Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years - The Sunday Times

wantthetruth wrote:

Iris wrote:

wantthetruth wrote:Good to see another Newspaper picking up on it (albeit Bild in Germany)  Come on UK press........

Are you kidding me? Das Bild is absolutely huge, not only in Germany but all over Europe!  (Sad, really, as it's even trashier than the Mirror imho, but their circulation figures are phenomenal - about 3x the size of the Mirror I believe.)

eta and now my Google Ad is offering me "friendly single ladies from Croatia".  That's because I have typed Das Bild.
  

I know how big it is. I used to live in Germany!

It's just not so big in the UK, and THAT's where I want to see this story all over the papers.

But, this is a huge step forward!

I'm hoping the UK will soon follow!

 Now my Google Ad says "Mom 54 looks 27, publishes secret that has angered doctors". I am not making this up!    

winjoy wrote:

princess_leia wrote:

Panda wrote:

princess_leia wrote:Good Sunday afternoon to you all!  

I have read the news report about 5 times now, and it's slowly sinking in. Everytime I read it I pick up new bits of info.

Many times I've seen people say the tide is turning, but I really do think the tide has definitely started turning! And about time too  for The Sunday Times

So much information in that report, I had to pinch myself a few times.

If they say GA hindered the search for Madeleine then WTF has this done?

I am sitting here in absolute disbelief, and I feel quite positive, I feel that something is brewing. This cannot go on much longer, can it?

  to everyone here and elsewhere who continue to search for the truth and to those who refuse to give up!

Hi princess _liea

It's amazing the number of posters who havn't posted for a long time , but have probably checked out the Forum periodically , have realised this is endgame . Whether the McCanns, running scared by now I would think, can get Clarence to bail them out remains to be seen.

Hi Panda
Yes, I've noticed a few names have appeared lately.

I don't think there's a day gone by that I haven't read here since I registered when this forum was first set up. So I am here, just not actively posting.

I feel guilty when I do post because I tend to post when it appears that something might be happening or I post because I feel so pissed off lol I applaud everyone who has stuck with it, because I've seen how difficult it's been. I love reading everyone's thoughts on the case. And I hope one day we can all celebrate when justice is done, I don't know if that will ever happen, but I will ALWAYS live in hope!

Like many others, I don't post either but have followed this case since the McCanns first announced their daughter had been abducted.  I have longed for something, like this article in the ST, to kick start the end-game and this really does have to be 'it' !!  It cannot possibly be spun away by CM can it!

No one should feel guilty if they can't sit ion this web site for 6 years every day. We all do what we can. it makes sense to come in when there is actual news, a trial, etc and I think this qualifies. I came back for the libel trial thinking that not only would it be interesting but would potentially cause them to produce more errant sightings, breaking news etc as their usual technique is to try and distract that public they have so much contempt for. And what a jackpot, I saw the Crimewatch show and then this.

They are better at managing press relations via Clarence than they are at managing an investigation under Gerry.

jinvta wrote:Did the PJ have access to these files? The timing of the reopening of the case and the release of this bombshell cannot be coincidental. Either the PJ just received these files and decided to reopen the case, or they found out about their existence and will request to receive them.

They would have if they are working together.

They seemed to be chasing different angles though and it's SY that blew this wide open - well, with the help of Exton that is. He could not reveal this information but they could and then he was able to comment as it's now in the public domain.

PJ seemed to have a line on some type of pedo ring and possibly they are interconnected but if SY thinks MI5 had the right guy in their sights they would I am sure share that, maybe not so much the rest of the report that goes with it but you HAVE to know the timeline that night and their behavior on other nights in order to know what the kidnappers were observing, so I don't see how they could leave that out and not tell the PJ that stuff.

Seems McCanns had good reason to fear being done for neglect. I don't know what the statute of limitations is on that but in the book which came out as we know May 10 2011, Kate STILL does not include the efits from Exton and Oakley. I don't understand why.

Iris wrote:

 Now my Google Ad says "Mom 54 looks 27, publishes secret that has angered doctors".  I am not making this up!    

   

When I read the article last night (local time) I couldn't believe my eyes, it took a few readings before it's content really sunk in. BRAVO to the Sunday Times (hard to believe it is a Murdoch paper). I'd really like to know if the article has been mentioned/commented on today on any TV news programmes. I'll be checking Sky's Monday front pages to see if any other papers pick up the baton that has been handed to them.

Just noticed on 'twitter' that Pat Brown is aware of the Sunday Times article. She has recently tweeted. "I am not shocked by them (meaning the McCanns) I am shocked that the British media printed this story". Last night she tweeted, "I've always said the biggest red flag in this entire case was the McCanns' refusal to acknowledge the Smith sighting as a possible lead."

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/a1893836-Interesting-article-in-Sunday-Times-regarding-McCann-casehttp://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/a1893836-Interesting-article-in-Sunday-Times-regarding-McCann-case


People start asking questions even if they don't know a lot about the backstage.

I've just updated the Madeleine McCann Wikipedia article to reflect the information in today's ST.  If anyone wants to go further than I have the link is here!  No doubt it will be whooshed in an instant....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Madeleine_McCann#British_tabloids.2C_social_media

ETA: I don't know if it has been totally whooshed already, but "SlimVirgin" on Wikipedia has apparently "moved it" - don't know where to though! Possibly somewhere else within the article. Anyway, it all happened during the space of time I was on here posting this message.

Unless I'm having a senior moment, it's gone already.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Unless I'm having a senior moment, it's gone already.

Please see my ETA above!!

ETA: OK, here is something about "SlimVirgin" who states that she has moved my edit under the "Smith sighting" but I can see no evidence of it there. Anyway, this is her:

About me
I've been a Wikipedian since 2004 and an administrator since 2005. I focus mainly on writing and editing. I've written several articles that have featured and good-article status, and I've helped to write some of Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines.

Barnstars and awards
Some articles I've written or helped to write
Policies I've helped to write
DYK


Contact
You can contact me by posting on my talk page, or by e-mailing me.

Winjoy, they are like Rottweilers on that entry, and anything even remotely damaging to the abduction theory is simply strangled at birth. It's been like that from day one.

I've been thinking about all those 'little' people who generously contributed to the Fund believing as they did that the McCanns would "leave no stone unturned". What must they be thinking today to hear that the McCanns forcibly suppressed this huge boulder.

Iris wrote:Winjoy, they are like Rottweilers on that entry, and anything even remotely damaging to the abduction theory is simply strangled at birth.  It's been like that from day one.

Iris, I know!  I am toying with the idea of emailing "SlimVirgin" but I rather suspect it will not get me anywhere though.:

ETA "SlimVirgin" has now got my dander up and I have emailed her:

"Hi Slim Virgin

Please could you tell me what has happened to my 'edit' regarding the Sunday Times Insight Report of 27.10.13? I cannot find where you have moved it to. As Admin on Wikipedia you are surely an overseer of the facts aren't you?"

To be fair with the Mccann, I agree with that bit in the Sunday's article:

"He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full "

It costed indeed 5 millions Pounds to the British tax payers. How could they have afford to pay this amount?

I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

interested wrote:I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

I put on a film called a Perfect Storm and it's not a crime drama at all it's about a fishing boat

Iris wrote:

interested wrote:I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

I put on a film called a Perfect Storm and it's not a crime drama at all it's about a fishing boat

A good film though!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:

interested wrote:I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

I put on a film called a Perfect Storm and it's not a crime drama at all it's about a fishing boat

A good film though!

of course it is, George Clooney's in it

interested wrote:Just noticed on 'twitter' that Pat Brown is aware of the Sunday Times article.  She has recently tweeted. "I am not shocked by them (meaning the McCanns)  I am shocked that the British media printed this story".  Last night she tweeted, "I've always said the biggest red flag in this entire case was the McCanns' refusal to acknowledge the Smith sighting as a possible lead."

I know she got at least one copy of the full story sent to her email  

frencheuropean wrote:To be fair with the Mccann, I agree with that bit in the Sunday's article:

"He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full "

It costed indeed 5 millions Pounds to the British tax payers. How could they have afford to pay this amount?

Perhaps they should have cooperated with the investigation rather than thinking they knew better how to proceed. They didn't chase the right guy despite their "fully believing" Bundleman was the right guy. Okay, maybe at May 4th you believe that but when the top guy from a £500,000 investigation, who used to head up MI5 tells you it was Smithman, that is the time to change your "beliefs"

Gerry was standing outside at 915 and the windows weren't open then. Matt came by to either listen or look in and didn't see them open at 930, therefore you could assume the kidnapping was after 935 and not too long after either - before 955. that puts Bundleman out of the frame and Smithman well into it.

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:

interested wrote:I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

I put on a film called a Perfect Storm and it's not a crime drama at all it's about a fishing boat

A good film though!

of course it is, George Clooney's in it

Yayyyy!!!

yayy from me too wish I had t shirt and boobs like that  

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:

interested wrote:I had read that the biggest storm in decades was about to hit the U.K. but I thought that was a weather forecast not the Sunday Times revelation.

I put on a film called a Perfect Storm and it's not a crime drama at all it's about a fishing boat

A good film though!

of course it is, George Clooney's in it

Ditto Iris, he really is Handsome, do you think he is gay? I ask because as far as I kmow he is not married, we know nothing abut his private life and there is something feminine about him.LOL Maybe it's those big eyes and long lashes.

I think there are a number of women and long time female partners that attest to the fact that he is not gay Panda