NT - No Timewasters, is now live, link on the previous post. If you are interested in becoming a reader (not you, Textusa) then please either email me (email address at the top of the page) or send a Do Not Publish comment on this page.
Oh, Orlov (now Hall), you seem to think that we included you when we mentioned the distracting attacks against us. If that is the case, our apologies.No need to apologise, Looney Toons
Oooh, how hurtful!
You have no importance whatsoever. Please understand that and understand that we’re not doing this to belittle you. That, you do a nice job by your infantile self.
So, no importance then. Okay.
For the case, and that is what matters, it has to be noted the importance you have, which is, we repeat, none.
I get it, no importance.
You were just a tool that we used to out Mr Thompson. Then, we were quite clear and stressed that fact, that you had absolutely no importance whatsoever.
That is important because if you had any importance whatsoever, the storm Mr Thompson created in a glass of water because of you would have a reason. As you really have no importance whatsoever, everyone could see that he used his friendship over you to try to get to us, his hysteria being transparently disproportionate.
|Dave was inconsolable.|
So, as you can see, you having the no importance you have is really important to the case. We can’t stress that more.
How very dare you. We lickspittlers use only the finest quality spittle, milked fresh daily from the rare Dontgiveafuck tribe in Western Samoa, and flown in by executive jet. We demand a retraction.
You are a simple supplier of spittle for the lick-spittles. Nothing more.
|Joyously, the lickspittlers ran to meet the jet delivering their latest consignment|
Well, that's my Christmas plans sorted - leg, wing or breast, Ben?
Now that Mr Thompson is going to spend his Christmases (to keep on topic) with his new BFF, NT, and no longer with you
(basing this solely on the passionate friendship Mr Thompson showed to have for you)You slut, Ben. How could you?
you might now consider spending them with your new BFF, Jules.You can't have her. Isn't that right, Jules?
|There was always a good spread at the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers Christmas banquet, served on big round tables complete with tablecloths and placemats. In 547 years, a table had never collapsed|
Many human/amphibian relationships are very special, Text. Don't knock it until you've tried it
A person you publicly so much respect, endorse and love and seem so willing to overlook all her untruths and her close friendship with a clear abduction apologist, Frog.
Ah, the Madeleine equivalent of Godwin's Law! It was bound to appear.
Frankly, Jules had heard enough of Textusa's Amphibihate. Frogs were people too.
You do make a lovely couple and after all, why care about a dead little girl when one can try to be funny and win the ladies over?
The only surprising thing about you is your indignation when someone calls you a pro. Where’s the surprise?
|After dinner, the Ancient Order of Lickspittlers would dance the night away on an inadequate esplanade.|
#mccann I'm right envious me....— DaveHall (@DaveHallCoLtd) November 4, 2018
YOU have a BRT named after you. "The Silverdoe BRT".
Like getting yer own park bench with a name plaque opposite the village pond.
Yes she was. Get a life, you mad midgetWAS MADDIE DEFINITELY SEEN DURING THE WEEK? See list below. If anyone has one I have not included, please let me know.
It's not really possible to discredit your research, because it never warranted any credit in the first place. Of course you believe they lied - you are just too dishonest to say it.There have been efforts to DISCREDIT my research on whether witnesses really DID see Madeleine or whether they were mistaken. I have NEVER claimed witnesses/nannies lied, mainly because I don't believe they did. Here is a SUMMARY of what I have put together over the LAST 8 YEARS!
No they didn't, and no it hadn't.Discrepancies started Tuesday morning which seemed, to me, to be an effort to cover up something. Had something happened to Maddie by Tuesday morning?
The only problem is, dear, YOU decided what the standard of proof was, using some demented arbitrary system of your own devising. None of the police agree with you, but of course they are not bonkers or deranged from years of breathing in paint fumes.Back in 2010 I decided to study and scrutinise all the statements of those that claimed to have seen her, and if I came across one that was sufficient to believe she was definitely seen on that day, I hoped to be able to identify WHICH day something happened.
No-one gives a shit about your ''mind'', halfwit.Fatima the cleaner's daughter was the ONLY statement I saw where Maddie was identified with no questions in my mind.
No-one cares, Lizzie. If you want to be dishonest enough to dismiss numerous statements from people who knew her, then fill your varnish-splattered boots, sweetcheeksSunday lunchtime around 1.15pm. She specifically identified Maddie outside her apartment and met with them as she was going upstairs to join her mother cleaning in the apartment next to David Paynes (where the McCanns were heading for lunch)I found NO other statements, TO THIS DAY, that I can feel comfortable and sure that the child they saw was Maddie.
Bull fucking shit. He didn't know her. The other witnesses did.Knowing that one of the Tapas children was identified by Miguel Matias as being Maddie when we KNOW she wasn't at the Paraiso according to the CCTV is EXACTLY what may have happened to other witnesses.
Nobody is interested in your claim, dear, just theirsSome of the were not specific enough to allow for me to claim they definitely saw Maddie.
I am not in agreement, neither are any of my readers. I have not had a single message in support of you, despite the bleating of your army of pantwettersI will post the individual statements in the following 30 or so, messages. Please let me know if you are not in agreement and consider any one of the statements as being a DEFINITE sighting.
Oh for fucks's sake - at least own it - you are desperate to try to convince people she wasn't seen - so desperate that you dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who knew her, the paper records and the photographic record, you old fraudI do not claim Maddie WASN'T seen... I have only attempted to see if there was a day in the week that she WAS seen.
1) - Catriona Baker
2) - Emma Wilding -
3) - Charlotte Pennington
4) - Jacqueline Williams
5) - Lynne Fretter
6) - Lyndsay Johnson
7) - Kirstie Maryan
8) - Sarah williams
9) - Amy Tierney
10) - Leanne Wagstaff
11) - Stacey Portz
12) - Susan Owen
13) - Shinead Vine0C STAFF
14) - Cecilia Dias Firmino -
15) - Georgina Jackson -
16) - Jeronimo Salcedes - Tapas Barman
17) - Maria M A Jose - Tapas Cook
18) - Paula Cristina da Costa Vieira -
19) -Fátima María Serafim da Silva Espada(5A Cleaner's daughter) -
20) - Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho ( Receptionist)
21) - Elisa Dias Romao -
22) -Daniel Stuk
23) - Sandra Maria Dos Santos Lourenco Murtinheira cleaner
24) - Alice Stanley - Took children sailing May 3rd - No Formal statement
25) -Chris Unsworth - Took children sailing May 3rd - No Formal statementGUESTS
26) - Jeremy (Jes/Jez) Wilkins
27) - Stephen CarpenterNOT IN FILES
28) - Bridget O'Donnell29) - Miguel Matias, manager of the beach-side Paraíso restaurant - Was mistaken and saw one of the other tapas children dancing with her daddy proven by the CCTV footage.
Lizzy Hideho Taylor According to all those witness statements noone specifically or definitely saw her after Sunday. We dont know what day something happened, hence the point of my research to see if she WAS seen for sure
‘There she was, perfect,’ Kate McCann would recall of Madeleine’s birth(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 87-88). Headline. Kindle Edition. )
Kate would recall her big blue-green eyes as seemingly ever open – one of them, the right eye, bearing a rare blemish in the iris. The mark, known as a coloboma, would one day receive worldwide publicity.
(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 98-100). Headline. Kindle Edition. )
‘You forget,’ Kate was to reflect, ‘how precious life is – until something awful happens …’
(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 114-115). Headline. Kindle Edition.)
Kate McCann was initially hesitant about the trip. She has explained this by saying she had concerns about what it would cost, and all the trouble and organisation involved in getting three small children to Portugal and back for just a few days.
(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 124-126). Headline. Kindle Edition. )
‘It was all a bit weird,’ Rachael Oldfield was to reflect, ‘almost like the holiday should never have happened in the first place.’
(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 129-130). Headline. Kindle Edition.)
On the face of it, this should have been an interesting, even fascinating book, but it fell far short, especially as the authors had won a number of awards and were well-respected in their field.
This claim is made in the opening pages of the book, and should bode well. I have no doubt the account was relatively independent, but was it objective?Award-winning authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have produced the first independent, objective account of the case.(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 17-18). Headline. Kindle Edition)
Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter’s fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 21-22). Headline. Kindle Edition.)
The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed. Allegations or innuendos about their role ....made or published by others, when referenced in the text of this book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case – and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious. This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.
(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 72-75). Headline. Kindle Edition)This statement is rather interesting, given that is equates their declaration that they have seen no evidence to indicate guilt with a declaration where they claim to have demonstrated that any speculation to the contrary is unfounded.
I thought it was time to give this a fresh airing, in light of the cobblers on the CMOMM
Bonkers Bennett's tweet
This #EUMETSAT satellite image shows the cloud cover over Portugal at 1pm, Thur 3 May 2007, when the #McCann’s say the #LastPhoto was— Anthony Bennett (@zampos) June 4, 2018
taken. PeterMac obtained it. All reports for that day say the sun never arrived until 5pm. So was the so-called LastPhoto really taken that day? pic.twitter.com/mmYGMnlMsy
You cannot be serious?
That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker
It is not important to the Maddie case, it is complete bullshitIt would be irresponsible of me to ignore efforts to discredit research that is IMPORTANT to the Maddie Case.
It IS opinion. You might have put the files through your patented "discrepancy filter" but that does not mean what comes out the other end is anything other than opinion. Demented, sad, lonely opinionIt's quite shocking to see accusations of 'research' being referred to as an opinion. It is based on the POLICE FILES!
No-one cares, Lizzie. And that's not research, dear. That's an illness. You can probably get tablets for it, I'll do some research for you.......Although my Research and Reference Aimoo Forums are not available right now due to Aimoo moving locations, here are SOME screenshots to show EXACTLY what research is...
Fabulous. What a credit to Canada you areI took ALL the statements and compiled them into timelines covering different topics and created timetables to highlight, by each hour, what all the T9 claimed to be doing at any particular time.
I'm sure they're really gratefulI compiled a Staff Rota so it can be seen their hours, and also easy to see if their statements (about seeing Maddie eg) correspond with their working times.
Was the Samaritans engaged?I compiled all the police statements and out them together to give a timeline of what each of them said throughout the night and at what time.
It makes no difference. You did not research, you daft old bat. You made lists. And then came to a load of fuckwitted, erroneous conclusions which completely ignore the FACT that there is prima facie evidence that Madeleine was alive and well on the 3rd May
I compile tennis timetables, a timetable of everyones statements after the 10pm alert, Phone pings,Calendars so its easy to see what happened every day with photos, media articles, Kates Diary , Gerrys blog and PJ information files. Phone ping locations to see where they visited on what day Interesting to see when its all compiled together...There is far too much to list, but I felt it important to assure members that when I claim i did RESEARCH.... it CANNOT be discredited as its all file based.
Yes. My conclusion is that you are utterly wrong and would benefit from therapyAll of us, seeing the research available, are free to come to their own conclusions
Why - so that they can also reach idiotic conclusions?
This is just the groundwork for members to access different topics in the files easily.Once I have links to the Aimoo forums I will post so you can click on any link of interest.For now if anyone would like to see any of the topics in the screenshots I will be happy to provide them
Thursday Midday Comparison of Statements - Particularly interesting as it can be seen that Gerry, Kate and Fiona, all disagree on who picked up Madeleine and the twins at lunchtime on the day she disappeared!!
Catriona claims to not remember... WHY? Was Madeleine REALLY there?
Please respect other forum members and the skilled research that they have carried out over many years. Your posts are not backed up with any credible evidence and only appear to serve the purpose of discrediting the research of other members which are backed up with evidence. Please make sure that you can provide valid evidence to back up such posts and not just opinion.
I suggest that you watch the documentaries by Richard Hall, read the e-book by Petermac, review the evidence presented on this forum which indicates Madeleines earlier death and the research & videos of HiDeHo, before making any further comment on this subject.
There is no intention to silence any member from posting on any topic, but the researchers here have done a vast amount of work on this topic and have all reached the same conclusion. This has also been discussed on the forum many times. Phoebe, like all other members is entitled to her opinion and she is entitled to express that opinion. She has been permitted to do this and her posts are still available. However, much of what Phoebe has to say on this topic has already been dealt with on the forum and we are just going over old ground, this is getting us no closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine and it appears that Phoebes' posts are meant only to discredit the research of other members. Also whilst Phoebe may have posted evidence from the official files, she does not recognise that some of this evidence may have been engineered by the McCann private detectives or that it may be false evidence produced after the witnesses had met with the McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.
Now either Phoebe is a little naive and not quite up to scratch with her research or she is deliberately trying to discredit the work of other members who have all reached the same conclusion after years of excellent research.
Phoebe is quite free to post on any topic that she wants too but we just request that does further research in this area before making further comment.