tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post8276527315018737356..comments2024-02-04T19:08:45.476+00:00Comments on CRISTOBELL UNDECIDED: WAS SMITHMAN GERRY?Rosalinda Huttonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comBlogger213125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-30856504078389232032017-07-22T20:37:55.086+01:002017-07-22T20:37:55.086+01:00Concern yourself less about me. I'm none of yo...Concern yourself less about me. I'm none of your business. Your opinions are like your other guesswork-pointless and wasted.Talk less, listen more.Read more.If you enjoy the juvenile insult route you're in the wrong end of the pool with me.Swim back to the shallows before you drown.<br /><br />No more from you now thanks. Time's one thing we waste but can't get back. I won't waste any more of mine on you. Don't try to steal any more of it. it won't work.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-87401220507078295452017-07-22T18:10:28.923+01:002017-07-22T18:10:28.923+01:00Oh Ziggy, you ARE funny. Of course it's my own...Oh Ziggy, you ARE funny. Of course it's my own opinion. It's just one theory amongst lots of others. I know that and offer it as such.<br /><br />(See how few words that took?)<br /><br />To argue against it means offering snags and oversights which undermine it, not repeating what we already know that the theory is a theory lol.<br /><br />You're either not very good at this, are desperately dense or have no counter arguments? Hmm?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-46023837057632723112017-07-22T17:01:38.550+01:002017-07-22T17:01:38.550+01:00Anonymous22 July 2017 at 10:57
''No 2 - D...Anonymous22 July 2017 at 10:57<br /><br />''No 2 - Desperate.<br />Yes, I believe they were.''<br /><br />You believe.You, and believe.You're not reporting a fact or proof of anything.You're voicing an opinion and deciding that all opinions that counter it are wrong because your opinions reliable enough regardless of having no evidence, just your endorsement.That says more about you than your idea.<br /><br />''Or, at least, under extreme pressure to provide a family photo which included Madeleine later on in the week''<br /><br />Pressure from who ? Where's any evidence of this pressure ?<br /><br />''I believe awkward questions were starting to be asked by the PJ and others a couple of weeks down the line. ''<br /><br />You believe( again). It doesn't mean something's true merely because you believe it.The PJ were supposed to ask awkward questions.They earn a living doing that.Did they ask for photographic proof-or were they a bit more subtle and professional than a bored blogger.<br /><br />''so TLP was produced to relieve the pressure.''<br /><br />And once the pressure was relieved it they were made official suspects ?<br /><br />''the image and date have been manipulated to prove a falsehood''<br /><br />And you and your buddies can prove that can you ? Unlike two police forces with science at their fingertips.<br /><br />''And if the Last Photo is proven to be a misrepresentation, the whole fabric of the McCann's version is undermined.''<br /><br />Did i see an 'if' in there ?<br /><br />''The house of cards is subjected to a breath of fresh air.''<br /><br />This house of cards wasn't built by anyone other than blogging sleuths with one aim in mind.I hope it does get blown down.You might build one with more strength next time if you learn from your mistakes.<br /><br />''I can see you still haven't read the supporting evidence yet, Ziggy.''<br /><br />After that nonsense you don't qualify to criticise anyone for ignoring 'evidence'. Words like 'believe' and 'if' reflect speculation , not fact.It won't take any air to blow a house of cards down that was built without a foundation.<br /><br />''What are you afraid of? ''<br /><br />Alsations that carry knives.<br /><br />''made to look a fool again?''<br /><br />In your opinion. And your opinions mean nothing to me.In fact, they mean nothing at all.<br /><br />''Check your facts before rambling aimlessly.''<br /><br />Was that final suggestion from you to me, or did your 'voice' interrupt again and scold you.<br /><br />I'm not sure what will flush you, but I'm not calling a plumber on a Saturday.<br /><br /><br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-89139457188443850452017-07-22T10:57:35.416+01:002017-07-22T10:57:35.416+01:00No 2 - Desperate.
Yes, I believe they were.
Or, ...No 2 - Desperate.<br /><br />Yes, I believe they were.<br /><br />Or, at least, under extreme pressure to provide a family photo which included Madeleine later on in the week. I believe awkward questions were starting to be asked by the PJ and others a couple of weeks down the line. The only available photos were the playground photos (and possibly the tennis photo, hmm) taken very early in the holiday so TLP was produced to relieve the pressure.<br /><br />May 18 doesn't prove either theory - April 29 or May 3, nor indeed any date in between - as Gordon Bennett has pointed out correctly on the next blog. What it would prove is that the provenance of the photo is not that which TM cite, and the image and date have been manipulated to prove a falsehood. And if the Last Photo is proven to be a misrepresentation, the whole fabric of the McCann's version is undermined. The house of cards is subjected to a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />I can see you still haven't read the supporting evidence yet, Ziggy. What are you afraid of? Apart from being made to look a fool again? Check your facts before rambling aimlessly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-3996550190118949482017-07-21T23:02:10.278+01:002017-07-21T23:02:10.278+01:00Thank you virtual T - the Walz was heavenly and I&...Thank you virtual T - the Walz was heavenly and I'm glad you liked my china - I do have a thing about nice china. Kind regards, Jane. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11506954298413312570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-1364731386315064262017-07-21T19:14:10.086+01:002017-07-21T19:14:10.086+01:00Anonymous21 July 2017 at 17:52
''Ah, Zigg...Anonymous21 July 2017 at 17:52<br /><br />''Ah, Ziggy at 12.58, we have our answer! 1, Hard of thunking!''<br /><br />I don't know who the 'we' is you're referring to, readers of this blog, readers of the other pits you waste time on or you and the voice in your head.Whoever you are, think again.<br /><br />There's two possibilities that supply the life support to this theory :<br /><br />1- Madeleine was at the pool on the 18th in full public view.<br /><br />2- The remaining family members were there but Madeleine wasn't so was later pasted onto a photograph of the family members in order to have some 'evidence' to defend the 'suspects'.They weren't suspects at this time.They had no need to contrive this nonsense.<br /><br />No 1 is ridiculous. No2 is desperate.<br /><br />This kind of nonsense is the result of somebody solving a case that has no tangible evidence or reliable testimony and then trying to think of cunning ways the 'perps' could have done it based on little or no knowledge of digital photography or human behaviour. Being a keen viewer of documentaries and 'Murder She Wrote' doesn't even begin to compensate for that.Blinkers are applied to aid concentration and prevent distractions from left or right.Too many people apply blinkers when they shouldn't. It's impossible to remove them for them, they kick and scream.But, if the author of this particular gem needs it, far be it from me or anyone else to knock the toys off the table.It's just a shame they weren't happy to play somewhere quietly and privately. <br /><br />''The first rule of combat is to understand the thinking of the people you contend with''<br /><br />Make that your daily mantra.I don't need it.<br /><br />''You have utterly failed to do that. Still, for me and many others here, you have negligible credibility anyway.''<br /><br />A Lion doesn't need the approval of sheep.<br /><br />''Must try harder.''<br /><br />No I mustn't.ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-6741635361535448722017-07-21T18:04:52.633+01:002017-07-21T18:04:52.633+01:00Re my 21 July 2017 at 15:23 post
Correction: &quo...Re my 21 July 2017 at 15:23 post<br /><br />Correction: "...Madeleine's height.."<br /><br />TAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-38087899834105200152017-07-21T17:52:28.324+01:002017-07-21T17:52:28.324+01:00Ah, Ziggy at 12.58, we have our answer! 1, Hard of...Ah, Ziggy at 12.58, we have our answer! 1, Hard of thunking!<br /><br />It wasn't Maddie they were taking the base picture of, it was Gerry and his daughter Amelie. Madeleine disappeared from 3 May, remember? You haven't bothered to read any of the links I gave giving background thought to the theory, have you? Just panicked and dismissed it out of hand. Now why would you have such tunnel-vision about this theory? Particularly as you've been squawking and demanding answers for more than 2 days - why haven't you bothered to read the supplied answers?<br /><br />So, I say again. Any onlooker would not bat an eyelid at Kate or one of their friends (who were still out there on 18 May) taking a quick snap of the father and his remaining daughter. There were copious such pictures taken of the McCanns after the event.<br /><br />I suggest you go and read the supplied links - you don't have to join to read Textusa - and her summary is pretty much how I see it. Incidentally, the discussion done on MMM was completely independent of Textusa, it was only after we reached the conclusions we did someone pointed out some time later she thought the same way. Interesting that 2 separate bodies reached the same conclusion using similar material.<br /><br />You know, you wouldn't have made it as a Centurion in the Roman army. The first rule of combat is to understand the thinking of the people you contend with. You have utterly failed to do that. Still, for me and many others here, you have negligible credibility anyway.<br /><br />Must try harder.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-56305470518961923642017-07-21T15:23:27.701+01:002017-07-21T15:23:27.701+01:00Jane Cook 21 July 2017 at 10:38
Virtual T to virt...Jane Cook 21 July 2017 at 10:38<br /><br />Virtual T to virtual Jane:<br /><br />Thank you, Jane<br /><br />Enjoyed the cuppa, it was as tasty as your cooking. Loved the tea set - Royal Worcester, the real McCoy!:)<br /><br />Are you good for a waltz?<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVsGf1ag6Us<br /><br />Have a good weekend.<br /><br />Virtual regards from virtual T<br /><br />PS You are likely right about Madeleine being “small”. There exists a photograph of her standing close to a kitchen worktop facing the camera. Presuming the height of the worktop is standard, Madeleine height in the photo can be deduced to be about 5cm below the average height for a girl of her age.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-36227805188553461332017-07-21T14:00:21.458+01:002017-07-21T14:00:21.458+01:00Hi Roz, I see you've treated us to another blo...Hi Roz, I see you've treated us to another blog with Tony Bennett and Ben Thompson as the linchpins, get a room already. I'm surprised your hands don't show scars from the fabric burns of their coat tails. Could you maybe get Sonia to write a piece for your blog? I enjoy reading her words. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-77820252331644945782017-07-21T12:58:46.639+01:002017-07-21T12:58:46.639+01:00Anonymous21 July 2017 at 08:36
Anonymous21 July 2...Anonymous21 July 2017 at 08:36<br /><br />Anonymous21 July 2017 at 08:36<br />''It wasn't a photo shoot, you silly man, it was a quick snap of a (now famous) father and daughter outside their apartment at the kiddie's pool on a hot day. Probably taken by a family member or friend who people were used to seeing as part of the group''<br /><br />''And 18 May is only a theory, you know. I am of an open mind so please convince me otherwise using a different argument, do.''<br /><br />'Probably' taken etc..ok-yep-probably...<br /><br />1- The world was looking everywhere for the child from May03.<br /><br />2- She was the most recognisable face in the world from may 03.<br /><br />3- They were the most famous and recognisable family in the world.<br /><br />4- PDL was swarming with police and search teams and plastered with posters.<br /><br />5- The story was that the child had vanished.<br /><br />6-Would the parents go through all that and then gamble on popping out to a pool with the child ?<br /><br />If that doesn't convince you of why the theory is a waste of time it's because you're of the school of thought that needs it to be valid for another reason.That's not an open mind.<br /><br />ZiggySawdustnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-7400149204405466952017-07-21T12:01:44.985+01:002017-07-21T12:01:44.985+01:0020.7 @17:13
"Gerry McCann's 'phone ...20.7 @17:13 <br /><br />"Gerry McCann's 'phone records indicate a distinct and recurrent pattern of post traumatic behaviour"<br /><br />20.7 @23:51<br /><br />"I appreciate a sensible post and the way that he did not let the "anonymous" Dr Roberts get away with that garbage about post traumatic disorder"<br /><br />Spot the difference. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-22428093949533375292017-07-21T11:42:02.999+01:002017-07-21T11:42:02.999+01:0020.7 @23:14
Then why bother?20.7 @23:14<br /><br />Then why bother?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-19346134520688112072017-07-21T11:22:55.532+01:002017-07-21T11:22:55.532+01:00Ros at 21 July 2017 at 08:08
Pint of lager, please...Ros at 21 July 2017 at 08:08<br />Pint of lager, please Landlady!<br />This caught my eye: "..forums are stuck in a time warp". They are, which is why hardly anyone posts in them these days. Disagreeing with the Admin too often can mean a ban, ostracised and given McPariah status.<br />This past 10 years we've seen it all, haven't we? From accident and cover up to deliberate with a motive. It's a broad church but many forums have set themselves up as champions of one single hypothesis: "Swingers holiday!" "Bio-engineering conference!" "Paedo ring!" "It happened on the 3rd and any dissent - sling your hook!"<br />We'll get nowhere without agreeing to disagree. Forum after forum has strangled disparate opinion to its own particular ethos. Whereas here, each new blog remains akin to a blank canvas periodical for us all to paint our thoughts on. Just as it was back in Mirror Forum/3As days. I don't know of any other place where we can have a right old ding-dong and shake hands afterwards at the end of the night.<br />OK, back to Smithman being Gerry? Thoughts range from: yes, no, Smiths saw nobody, Smiths in cahoots with the Mcs, alarm raised anywhere between 9:15pm to 10pm. Was Tannerman cobbled together because the Smiths DID see Gerry (Smithman)? Whatever the timeline was, the Smiths said they thought the person they saw carrying a child was 60-80% Gerry. If they were in cahoots they would not have said anything would they, certainly not putting Gerry in the frame? <br />For now, I'll conclude with extracts from the PJ Files:<br /><br />"He [Martin Smith] states he was watching the 10 PM on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing"<br /><br />- AND -<br /><br />"In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane."<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-72927075717699639552017-07-21T11:06:43.214+01:002017-07-21T11:06:43.214+01:00I don't attach importance to any of the photo...I don't attach importance to any of the photographs in this case . We can stare at them all we want and start seeing what we want to see or see what is not there . <br /><br />However since many present this photo as being taken on Sunday as a fact , can I ask you to substantiate that there were 10 hours of total cloud over the skies of Praia da Luz . <br /><br />Please don't take me wrong . I think people can have their theories provided they don't name those they think are involved . What I can't agree with is people presenting theories as facts that cannot be disputed. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-49758419112927332352017-07-21T10:38:21.773+01:002017-07-21T10:38:21.773+01:00Thank you T @ 09:20 I am just about to put the ket...Thank you T @ 09:20 I am just about to put the kettle on and will share a virtual cuppa with you and try not to take Mr Factsmith's vacillation between fact and fury too personally! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11506954298413312570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-9615422161723275732017-07-21T10:09:48.768+01:002017-07-21T10:09:48.768+01:00I don't know either 09:49, but I'm not goi...I don't know either 09:49, but I'm not going to wear my brain out thinking about it, lol. <br /><br />Regarding the lack of photographs, the Tapas group to me always come across as 'too cool for school'. That is, holidays are so commonplace, they can't be arsed to get the cameras out. <br /><br />But then having said that, I too have been on many holidays and forgotten to get the camera out until the last (and first) day. Not because I was too cool, probably too drunk, lol. I expect many of us return from our hols wishing we had taken more photographs 09:49. The McCanns especially, who must find this particularly painful. However the lack of photographs shows there was no pre-planning, no malice aforethought. They had no idea what fate had in store, if they had, there would have been an abundance of photos. Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-86069215640957710962017-07-21T09:49:26.996+01:002017-07-21T09:49:26.996+01:00I am on the fence about whether the Last Photo was...I am on the fence about whether the Last Photo was taken on Sunday 29th or Thursday 3rd. The reason Ziggy S gives concisely above is one of many good reasons for rejecting the 18th May theory. OK, let's suppose for the sake of a good argument that TLP was taken, just as the McCanns say, at 2.29pm on Thursday 3rd May. We know we have three playground photos of Maddie happily playing in the Ocean Club play area on the late afternoon of Saturday 28th. We also know the McCanns took countless photos of their children. Can any of those why deny that TLP was taken on Sunday 29th, but was really taken during a momentary burst of bright sunlight at lunchtime on an otherwise cloudy day (until about 5pm Thursday) give me just one credible explanation for why we do not see one single photograph of Maddie for any other day in the week...Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday...? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-41983817837403034412017-07-21T09:46:54.316+01:002017-07-21T09:46:54.316+01:00Hi JJ, and totally agree. I can imagine how I woul...Hi JJ, and totally agree. I can imagine how I would feel if one of them were my daughter. <br /><br />I did hesitate about publishing the posts with their names JJ, and would ask people not to name them, but I do like to have the opportunity to rebut and knock down the malicious allegations. The witnesses obviously, cannot defend themselves, but we can do it for them. <br /><br />I've actually just done a new blog stamping on another cruel myth, the insistence that Madeleine died before the 3rd May!Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-83848807239373180642017-07-21T09:20:56.137+01:002017-07-21T09:20:56.137+01:00Anonymous 20 July 2017 at 23:23
“…someone who … h...Anonymous 20 July 2017 at 23:23<br /><br />“…someone who … has… tried to be mindful of how she expresses hersel.”<br /><br />Your posts are exemplary, Jane.<br /><br />“Let's just stay at different ends of the playground.”<br /><br />Wise.<br /><br />Please stay.<br />Make yourself comfortable.<br />Coffee or tea? Biscuits?<br />It looks like a nice day…:)<br /><br />T<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-13734053222701759002017-07-21T08:41:38.781+01:002017-07-21T08:41:38.781+01:00According to some, we have young girls willing to ...According to some, we have young girls willing to go to prison for perverting the course of justice by telling lies over the high tea and other crèche matters in order to protect the Mccanns as one of the nannies had a friend who may have been a friend to one of the Mccanns friends? <br /><br />We are naming these young people (witnesses) over and over people who may have children of their own and certainly lives of their own<br /><br />Posts do not need to refer to these people by name they are not guilty of anything but the muck spreading continues year in year out<br />We need collectively to stop feeding and encouraging these morons.<br />The infestation, malice and outright lies is a creeping disease and will be challenged as shown on this blog in spades but is there a need to blight young peoples lives ?<br />JJnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-41195113251831693552017-07-21T08:36:54.438+01:002017-07-21T08:36:54.438+01:00@Ziggy 0.37 We've battled on this trivial poin...@Ziggy 0.37 We've battled on this trivial point for over 2 days now and I can conclude one of only 2 things:<br /><br />1) You're very hard of thunking, or<br /><br />2) You are refusing to acknowledge the following point as this appears to be your only reason to deny 18 May (and that must be pooh-poohed at all costs):<br /><br />It wasn't a photo shoot, you silly man, it was a quick snap of a (now famous) father and daughter outside their apartment at the kiddie's pool on a hot day. Probably taken by a family member or friend who people were used to seeing as part of the group. As a casual onlooker, what's to pause and think about? Many similar pictures were taken at the time of the family and their friends out and about at the complex. In fact, seeing them being photographed was probably the commonest sight of all. IF anyone did witness it, it would have been the most trivial of sights and nothing would have been thought of it. <br /><br />And 18 May is only a theory, you know. I am of an open mind so please convince me otherwise using a different argument, do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-48355029200810496812017-07-21T08:08:01.995+01:002017-07-21T08:08:01.995+01:00Thank you for your thoughtful reply 06:20 - I love...Thank you for your thoughtful reply 06:20 - I love the 'down the pub' analogy! I think I would have made a great pub landlady, I love to entertain, and I love to hear others' stories, the hostess with the mostest, lol. <br /><br />I actually feel immensely privileged 06:20, that people take the time and trouble to read and respond to my musings, an audience is the best thing a writer could hope for. <br /><br />I have studied the PJ files, the statements, the book of Goncalo Amaral, etc, but I have learned just as much listening to the often insightful views of Blacksmith and others. JJ for example, has stopped me in my tracks, more than once and made me have a re-think, and the same applies to so many contributors on here who introduce new perspectives. With their one sided views, the main Madeleine forums are stuck in a time warp, they are on their zillionth spin cycle and they can't squeeze any more out of the limited topics they have restricted themselves to. <br /><br />I've always been a bit of a pied piper for waifs and strays 06:20, not saying you are a waif or stay btw, but since childhood I have always reached out to those who appear friendless or without a voice. Those kids standing on their own in the playground, or those co-workers eating alone at their desks. I absolutely hate to see anyone excluded, I think it is one of the cruellest aspects of human behaviour. Maybe it's because I'm usually the one being excluded, lol, but I'm much too arrogant for that. When I take someone under my wing, I know that if they can't speak up for themselves, I can. The forums unfortunately, are like religion, more about who they exclude, than who they include. The spiteful girls who gang up to pick on the loner who doesn't fit in. <br /><br />I am happy to give a voice to anyone 'even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story' [Desiderata] It is amazing how much anger and rage can be washed away simply by open, civil, discussion in a pub like atmosphere!<br /> Rosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-77699074750339674282017-07-21T06:46:28.156+01:002017-07-21T06:46:28.156+01:00Who do you believe 23:54, the lead detective who ...Who do you believe 23:54, the lead detective who carried out the original investigation on the ground at the time the event occurred. Or, a professional busybody in Harlow desperate to get his ugly mug on the telly? <br /><br />You have obviously given this matter a great deal of thought 23:54, but have you given any thought to the seriousness of the allegations you are making against these young women? <br /><br />You sneeringly refer to the 'so called' high tea, then weasel your way around a straightforward accusation by saying 'no reasonable person' would believe them to make yourself look fair and balanced.<br /><br />Actually, most reasonable people would believe the nannies 23:54, this is a missing child case, like any of us their instinct would be to help. You are in no position to rule their evidence contradictory 23:54 - are you saying Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't know what they were doing? <br /><br />Regarding the 'sacred fact' that Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm on the 3rd - it is a FACT established by the investigating police. One of the first things police establish in a missing person case. <br /><br />The idea that Madeleine died earlier in the week and they all just carried on with their holiday, is not only sick, it's ludicrous, and probably worth a new blog.<br /><br />By the way, you are not Verdi are you? lolRosalinda Huttonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01497239700092619580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-834822786084044829.post-52712735767235912242017-07-21T06:20:22.088+01:002017-07-21T06:20:22.088+01:00Ros, your reply at 23:01.
I too have been around s...Ros, your reply at 23:01.<br />I too have been around same as you, got ousted for 'robust views' from many a place, abhorred the dreaded 'thread closed' as liberally applied by Hideho, the culling of threads that get heated, etc.<br />You are being very honest about what it is that attracts traffic, because, although the McCase is a cornucopia of intrigue all on its very sweet own, you do have to make some allowance for the different temperaments of contributors, those who have different opinions and you allow them space to vent.<br />I find it both ironic and heart warming that, after all the crap hurled at you over the years from know-alls and bigheads, your blog remains the only place where we can discuss this like you would down the pub.<br />Unlike CMOMM, the atmosphere has never been one of aggression, here. Sure, feelings are worn on the sleeve here (good!) but you don't stand for unrelenting abusive commentary, except, as you say, for those your feel deserve it. I agree with that! We all know who they are.<br />If you say/write anything someone will be offended; it's how it is. How you react to that is always going to be uniquely personal.<br />So, given none of us know how many Bundleman were abroad that night, at what times, seen by whom, which direction they were going in (and so on) we can only make speculative assumptions, throw in some common sense, our opinions and see if that mix yields any further insight.<br />Was Tannerman invented because the Smiths saw Gerry? Or just a fabrication by Tanner (et al) to lend clout to there having been an abductor per se?<br />It's all still up there for debate and no idea, opinions or thought is, for me, off the table.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com