case agent, an FBI case agent and a lead detective," he said. "They sit right next to each other, and they work from that location, and everything comes back to them to make decisions on what should be done."
It would have been helpful in the McCann case, Garrett said, to know which cabs arrived at the resort. Additionally, he said police should have spoken with the entire staff at the resort to figure out if there were any people working there who had a history with missing children. "People get hired and there's limited background done on them," he said.
At times, the McCanns expressed little emotion during public appearances related to the case. Reports emerged that they had been advised by law enforcement not to break down in public. Garrett confirmed that "there is a belief in the world of criminal profiling that by keeping a very steady pace and talking in an authoritative but not condescending manner that you're sending a message out" to whoever may have abducted the child.
"You want to keep calm," he said. "The last thing you want is for them to get excited. They see this hysteria, that's one side of it. The other is some of these guys get kicks out of watching parents suffer on camera."
Garrett said Madeleine could have been taken by someone looking to adopt a blond 4-year-old attractive child. In these types of scenarios, "they actually have somebody go out and look for the child," Garrett said. Adoptive parents also might go to an agency that's unscrupulous and abducts children, he said.
But how could someone take Madeleine from her room without anyone hearing her cry or making noise? Garrett said there are a few explanations. The McCanns have said that their children sleep quite soundly and that the twins apparently slept through the abduction. They even slept through the police coming into the room, the couple said.
Another theory?
Madeleine might have known her abductor, Garrett said. Somebody might have independently befriended her, possibly someone who works at the resort, he said.
Hi Mum, missed you again but totally agree with your 13.07 post.
Hi Bianca. Although many of have given up long ago on trying to work out what happened, just for the sake of keeping our grey cells ticking I would suggest that your theory above the abductor coming out of the door then hiding in the bushes does not seem to work IMO. The door is at the front and the road JT said she saw bundleman is at the rear. She was about to turn toward the apartment so unless he came out of the door and found another route to get to the back he would have to have walked into JT and if he hid and waited till she had gone then she would not have seen him (maybe she didn't!!) in which case he could have walked out of the door at anytime when no one was around. Clear as mud, but I know what I mean :-)
Hi Mandz I cannot agree with you (sorry) that there is one rule for the drunks who left their kids and another for the McCanns. The drunks were not charged for neglect and neither have the McCanns been. It is my understanding that their arguido status relates to their possible involvement in Madeleines disappearance. Re the article you posted, interesting footnote, it could be someone she knows, well I think that has been suggested as a possibility on many occasions and people were not talking about staff members. Don't think I will speculate on that one though.
Hi to anybody else who I have overlooked, off to bed now, have done too much gardening and am pooped
It seems that you have all abandoned ship from here and moved on to pastures new so no point leaving a comment but talking of ships here's a joke to end up with
A young woman in Liverpool was so depressed that she decided to end her life by throwing herself into the Mersey. She went down to the docks and was about to leap into the freezing water when a handsome youngsailor saw her tottering on the edge of the pier, crying.
He took pity on her and said, 'Look, you have so much to live for. 'I'm off to America in the morning, and if you like, I can stow you away on my ship. I'll take good care of you and bring you food every day.' Moving closer, he slipped his arm round her shoulder and added, 'I'll keep you happy, and you'll keep me happy.'
The girl nodded 'Yes',after all, what did she have to lose? Perhaps a fresh start in America would give her life new meaning.
That night, the sailor brought her aboard and hid her in a lifeboat. From then on, every night he brought her three sandwiches and a piece of fruit, and they made passionate love until dawn.
Two weeks later, during a routine inspection, she was discovered by the captain. 'What are you doing here?' the captain asked.
'I have an arrangement with one of the sailors', she explained. 'I get food and a trip to America , and he's screwing me.'
'He certainly is', the captain said. 'This is the Birkenhead Ferry.'
Just thought I would leave a post here as I know those on the vile blog read here .
let's hope the end to secrecy is true . It's what the MCCanns have wanted and the pj have not . The pj must be feeling sick . I see utter humiliation for the pj when the truth is revealed . Can't wait to see the pj ridiculed and the search for Maddie begin with a competent police force in charge .
Post a Comment