[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Also my main theory is drugged and covered up.

But I think there is a lot to the theory of 'woke and wandered' and was met with an accident tbh. Which is why it struck me as so odd the whole 'they have taken her' thing. I thought one of my kids had disappeared from my house not long back and immediately I panicked that they had got out of the house. I did not, at any stage think they had been abducted from my house. It would surely be one of the LAST things you would think of...especially given how often kids do diddle off somewhere.

The panic I had in those 10 mins was unbelievable..til I saw the little **** hiding under her bed with a huge grin

Explain the cadaver on Kates clothing and the blood splatter that had been bleached away ( but forgot it could get in the grouting between the tiles) in 5a ...the hire car boot ?

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Explain the cadaver on Kates clothing and the blood splatter that had been bleached away ( but forgot it could get in the grouting between the tiles) in 5a ...the hire car boot ?

Well that depends, was the blood Maddie's?

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

Explain the cadaver on Kates clothing and the blood splatter that had been bleached away ( but forgot it could get in the grouting between the tiles) in 5a ...the hire car boot ?

Well yes, I know.

The 'I came into contact with a bunch of corpses at my job as a GP the week before going on holiday' just does not strike me as plausible tbh. Same as 'the dogs alerted to seabass and the dirty nappies we were collecting in a bag in the back of the car, but ignoring that, police digs are notoriously unreliable anyway so ner ner'

Its only in moments where I try to exonerate the parents tin my head that I favour woke and wandered. I know it makes no sense really given the rest of the evidence. I just..cannot really get past the dogs. That does not mean its only the dogs, but a culmination of many different things which says to me that they (or at least one of them) were involved.

[Jigs]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Oh I'm sorry for having an opinion on a topic in a Debate forum, how silly of me

LMFAOOOOOOO yeah we get it. Thanks! Anyone else wanna echo these same sentiments while we're at it?~

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Maybe they are innocent and maybe they're not but to say the fact that the PJ didn't have enough evidence to charge them means they're innocent is simply not correct.

well yeah because when someone gets convicted for a crime we all believe the police are doing what they're supposed to be doing: gathering conclusive evidence and acting accordingly. Why, if a rapist is jailed for his actions do we have faith in the police but when the McCanns continue to walk free 12 years after the Madeleine crime we lose that faith? You can't have it both ways. Like I said the McCanns have been at the center of this entire investigation for the whole case so I think if anything concrete was to be found the police would have acted on it by now, especially considering they've become pariahs of society through all the speculation.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Well yes, I know.

The 'I came into contact with a bunch of corpses at my job as a GP the week before going on holiday' just does not strike me as plausible tbh. Same as 'the dogs alerted to seabass and the dirty nappies we were collecting in a bag in the back of the car, but ignoring that, police digs are notoriously unreliable anyway so ner ner'

Its only in moments where I try to exonerate the parents tin my head that I favour woke and wandered. I know it makes no sense really given the rest of the evidence. I just..cannot really get past the dogs. That does not mean its only the dogs, but a culmination of many different things which says to me that they (or at least one of them) were involved.

See the wandering theory, I always think there MUST be more witness sightings if that had happened.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jigs

LMFAOOOOOOO yeah we get it. Thanks! Anyone else wanna echo these same sentiments while we're at it?~



well yeah because when someone gets convicted for a crime we all believe the police are doing what they're supposed to be doing: gathering conclusive evidence and acting accordingly. Why, if a rapist is jailed for his actions do we have faith in the police but when the McCanns continue to walk free 12 years after the Madeleine crime we lose that faith? You can't have it both ways. Like I said the McCanns have been at the center of this entire investigation for the whole case so I think if anything concrete was to be found the police would have acted on it by now, especially considering they've become pariahs of society through all the speculation.

Oj is innocent too I suppose? "I Can't have it both ways" so I have to believe that either the Police are always right or else they are never right?

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Jigs

LMFAOOOOOOO yeah we get it. Thanks! Anyone else wanna echo these same sentiments while we're at it?~

Do we? Great news

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Jigs

LMFAOOOOOOO yeah we get it. Thanks! Anyone else wanna echo these same sentiments while we're at it?~



well yeah because when someone gets convicted for a crime we all believe the police are doing what they're supposed to be doing: gathering conclusive evidence and acting accordingly. Why, if a rapist is jailed for his actions do we have faith in the police but when the McCanns continue to walk free 12 years after the Madeleine crime we lose that faith? You can't have it both ways. Like I said the McCanns have been at the center of this entire investigation for the whole case so I think if anything concrete was to be found the police would have acted on it by now, especially considering they've become pariahs of society through all the speculation.

That's two different things though.

Someone who is found guilty in a court of law and jailed, there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict them. Someone walking free with a "not guilty" verdict isn't "proven innocent" and a lot of cases won't make it to court, not because someone is innocent but because there is insufficient evidence to prove they did it. Surely, you know the difference?

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Someone walking free with a "not guilty" verdict isn't "proven innocent" and a lot of cases won't make it to court, not because someone is innocent but because there is insufficient evidence to prove they did it. Surely, you know the difference?

But it mostly especially usually means that their accuser was greedy.

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

But it mostly especially usually means that their accuser was greedy.

Not really.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

See the wandering theory, I always think there MUST be more witness sightings if that had happened.

Another good point.

I think woke and wandered makes a lot more sense than random abductor (or burglar, still cannot believe Grange went with that.. ) though, given the many other variables in this.

[chuff me dizzy]

For Annie regarding Tanners daughter and Maddie

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...type=3&theater

[GoldHeart]

The strange blown up photo they used for the "madeline is missing campaign" is a odd one and her eye looks like it has a popped blood vessel, that leads me to think it wasn't the first time they possibly drugged her.

But this time it went wrong and Madeline either banged her head or it was an over dose .

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

The strange blown up photo they used for the "madeline is missing campaign" is a odd one and her eye looks like it has a popped blood vessel, that leads me to think it wasn't the first time they possibly drugged her.

But this time it went wrong and Madeline either banged her head or it was an over dose .

If you look through a lot of photos you cannot see the flaw in her eye in some of them ?

[Marsh.]

Oh come on. Her dodgy pupil was not because she was high.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Oh come on. Her dodgy pupil was not because she was high.

How do we know , but i find it weird that they use that photo of her close up where she looks surprised . It's like they literally ran up to her and took the photo.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

How do we know , but i find it weird that they use that photo of her close up where she looks surprised . It's like they literally ran up to her and took the photo.

Have you seen the video of her in the Snow White dress? she's scared of the person who's making the video ,it sends shivers down my spine

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

How do we know , but i find it weird that they use that photo of her close up where she looks surprised . It's like they literally ran up to her and took the photo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WaNMPZJ1jw

[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by GoldHeart

How do we know , but i find it weird that they use that photo of her close up where she looks surprised . It's like they literally ran up to her and took the photo.

So what exactly are you saying?

They staged a photoshoot knowing what was going to happen?

Or zoomed into a picture that displays the pupil?

[Kazanne]

Originally Posted by chuff me dizzy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WaNMPZJ1jw

We are told on the MJ thread that the youtube videos are less that reliable Chuff so I take it, it means the same on here, TS will tell you how useless YouTube videos are personally I think some of them are very revealing.

[chuff me dizzy]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

We are told on the MJ thread that the youtube videos are less that reliable Chuff so I take it, it means the same on here, TS will tell you how useless YouTube videos are personally I think some of them are very revealing.

If you doubt anything Ive commented on ,read the police files I posted as it will be covered in there and all case facts, nothing on MJ can be proven as facts ,its all our opinions xxxxx

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

So what exactly are you saying?

They staged a photoshoot knowing what was going to happen?

Or zoomed into a picture that displays the pupil?

No I don't think they "staged" a photo , but I think it says a lot about them as people & parents that they used a photo where Madeleine doesn't particularly look happy ,. Plus followed with they're other weird behaviour . But I think it was orchestrated when they released a photo of Madeleine with tennis balls in her hand,so it can match with their story of her playing tennis at a certain time & day .

[Toy Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kazanne

We are told on the MJ thread that the youtube videos are less that reliable Chuff so I take it, it means the same on here, TS will tell you how useless YouTube videos are personally I think some of them are very revealing.

Many YouTube videos are useless and pointless yes and I'd have t say this is one of them; she doesn't look "terrified" at all . It's just a random video of a child doing nothing.

[GoldHeart]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Many YouTube videos are useless and pointless yes and I'd have t say this is one of them; she doesn't look "terrified" at all . It's just a random video of a child doing nothing.

FALSE !
Many of the videos posted in the MJ thread was useFUL and they got ignored .
I understand some will be based on emotions & biased but that's not the case for all of them.

Plus people talk about Neverland being raided & searched top to bottom by 70 sherrifs & police ,pretty sure that's FACTUAL but whatever .

[BBUK-Fan]

Don’t mean to relate to fiction but in the tv show The Missing, the boy wandered off and was hit by a car. The driver thought he was dead so put body in his car and drove off.
Is it possible that could’ve happened to her?