Why do you think they can't find Maddie? (or any viable perps?)

[Pinkhammer]

:doh:
Talk about slanderous comments.

Just My Own Humble Opinion.

Cheese and crackers! This is an OPINION Forum is it not?

Public persons cannot sue (and win) for slander OR libel after they have had their PR team plaster their faces, their identities, their personal diaries, and their every word in newspapers worldwide from the Vatican in Rome to the rags in Australia.

Look it up!

 

[Pinkhammer]

Colomom, your scenario is well-thought-out, and bolstered by the numerous citations and observations you have made over the past seven months. Yours is an educated opinion, and may well prove to be the truest theory in the end.

 

[gord]

Just My Own Humble Opinion.

Cheese and crackers! This is an OPINION Forum is it not?

Public persons cannot sue (and win) for slander OR libel after they have had their PR team plaster their faces, their identities, their personal diaries, and their every word in newspapers worldwide from the Vatican in Rome to the rags in Australia.

Look it up!

err I dont know what law you have read - you post that people are swingers , murderers and the rest - they might just decide to come after you - keep your head down - The internet is not immune to law I can assure you

 

[daffodil]

err I dont know what law you have read - you post that people are swingers , murderers and the rest - they might just decide to come after you - keep your head down - The internet is not immune to law I can assure you

Yes, a person in the JonBenet Ramsey case sued an internet forum poster for calling him a murderer.

 

[gord]

Man, that aggravates me gord....

Does all of that which I just posted come across as "not being concerned with the nuts and bolts"?? I know I said "we" when I was referring to most people in the US but, jeez, I think I am definitely showing that I am concerned....



Ok, what if he did borrow a car from one of the other Tapas 7 saying that he needed it to get something from the pharmacy, and say that a body would have been wrapped and placed inside a suitcase (no DNA left behind), and say that, yes, that person is suspicious and may even have been so suspicious that they contacted a lawyer and said they wanted to "change" their testimony. What if that person is afraid of what might happen to them if they come forward now, what if they sedated their kids that night? What if they were convinced that if such information should get out that they would all lose everything, including their careers and their children?



My timeline is different than yours gord. I believe that the creche closed at 5:00PM as I have seen on the Mark Warner website. I don't believe the nanny or the restaurant owner with the CCTV tape. I also believe that the McCanns arrived at the Tapas at 8:55PM, as I have seen written as being reported by one of the T7. Even if we allow 2 hours for the cadaver scent to have been left....that allows for almost 2 hours to plan and execute. There was alot of jogging going on during the vacation, alot of time to drive around and explore. There is a lovely "Clifftop Walk" that the MW people may have suggested....

Something strange? Do you find their behavior to be strange now? Did you think their behavior was strange in the days following the disappearance? Have you ever seen footage of sociopaths who swear they had nothing to do with the death/vanishing only to find out that they were responsible?



Right back atcha.

Colomon - all I was say is that there is a huge amount of what if's and maybes in your theory

I have never even heard the theory of the second car till now - where did that car go ? is it still in the area ? should the police maybe search for it - was it a rental - you know the police will know exactly who had rented cars that week - they will also know what cars they are .

Gerry has had a tennis lesson till 6.30 at least - it is not just the nanny that gives a time of when the kids and Kate left the creche two statements say it was after 6.00pm - it is other people there as well - I cant believe you are basing your theory on the Warner web site that states times - it was a fluid holiday .

any way these times will have now been know to the police - even they are not that dimm


so your are saying maddy killed / accident at 5.00pm or there abouts - two hours for cadaver till 7.00 ish - Gerry borrows a car and then they shoot off for an hour / to find a place to dispose of body - bearing in mind that they had no idea where was the best place - this was their daughter for goodness sake

come back - return car to owner - freshens up and then dash down to tapas and act as if nothing is normal - ? until it was time to put the " act into place "

You know Pinkhammer's theory that it was a premeditated murder has much more more sense - this just sounds like you cobbled it together 6 minutes ago !! sorry

 

[colomom]

Colomon - all I was say is that there is a huge amount of what if's and maybes in your theory

I have never even heard the theory of the second car till now - where did that car go ? is it still in the area ? should the police maybe search for it - was it a rental - you know the police will know exactly who had rented cars that week - they will also know what cars they are .

Gerry has had a tennis lesson till 6.30 at least - it is not just the nanny that gives a time of when the kids and Kate left the creche two statements say it was after 6.00pm - it is other people there as well - I cant believe you are basing your theory on the Warner web site that states times - it was a fluid holiday .

any way these times will have now been know to the police - even they are not that dimm


so your are saying maddy killed / accident at 5.00pm or there abouts - two hours for cadaver till 7.00 ish - Gerry borrows a car and then they shoot off for an hour / to find a place to dispose of body - bearing in mind that they had no idea where was the best place - this was their daughter for goodness sake

come back - return car to owner - freshens up and then dash down to tapas and act as if nothing is normal - ? until it was time to put the " act into place "

You know Pinkhammer's theory that it was a premeditated murder has much more more sense - this just sounds like you cobbled it together 6 minutes ago !! sorry

All I am going to say in response gord is......see? Look at my posts, do you see any insult to your intelligence? Do you see me saying that your theories are "cobbled it together 6 minutes"?? That is totally unnecessary and unproductive in this discussion, as is your "norm", dude.

OF COURSE there are alot of what if's and maybe's...FFS man, we are trying to work together, bounce ideas off each other, narrow down the possibilities, trying to come to a common space (if you will, but you probably will not).

Fluid holiday??? For who?? The nannys in the creche? Who had to be home to feed their own children???? Nope...not buying it. Tennis lesson?? Seems to me that this was only revealed in month 6!!! I can see the tennis lesson as being viewed by G as "look, I need to create an alibi, a normalcy, I will keep this appointment" (assuming there really was a lesson). K can "deal", she has shown she can "deal". David Payne? Another month 6 revelation....

Shoot off for an hour? No idea of the best place? Go back, re-read, they were very familiar with the area, IMO. They jogged up the biggest freaking hill in the area.

Yes, it was their daughter and I agree a normal person would not even be able to consider what I have suggested BUT, I propose that the McCanns are not normal. There has been plenty of evidence to back-up that statement. I opened a thread about it!

As far as the second car, many reports, many...the McCanns had a jeep, there were nine(?) cars searched, blah, blah, blah...google it.

And finally....

"Colomom, your scenario is well-thought-out, and bolstered by the numerous citations and observations you have made over the past seven months. Yours is an educated opinion, and may well prove to be the truest theory in the end."

I love you too :blowkiss: thank you

 

[colomom]

~snip~
You know Pinkhammer's theory that it was a premeditated murder has much more more sense ~BIG snip~

AND FYI...that is InterestedWomans theory, not Pink's! Although Pink might change her mind at any time and tell us all about it it....you go grrrrl!

 

[philamena]

Just My Own Humble Opinion.

Cheese and crackers! This is an OPINION Forum is it not?

Public persons cannot sue (and win) for slander OR libel after they have had their PR team plaster their faces, their identities, their personal diaries, and their every word in newspapers worldwide from the Vatican in Rome to the rags in Australia.

Look it up!

YOU did not post IMHO when you first made the above comment and that is where you erred.
You look it up. As long as you say, imo, or I think, it's ok...but your post wasn't written that way. I'm actually surprised that the powers that be here at WS haven't warned you for making such comments about the parents of a missing child. Whether you like it or not, they are victims in this too.

 

[colomom]

YOU did not post IMHO when you first made the above comment. I'm actually surprised that the powers that be here at WS haven't warned you for making such comments about the parents of a missing child. Whether you like it or not, they are victims in this too.

Huge difference Philamena....they are also SUSPECTS.

 

[philamena]

Huge difference Philamena....they are also SUSPECTS.

Yep, they are suspects alright. And as you know they haven't been charged with any crime related to their daughter's disappearance and no solid evidence has nailed them.:twocents:

 

[Texana]

I have no problem with Colomom's scenario either. She's following the posted/public information from the resort in her timeline. It's as reasonable explanation for Madeleine's disappearance as the explanation that an abductor, who might have been seen by one person but that possibile sighting was denied by another, came in through an open door in a time window of less than thirty minutes, and either carried a child sleeping but not drugged, leaving behind sleeping but not sedated siblings, through an open window, several feet off the ground, or handed the child through the open window.

So far, the only argument against the McCanns' possible involvement seems to be this: They are really nice people who would not ever accidentally bring about the death of their child, even though they knowingly left said child alone in resort room for several nights, they would not ever cover up that accidental death because they are really nice, educated people who are obviously grieving the loss of their child.

I am consistently struck by the seeming incapability of the McCann supporters to cede even one negative point or even not-so-negative point (such as their could very well be genuinely grieving the loss of her child. I have no problem admitting that Gerry McCann and all the other Tapas 9 diners including Kate, are competent, successful individuals who have worked hard for that success. Why not? It doesn't necessarily mean that they are not involved, if those things are true. The world is a far more gray than black and white place.

On the other hand, the failure to acknowledge even one oddity or improbability or negative thing about the McCanns...from the illogical silence on the safety of the "babywatching" routine, to the obvious strangeness of publicizing Kate's ability to jog to the top of a monument in 18 minutes (that Kate did that is not necessarily odd, in my opinion, it's that Gerry could not perceive the reaction to people reading his statement of it...he did not, and does not seem to be able to perceive how mentioning that as a note-worthy item in light of his daughter's disappearance is puzzling...)

That inability is difficult for me to understand. I'm waiting for some responses other than "cobbled together" to make me certain the McCanns aren't involved. Being so close geographically to the Baby Grace/Riley Sawyer death, I'd really like to believe and be convinced that the McCanns aren't involved.

 

[SleuthMom]

You know guys, after reading several posts I wonder (with all due respect, really) if some of you live in a bubble-gum. I mean, do not take this as an insult but all the posters that are here in WS are pretty familiar with crime and the evils of people. How come is so hard for some of you to understand that IT IS possible that two parents can kill their own kid, hide their body and "act" normal to save their butts? Don't you all read enough crime stories daily? It does NOT surprise me in the least, yes...it is their daughter, YET we hear of crimes against kids done by their parents on a daily basis. So why is it so hard for some of you to realize that IT IS possible that parents can kill their own kid?

 

[Texana]

Oh please, tell me we are not going to get into the argument about whether or not comments about the McCanns' involvement can be made or not here.

It's already been decided.

Let's all give the mods a Happy/Merry Christmas by not bringing it up again. The McCanns have been declared arguidos, we can talk about their involvement all we want to or don't want to. We cannot and should not attack posters instead of the posts or theories, and everything posted here is obviously someone's opinion, either way. So there's no need to add "IMO" or "IMHO" (as opposed to "in my lying opinion") or anything else on a post, and we can all just keep trying no matter how hard it is, to be nice to one another no matter how we disagree. I do not think anyone is a horrible person for thinking the McCanns could not possibly involved, and I expect not to be considered a horrible person for thinking that they might be.

God bless us, everyone. :blowkiss:

 

[ThoughtFox]

I believe once someone is named an official suspect, then we can speculate about them, correct?

I always thought of them as victims until they were made Arguido. To my mind, the police always know more than any of us can possibly know. They are the ones actually speaking to these people, not us.

IMO, they had months to be seen as "victims," and then the police said it might be a idfferent picture than that. I'm not saying they aren't suffering - regret and remorse are heavy burdens to bear.

Two reasons I don't think of them as victims anymore:

The first is the phone calls made by Gerry to the British press and others right after Maddie was thought to be missing - that really sticks in my mind as a problem, because it was so calculated and possibly unnecessary. It seems overdone to me.

The second is the timeline, which colomom and others have mentioned. So many people walking around, to and fro, and apparently clueless, yet so certain about what happened after Maddie disappeared, though not concerned at all before she did. Throw in the fact that some of them might have been inebriated, tired, or sunburned, and it gets even more hazy. How clear are their memories?

 

[philamena]

From Texana's post:

I am consistently struck by the seeming incapability of the McCann supporters to cede even one negative point or even not-so-negative point ......

Oh come on.....:doh:Maybe you haven't read all the comments made by those who are not totally convinced of the McCann's guilt. Because there are more than 2 comments from McCann supporters on this thread who have named negative things about the McCanns. (Although I have to say the hang the McCann's campaign here has truly caught me by surprise.)


Second snip from Texana's post:

........Being so close geographically to the Baby Grace/Riley Sawyer death, I'd really like to believe and be convinced that the McCanns aren't involved.

And I find that hard to believe because so many are ready to crucify Kate and Gerry.

 

[Texana]

I thought I had read the posts on this forum rather thoroughly, from everyone who posts here.

The only response I've seen in general has been along the lines of "They left their children alone but that doesn't make them responsible for the cover up of the accidental or purposeful, if you will, death of one of said children."

I always try to allow for the fact that I might have missed something, however, which is why I did use the word "seeming."

Regardless, again, I'm waiting for convincing arguments about the McCanns' innocence, because I truly would like to believe they are innocent.

However, in the meantime, it's not slander to say that they aren't.

 

[Texana]

I believe once someone is named an official suspect, then we can speculate about them, correct?

I always thought of them as victims until they were made Arguido. To my mind, the police always know more than any of us can possibly know. They are the ones actually speaking to these people, not us.

IMO, they had months to be seen as "victims," and then the police said it might be a idfferent picture than that. I'm not saying they aren't suffering - regret and remorse are heavy burdens to bear.

Two reasons I don't think of them as victims anymore:

The first is the phone calls made by Gerry to the British press and others right after Maddie was thought to be missing - that really sticks in my mind as a problem, because it was so calculated and possibly unnecessary. It seems overdone to me.

The second is the timeline, which colomom and others have mentioned. So many people walking around, to and fro, and apparently clueless, yet so certain about what happened after Maddie disappeared, though not concerned at all before she did. Throw in the fact that some of them might have been inebriated, tired, or sunburned, and it gets even more hazy. How clear are their memories?

Correct.

Exactly.

 

[txsvicki]

YOU did not post IMHO when you first made the above comment and that is where you erred.
You look it up. As long as you say, imo, or I think, it's ok...but your post wasn't written that way. I'm actually surprised that the powers that be here at WS haven't warned you for making such comments about the parents of a missing child. Whether you like it or not, they are victims in this too.

Back during the Laci Peterson case, posters on WS were asked to put something under their poster name so that it would show up with each post as their opinion. I don't know what happened to mine though since I didn't change it. Maybe it's still on my profile or we don't need them anymore? .

 

[philamena]

Back during the Laci Peterson case, posters on WS were asked to put something under their poster name so that it would show up with each post as their opinion. I don't know what happened to mine though since I didn't change it. Maybe it's still on my profile or we don't need them anymore? .

txsvicki,
That's how I remember it too. If I was mistaken though, I apologize.

 

[ThoughtFox]

I was gone a long time, and when I came back "In My Opinion" was still in my signature, and a handy little phrase it is, too. That way we don't have to write "IMO" after every sentence.