tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post4741777959492585590..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: Seven Years On and Still No Evidence of an AbductorRosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger93125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82056365367807696352014-08-02T05:52:53.623+01:002014-08-02T05:52:53.623+01:00Anonymous, you state that you know people who were...Anonymous, you state that you know people who were having dinner with the McCanns, you also state that the McCanns searched frantically for Madeleine.<br /><br />The people you say you know, dined with McCanns must have been all or some of the Tapas 7, in other words, the McCanns mates. They were the only ones dining with the McCanns. <br /><br />If I were you, I would take a good look at the PJ files, because the information in the files state what the McCanns were doing when they should have been out looking for Madeleine. <br /><br />If Cristobel would allow me to do so, I would love to put some links on here, links that contain information that states what the McCanns were doing, when they should have been out looking for Madeleine and in my opinion, would have been out looking for Madeleine, if they played no part in her disappearance. <br /><br />In my opinion, anyone who supports the McCanns and lies on their behalf, is almost as bad as the McCanns and anyone else,who played a role in Madeleine's disappearance.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-58991817290049077442014-07-12T16:36:28.327+01:002014-07-12T16:36:28.327+01:00"I personally know people who were at dinner ..."I personally know people who were at dinner with the McCanns that night" - Indeed. I wouldn't call that first hand knowledge of anything really. Could you find out why<br />1. Kate "instantly knew" that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone to go back to the tapas to raise the alarm, and why she didn't ask anyone at the table especially Matt if he had seen anything suspicious?<br />2. Why T9 didn't instantly search in the place/direction that JT insisted she saw Tannerman and why the description kept changing?<br />3. Why Kate didn't inform the GNR that Madeleine had been "abducted", why there was such a delay in raising the alarm and why they didn't ask Mrs Fenn if she had seen Madeleine/anything/anyone unusual and why they instead told her that "a little girl had been abducted"<br />4. Why they woke JW but insisted he didn't need to take part in the search<br />etc etc<br /><br />I think "abduction believers" are interesting because they go to the ends of the earth to defend the couple yet do nothing at all to try to locate poor wee Madeleine or theorize where she might be. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-29413403654856193062014-07-08T14:59:43.930+01:002014-07-08T14:59:43.930+01:00Hi
Brilliant blog as always. Love you style of tel...Hi<br />Brilliant blog as always. Love you style of telling it as it is - love the bit about Peter Pan & Hansel and getal :-D<br />Just been watching the interview of today (during the break in the hearing in Lisbon), and am confused to now hear that GM has told the public that there is possibly a WOMAN abductor... Wasn't it Jane Tanner who was CERTAIN that she saw a MAN ? this web of deceit just gets more and more tangled. The more that couple say, the more they shoot themselves in the foot.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-82113442319176687772014-07-07T23:26:49.436+01:002014-07-07T23:26:49.436+01:00Dear Rosalinda,
I hope you don't mind me using...Dear Rosalinda,<br />I hope you don't mind me using your blog to wish Goncalo Amaral all the best for tomorrow, he has suffered so much through that money grabbing pair. I don't belong any forum but read plenty of what's going on as far as the McCann's are concerned. Without your input, and the many other contributors on the forum you belong a lot of people would not be able to make any sense of this baffling case.<br /><br />Thank you, B Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-85974768981475701582014-07-02T22:21:50.345+01:002014-07-02T22:21:50.345+01:00In answer to your query on JH forum - in 2007 on r...In answer to your query on JH forum - in 2007 on radio 5 live it was said that GM had met RM at a Labour party rally and they had known each other before May 2007. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-45617384545823834672014-07-02T18:01:16.319+01:002014-07-02T18:01:16.319+01:00If you believe in the Abominable Snowman, little g...If you believe in the Abominable Snowman, little green men from Mars, fairies, and Father Christmas, then you probably believe this man exists.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-30110698728194389852014-07-02T06:17:17.990+01:002014-07-02T06:17:17.990+01:00There does seem to be an increasing doubt in the c...There does seem to be an increasing doubt in the claims of the T9. Statistically this blog alone has the majority not being hoodwinked by their 'story'. It'll probably end up next to David Kelly files in the 'disclose after 70 years archive'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-21805876690641642982014-07-01T14:16:48.958+01:002014-07-01T14:16:48.958+01:00Posters 8.31 and 21.09 The point I was making rega...Posters 8.31 and 21.09 The point I was making regarding 'Vanished' is that the McCanns had no problem with the publication of a book that perpetuates a theory which by definition they regard as "ludicrous" One speculates if Amaral had agreed to share the profits of his book with them, they might be promoting it rather than attempting to ban it! I'm being satirical of course. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-20983125097064087472014-07-01T14:05:04.999+01:002014-07-01T14:05:04.999+01:00Posters 13.46 and 21.09, the point I was trying to...Posters 13.46 and 21.09, the point I was trying to make in regards to 'Vanished' was that the McCanns had no problems with the publication of a book that forwarded a theory which by definition they regard as "ludicrous" (I quote Mitchell on television in response to the criminologist referred to by the poster I responded to). It makes one wonder if Amaral had agreed to give them some of the profits from his book, they would have helped him promote it rather than attempt to ban it! I'm being satirical of course. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52441717936902123822014-07-01T05:09:21.973+01:002014-07-01T05:09:21.973+01:0008:31 Yes you are quite correct. This would appear...08:31 Yes you are quite correct. This would appear to be their strategy all along (or maybe it's CR's?). They have a fight on their hands in Portugal because the case with GA according to their laws is not libel. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-46479558379079942712014-06-30T21:46:47.714+01:002014-06-30T21:46:47.714+01:0008:31 Yes you are correct about the conclusion of ...08:31 Yes you are correct about the conclusion of the 'Vanished' out of court action. This appears to be their strategy all along (or rather CR's), but do remember that the GA case is Portuguese and is a claim for damages not libel. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-63556420941446504732014-06-29T16:31:54.801+01:002014-06-29T16:31:54.801+01:002.03 Yes, it tells us everything doesn't it? W...2.03 Yes, it tells us everything doesn't it? What is even more damning is that the McCanns not only did not sue this criminologist, but neither did they sue Danny Collins who wrote the book 'Vanished'. That book perpetuated a similar thesis to the criminologist you refer to. In fact the McCanns agreed to take a percentage of the sales of the book! Perhaps Goncalo Amaral may mention this in the forthcoming libel trial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-47195516079410147882014-06-29T15:58:09.727+01:002014-06-29T15:58:09.727+01:00Much is now being mooted about the 'credibilit...Much is now being mooted about the 'credibility' of Tannerman and how it gives a much better understanding of the abduction theory, so lets ask the nice Mr Redwood if he can provide the evidence to back up Tannerman, because the world of ergonomics currently proves that Tannerman (unless he is super-human) does not exist. <br />Firstly, the description of the adult is male, 35/40y, 1.70m tall, slim physical appearance; the child is described as older than a baby, thinks child was a girl but only saw legs (assumption based on pyjamas). So we have a slim male carrying a toddler (confirmed by sketch) lying across both arms in front of his chest. If it were a child say of about 3y it would weigh about 30 pounds. This male has now been identified as being a holiday maker returning from the crèche with their child (in order to eliminate them as a suspect). Now unless you were carrying a child of this nature a very short distance you would have them in a vertical position as close to your center of gravity as possible, probably with their head on your shoulder. The distance from the crèche to where Tannerman was first seen was aprox 250mtrs, based on the direction of travel and we don't know how farther they were going either. Take into account the fact that the same mass increases in weight the further the distance travelled (i.e. you will get weaker under the stress of carrying said weight) and Tannerman would have been on his knees by the time he was seen, or as suggested he was a super-human. Now Tannerman was said to have been moving 'hurriedly' inferring that they may be 'up to no good' not breaking under the strain of unnaturally carrying his daughter. And for all the doubters out there, you wouldn't switch between vertical and horizontal carry with that much weight over that distance.<br />So Mr Redwood, please back up the claim that Tannerman is real, because again the facts would seem to prove otherwise.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-89931928062810833922014-06-29T10:38:33.015+01:002014-06-29T10:38:33.015+01:00In 2007, Gerry was part of COMARE a group set up t...In 2007, Gerry was part of COMARE a group set up to advise Gordon Brown et al, regarding Nuclear Power Stations and the environment impact thereof. It is implied that this connection led to the assistance from the UK who deployed various experts including the, dare I say it, cadaver dogs. It follows therefore that whilst the UK, believing the abduction theory wished to assist, the cadaver dogs put a turn on the investigation, an awkward one at that. So speculation has it that because too much assistance from the UK had been employed in believing the innocence of a potential future Health Minister it was far too late to do a U turn, we then get into the game of plausible deniability etc. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-21942463968549093792014-06-29T10:03:26.035+01:002014-06-29T10:03:26.035+01:00Clarence Mitchell, a former advisor to the English...Clarence Mitchell, a former advisor to the English government, has been their PR controller of information. During an interview to Sky News he is told that a certain criminologist theorised that Maddie’s abduction had probably taken place in an unplanned manner, that Maddie had wandered out of the apartment looking for her parents and a paedophile had passed by at the time and took her, Mitchell says an interesting thing: "that didn’t happen, that’s ludicrous, Kate knows it, she knows that didn’t happen". <br />So if none of them were there when 'it' happened, how does she 'know' this is not what happened? And more importantly this infers that she 'knows' what happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-26480615053883280422014-06-29T08:52:38.783+01:002014-06-29T08:52:38.783+01:00The other great difference between the truth and a...The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.<br />"We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.<br />As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."<br />The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-53943734664926038872014-06-29T07:33:07.306+01:002014-06-29T07:33:07.306+01:00Dear Rosalinda, if I may quickly follow up on my p...Dear Rosalinda, if I may quickly follow up on my previous post: Perhaps Gerry/Kate could explain to ME why this case is a political cover-up! I know I'm not the only one who would like to know what connections they had with Gordon Brown, Clarence Mitchell etc. I know I'm not the only one who would like to know what political connections got them access to the Pope, the White House etc.. Please poster at 13.51 let us know!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-35987308462501625742014-06-29T06:26:33.978+01:002014-06-29T06:26:33.978+01:00Dear Rosalinda, given the personal insults you'...Dear Rosalinda, given the personal insults you've had to endure, I think you are very lenient allowing members of Team McCann to comment on your superb article. If however, you are going to let them post could I suggest you correct them when blatant untruths are posted? Lies such as they had to leave Portugal because of a peculiarity in the country's law. Lies such as the P.J. believing they were not involved in their daughter's disappearance. And as for Gerry/Kate whoops! sorry poster 13.51! demanding an explanation as to why I believe this case is a political cover-up, who the hell does the poster think he/she is? As I've implied, they're lucky to be even allowed to post on here. If they were stopped posting on here, it would be a dose of their own medicine - given that they've used money that has been embezzled from pensioners and schoolchildren to stop writers such as yourself Rosalinda from being published in the British press. All the factors that indicate and make me believe that this a cover-up are all highlighted by other posters on this thread in any case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-50655525240535714042014-06-29T00:18:41.249+01:002014-06-29T00:18:41.249+01:00Why is it that those who believe K&G et al ban...Why is it that those who believe K&G et al bang on as if this is some kind of game? This whole case is about right and wrong NOT winning or losing. It's about the justice that Madeleine deserves as SHE is the victim here NOT her irresponsible parents. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-24903857330762842652014-06-28T23:16:54.147+01:002014-06-28T23:16:54.147+01:00Who are you 04:42 Angus McBride I suppose?Who are you 04:42 Angus McBride I suppose?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-41170208718625641112014-06-28T22:54:27.392+01:002014-06-28T22:54:27.392+01:00It doesn't matter what the UK police think it&...It doesn't matter what the UK police think it's not in their jurisdiction, as for the Portuguese, the case is unsolved so they are not ruled out of anything. So yes of course I do know better .....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-87450804289009583542014-06-28T22:19:37.299+01:002014-06-28T22:19:37.299+01:00the case remains unsolved within the PJ, therefore...the case remains unsolved within the PJ, therefore the parents aren't ruled out of anything, I know better not to believe the MSM and follow the facts. may I suggest you read the official documents before you start quoting what is in fact not true. you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time (Abraham Lincoln).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-69315769462414205072014-06-28T21:51:54.465+01:002014-06-28T21:51:54.465+01:00Please explain to me why you believe it is a polit...Please explain to me why you believe it is a political cover-up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-15462589541949459542014-06-28T20:50:40.233+01:002014-06-28T20:50:40.233+01:00And I suppose we should all forget about the cadav...And I suppose we should all forget about the cadaver in the apartment! I wonder how that will be explained away.Nobody died in there before the McCann's took up residence, as far as I'm aware!! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-33170815149667977162014-06-28T16:41:17.454+01:002014-06-28T16:41:17.454+01:00Poster at 04.42 No, the PJ whom you stated "n...Poster at 04.42 No, the PJ whom you stated "never charged the McCanns" - as I explained this was because the British Government ensured they were not going to get the opportunity to do so - released publicly available files stating an abduction was simulated . Scotland Yard have stated that they are not suspects. The case however, is ultimately not theirs. The investigation is ongoing and it remains to be seen how it concludes. If I were a betting man I would predict that it will be confirmed in the near future that Madeleine is dead. A patsy(s) will be blamed for her fate - it is the logical conclusion to a sickening and evil political cover-up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com