Washed up?Dr Roberts

Cleanliness is next to godliness, they say. What with a 'hands on' papal greeting and countless other blessings along the way, Kate McCann should be about as close to God already as any mortal might expect to get. But if the proverb should be at all reliable, her actions in Praia da Luz, five years ago now, ought to guarantee her a seat at High Table. The various instances of showering and child bathing though are not nearly so interesting as the one occasion on which she chose to wash a pyjama top belonging to her daughter Madeleine.

The context is brief and familiar. On 3 May, during breakfast, 'she noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.' (KM witness statement, 6.9.07).

This little cameo, despite not having made it to the top of the rostrum in time for the McCanns' first statements to police on May 4, was nevertheless worthy of mention the second time around. And the third, as it is given an equally meritorious mention in 'Madeleine,' Kate's book of remembrance:

'I didn't think of it at the time but the day Madeleine disappeared I noticed what I thought was a tea stain on her Disney pyjama top,' she says. 'I washed it without thinking but looking back, the children hadn't drunk any tea that day and I can't remember her mentioning that she'd spilt anything.'

The obvious discrepancy in these accounts has been pointed out previously (see article: Accounts of the Truth, McCannfiles 8 May 2011). Kate's retrospective use of the pluperfect tense in her book places the washing at the end of the day rather than the beginning. On the one hand therefore we have spontaneous garment washing shortly after breakfast; on the other, it would have occurred nearer tea-time.

The second performance naturally leads one to re-examine the first, when Kate, after having noticed the offensive stain, 'washed it a little later that same morning' so that 'it was dry by the afternoon.'

The parameters bear re-iterating:

Breakfast 8.00 - 8.30 a.m. Pyjamas washed a little later (not somewhat, or much, later). Pyjamas dry by the afternoon (not mid-afternoon or late afternoon).

Now watch closely as we skip through a heavily redacted version of Kate McCann's statement of 6 September, 2007:

'On the 3rd of May .... They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 a.m .... During breakfast .... She noticed a stain .... on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand .... it was dry by the afternoon .... Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

'After breakfast they .... left the apartment.

'After leaving the apartment they left the twins at the crèche .... she supposes that Gerry took Madeleine to the crèche.

'Once the children were delivered, they went to the tennis courts .... Kate's group lesson was at 9:15 .... When her lesson ended at 10:15, she went to the recreation area next to the swimming pool to talk to Russell until Gerry's lesson was over. Afterwards .... they went back together to the apartment until close to 12:15 when she went to Madeleine's crèche to pick her up, together with Fiona Payne.

'... they went to the apartment for lunch .... This would be around 12:35/12:40 .... Lunch lasted around 20 minutes. After finishing lunch they stayed for a while at the apartment, then they went to the recreation area .... They remained at this area for about an hour, maybe more, then they left the twins at the crèche next to the Tapas and both of them took Madeleine to the other crèche.

'After leaving Madeleine at around 2:50 p.m., they both had, once more, a tennis lesson.

'She doesn't remember if they were already wearing appropriate clothes or if they went to the apartment to change.

'The lesson ended an hour later, at around 4:30 p.m. Gerry continued playing tennis .... while she went for a jog .... for around half an hour .... She cannot confirm whether she went to the apartment between the tennis game and the jog.

'When she finished jogging, at around 5:20/5:30 p.m., she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine .... Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over, at around 5.30 p.m .... Madeleine .... asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment.

'They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m .... At the apartment they both bathed the children.

'After the children's bath .... she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, and gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.'

First things first. Kate McCann was due on the tennis court at 9.15. Once breakfast was concluded they still had to dress the children (all three of them), before leaving the apartment ('On the 3rd of May .... They washed the children and had breakfast') in time to take the infants to their creche before the tennis lesson(s) began. They did not return to the apartment until Gerry's tennis lesson had concluded (11.15) and left it again at 12.15, giving Kate about half-an-hour in all during which to wash Madeleine's pyjama top, three hours and more (a little later?) after she first noticed the stain.

But now it's around noon, by which time the pyjama top was said already to have been dry.

Perhaps Kate meant that it was dry by mid-afternoon or later. That's as maybe. But how can she possibly have known what time the clothing was dry since, having remained in the apartment for a twenty minute lunch (12.40 - 13.00) and 'a while' thereafter, she spent an hour or so at the recreation area before proceeding to the creche(s) once more with the children, then onto more tennis, jogging etc., with no confirmation of any visit to the apartment in the meantime, until they all returned at 5.40 p.m.?

So, unless Kate exploited her 'window of opportunity' between 11.30 and 12.00 in order to wash Madeleine's pyjama top (which could not possibly have been 'dry by the afternoon'), she could not have washed it until the evening (according to her own verification of events). And whilst this interpretation would sit more conveniently with her later description of proceedings (in 'Madeleine') it must, at the same time, suggest that Madeleine was put to bed in wet pyjamas! ('They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m .... At the apartment they both bathed the children. After the children's bath .... she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, and gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.').

Perhaps that accounts for Kate's earlier apparent reluctance to describe exactly how they dressed Madeleine for bed after her bath.

A liquid post-script

'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic. (The Daily Mirror,19.9.2007)

'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

(These are the very fluids Kate McCann told the Leveson Inquiry did not exist).

Thanks Annabel another thought provoking and interesting article by the great Dr Roberts.

gillyspot wrote:Thanks Annabel another thought provoking and interesting article by the great Dr Roberts.

Gillyspot, can you or anyone tell me if this is his real name, and is he a doctor of what? I've read every word he's said and IMHO he is a borderline genius.

Actually, the same question goes for John Blacksmaith and "The Blacksmith Bureau"...?

Are the old Sergeant's Inn posts available to read anywhere?

Thanks! F

I don't know Dr Roberts real name or Blacksmiths either but I don't need to as they make sense. As for Sargeants they are gone forever sadly as even archive machines can't show them- I think this is because of McCann interference as most old blogs and websites are readable (no proof though). Still I want to again thank Pamalam for keeping her information available on the internet - none was libellous as all was sourced (even from media articles- still is a source).

gillyspot wrote:I don't know Dr Roberts real name or Blacksmiths either but I don't need to as they make sense. As for Sargeants they are gone forever sadly as even archive machines can't show them- I think this is because of McCann interference as most old blogs and websites are readable (no proof though). Still I want to again thank Pamalam for keeping her information available on the internet - none was libellous as all was sourced (even from media articles- still is a source).

Thanks, I was pretty sure Dr Roberts was a pseudonym, and I couldn't find him on the net - he is the real deal, I agree, and he has a razor-like forensic mind (unlike my own!) - I like Blacksmith very much too, but I worry s/he is a little closed minded on certain subjects (conspiracies in general/freemasonic interference, for example) - I heard the Sgts Inn was a great place to explore, kinda sad to see all that work and valuable information erased for ever - yes a big shame about Pamalam, hope she takes a time out and comes back, this case certainly can wear you out mentally, but then again, that is Clarence and Gerry's INTENT...

To paraphrase Gerry: 'there is so much confusion out there, nobody knows what to believe...'

A very good article which says everything. There are many examples of contradiction in what the gruesome twosome have done and said. No/one has ever picked them up on these and no/one will ever. They have been allowed to get away with lying and twisting truths for so long now that the inevitable end is that the case will remain on the books. A bit like Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana and others who have departed this life and no truth has been heard of the nature of their demise.

Annabel wrote:

Cleanliness is next to godliness, they say. What with a 'hands on' papal greeting and countless other blessings along the way, Kate McCann should be about as close to God already as any mortal might expect to get. But if the proverb should be at all reliable, her actions in Praia da Luz, five years ago now, ought to guarantee her a seat at High Table. The various instances of showering and child bathing though are not nearly so interesting as the one occasion on which she chose to wash a pyjama top belonging to her daughter Madeleine.

The context is brief and familiar. On 3 May, during breakfast, 'she noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon. Madeleine sometimes drank tea; nevertheless the stain did not appear during breakfast, maybe it happened another day, as Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.' (KM witness statement, 6.9.07).

This little cameo, despite not having made it to the top of the rostrum in time for the McCanns' first statements to police on May 4, was nevertheless worthy of mention the second time around. And the third, as it is given an equally meritorious mention in 'Madeleine,' Kate's book of remembrance:

'I didn't think of it at the time but the day Madeleine disappeared I noticed what I thought was a tea stain on her Disney pyjama top,' she says. 'I washed it without thinking but looking back, the children hadn't drunk any tea that day and I can't remember her mentioning that she'd spilt anything.'

The obvious discrepancy in these accounts has been pointed out previously (see article: Accounts of the Truth, McCannfiles 8 May 2011). Kate's retrospective use of the pluperfect tense in her book places the washing at the end of the day rather than the beginning. On the one hand therefore we have spontaneous garment washing shortly after breakfast; on the other, it would have occurred nearer tea-time.

The second performance naturally leads one to re-examine the first, when Kate, after having noticed the offensive stain, 'washed it a little later that same morning' so that 'it was dry by the afternoon.'

The parameters bear re-iterating:

Breakfast 8.00 - 8.30 a.m. Pyjamas washed a little later (not somewhat, or much, later). Pyjamas dry by the afternoon (not mid-afternoon or late afternoon).

Now watch closely as we skip through a heavily redacted version of Kate McCann's statement of 6 September, 2007:

'On the 3rd of May .... They washed the children and had breakfast at the apartment between 08:00 and 08:30 a.m .... During breakfast .... She noticed a stain .... on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it out to dry on a small stand .... it was dry by the afternoon .... Madeleine did not have tea the previous night and the stain was dry.

'After breakfast they .... left the apartment.

'After leaving the apartment they left the twins at the crèche .... she supposes that Gerry took Madeleine to the crèche.

'Once the children were delivered, they went to the tennis courts .... Kate's group lesson was at 9:15 .... When her lesson ended at 10:15, she went to the recreation area next to the swimming pool to talk to Russell until Gerry's lesson was over. Afterwards .... they went back together to the apartment until close to 12:15 when she went to Madeleine's crèche to pick her up, together with Fiona Payne.

'... they went to the apartment for lunch .... This would be around 12:35/12:40 .... Lunch lasted around 20 minutes. After finishing lunch they stayed for a while at the apartment, then they went to the recreation area .... They remained at this area for about an hour, maybe more, then they left the twins at the crèche next to the Tapas and both of them took Madeleine to the other crèche.

'After leaving Madeleine at around 2:50 p.m., they both had, once more, a tennis lesson.

'She doesn't remember if they were already wearing appropriate clothes or if they went to the apartment to change.

'The lesson ended an hour later, at around 4:30 p.m. Gerry continued playing tennis .... while she went for a jog .... for around half an hour .... She cannot confirm whether she went to the apartment between the tennis game and the jog.

'When she finished jogging, at around 5:20/5:30 p.m., she went to the Tapas area. Gerry was there, as well as the twins and Madeleine .... Her parents were required to sign the register when the meal was over, at around 5.30 p.m .... Madeleine .... asked Kate to carry her back to the apartment.

'They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m .... At the apartment they both bathed the children.

'After the children's bath .... she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, and gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.'

First things first. Kate McCann was due on the tennis court at 9.15. Once breakfast was concluded they still had to dress the children (all three of them), before leaving the apartment ('On the 3rd of May .... They washed the children and had breakfast') in time to take the infants to their creche before the tennis lesson(s) began. They did not return to the apartment until Gerry's tennis lesson had concluded (11.15) and left it again at 12.15, giving Kate about half-an-hour in all during which to wash Madeleine's pyjama top, three hours and more (a little later?) after she first noticed the stain.

But now it's around noon, by which time the pyjama top was said already to have been dry.

Perhaps Kate meant that it was dry by mid-afternoon or later. That's as maybe. But how can she possibly have known what time the clothing was dry since, having remained in the apartment for a twenty minute lunch (12.40 - 13.00) and 'a while' thereafter, she spent an hour or so at the recreation area before proceeding to the creche(s) once more with the children, then onto more tennis, jogging etc., with no confirmation of any visit to the apartment in the meantime, until they all returned at 5.40 p.m.?

So, unless Kate exploited her 'window of opportunity' between 11.30 and 12.00 in order to wash Madeleine's pyjama top (which could not possibly have been 'dry by the afternoon'), she could not have washed it until the evening (according to her own verification of events). And whilst this interpretation would sit more conveniently with her later description of proceedings (in 'Madeleine') it must, at the same time, suggest that Madeleine was put to bed in wet pyjamas! ('They arrived at the apartment at around 5:40 p.m .... At the apartment they both bathed the children. After the children's bath .... she put pyjamas and nappies on the twins, and gave them each a glass of milk and biscuits.').

Perhaps that accounts for Kate's earlier apparent reluctance to describe exactly how they dressed Madeleine for bed after her bath.

A liquid post-script

'It is believed the entire Portuguese case rests on DNA evidence from body fluids which allegedly suggests that Madeleine's corpse was carried in the boot of the McCanns' hired Renault Scenic. (The Daily Mirror,19.9.2007)

'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

(These are the very fluids Kate McCann told the Leveson Inquiry did not exist).

I'm glad the good Doctor is a pseudonym as it means we still get very interesting content from people who are quite evidently experienced in the area.

What is the significance of the TEA though? this is another 'He liked see-bass' moment in preperation for an excuse later on should the body get found however I can't figure it out.... Please help me!

Hi loop, i think the tea stain is to say it must of been the abductor administering something the night before...yes i know...

then the next day she was very tired & was carried from creche before her bath...she was then read mog & fell asleep just in time for the mccs to have a drop of wine & off to tapas....

Loop and gang. Is the good Doctor getting at a blood stain? I think he suspects KM is laying the alibi groundwork for WHY she washed Maddies jammies, Also, KM kept bringing up the self-implicating neglect morsel (just WHY would she drop herself in it like that?)

The Dr thinks misdirection. And I agree. The parents McCann are putting out a barrage of red herrings. One of them is MBM's alleged plea, paraphrased - "mummy, why did u let me and Sean cry all alone last night?"

KM flagged this dropping herself in it mea culpa several times - not like *her* at all, is it?

Unless MBM died the day before the "opening night" amateur production...

Alibis are slotted in, after the fact, the crèche records are tampered with, so IMHO MBM dies much earlier than the 9 are trying to hoodwink us over...



constant crying on the Tuesday evening, and ever since, a premeditated stage show was hastily put together, with directions from London ... Hence all the texts to Gerry, with status updates on the hour, every hour

MBM HAD to be deceased WELL before the British establishment "fixers" kicked in circa 10pm onwards, Thursday night

No other explanation fits...

(Weeeell, I can think of ONE, but it is extremely 'out there' a la 9/11 and 7/7 - txtusa would get it, I'm sure, in view of her current change of direction (I.e. focussing on the VERY big picture, all things on the table, Tavistock Fabian common purpose eugenicist social engineering, ID cards, the chipping of children, illegal cloning experiments, the works!) think of a Tavistock Hollywood Production, several years in the planning... But that is for another time and place...

Cheers!

F

matthew wrote:Hi loop, i think the tea stain is to say it must of been the abductor administering something the night before...yes i know...

then the next day she was very tired & was carried from creche before her bath...she was then read mog & fell asleep just in time for the mccs to have a drop of wine & off to tapas....

Yes, I think so too, the abductor had a 'dummy run' the previous evening.

However, GM was asked this and replied...........

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

ann_chovey wrote:

matthew wrote:Hi loop, i think the tea stain is to say it must of been the abductor administering something the night before...yes i know...

then the next day she was very tired & was carried from creche before her bath...she was then read mog & fell asleep just in time for the mccs to have a drop of wine & off to tapas....

Yes, I think so too, the abductor had a 'dummy run' the previous evening.

However, GM was asked this and replied...........

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

I don't get it. IF, and a big IF, there was really an abduction, and some conspired to do a 'dummy run' on the Wednesay, how does that square with:

1. Keela and Eddie indepently flagging multiple cadaverine (death scent) and blood spots.

2. Body fluids found in the Scenic.

Which were

3. Sent to the FSS

Who

4. Confirmed to lead detective Stuart Prior that there was an extremely high probability of a DNA match to Maddie

(of course the Nokia Javellin Champion G Brown 33rd degree) stuck his size 13s in and the DNA was suddenly fudged and tinkered with by the FSS, who were sadly lacking in enough integrity to tell the saviour of the world, get stuffed.

Stuart Prior was said to be 'furious' with the F S S's cowardice.

F
Bearing all the above in mind, and the ongoing cover up and dirty tricks by UK PLC, I cannot buy an abduction.

At some point in time poor Maddie lay dead for at least ninety minutes, behind the sofa.

Question:

Can you 'abduct' a dead body?

If so, what is the general dictionary term for such an act?

Ans: Cowardice

The End Is Nigh wrote:Ans: Cowardice

Yes TEIN, I certainly agree with THAT!

Burke and Hare were from Gerry's neck of the woods, but their forte was grave robbing.

Can you 'abduct' an toddler corpse?

So Kate washed madeleines pyjamas the same day she had finished wearing them,so was this the usual routine?

'But the McCanns say the fluids probably came from Madeleine's unwashed pyjamas and sandals which were carried in the boot when the family was moving apartments.'

hmmmm....

So these Pj's exist currently then with the washed 'tea stain' which could be blood? or are these ones that if maddie is found she will be wearing? however why would that matter if as she was found they'd have the body as evidence anyway?

unless this means the body is definitely findable somewhere and in which case when its found people are going to think its strange that the PJ's were clean... and if they were that would indicate that the Mccann's ritually cleaned the body before disposal and I'm speculating that there must have been blood everywhere, perhaps she staggered about in her last moments with the head injury? Hence the 'bleaching of the apartment' but more importantly hence the cleaning of the curtains.... You know I bet Kate was the only person to ever wash those curtains and if the police wanted to look for small specs of forensic evidence such as blood ala Stephen Lawrence the curtains would be a good place to look?

Loopdaloop wrote:So these Pj's exist currently then with the washed 'tea stain' which could be blood? or are these ones that if maddie is found she will be wearing? however why would that matter if as she was found they'd have the body as evidence anyway?

unless this means the body is definitely findable somewhere and in which case when its found people are going to think its strange that the PJ's were clean... and if they were that would indicate that the Mccann's ritually cleaned the body before disposal and I'm speculating that there must have been blood everywhere, perhaps she staggered about in her last moments with the head injury? Hence the 'bleaching of the apartment' but more importantly hence the cleaning of the curtains.... You know I bet Kate was the only person to ever wash those curtains and if the police wanted to look for small specs of forensic evidence such as blood ala Stephen Lawrence the curtains would be a good place to look?

Dear loopy, I am hesitant to explain.

You will see.

Forensicist wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:So these Pj's exist currently then with the washed 'tea stain' which could be blood? or are these ones that if maddie is found she will be wearing? however why would that matter if as she was found they'd have the body as evidence anyway?

unless this means the body is definitely findable somewhere and in which case when its found people are going to think its strange that the PJ's were clean... and if they were that would indicate that the Mccann's ritually cleaned the body before disposal and I'm speculating that there must have been blood everywhere, perhaps she staggered about in her last moments with the head injury? Hence the 'bleaching of the apartment' but more importantly hence the cleaning of the curtains.... You know I bet Kate was the only person to ever wash those curtains and if the police wanted to look for small specs of forensic evidence such as blood ala Stephen Lawrence the curtains would be a good place to look?

Dear loopy, I am hesitant to explain.

You will see.

Forensicist, I'm not really fond of people who come along hinting at having information no one else has. Either present it, with references, or keep quiet. There are things that I could say on certain topics, but as I'm not willing to disclose where those things came from, I say nothing. I suggest that you do the same. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up!

You could add the tea stain to Kates dog bite...searching 6 am next morn...sea bass...nappies...packaged meat leaking...cuddlet cat & pants contact with dead bodies & many more.....all quotes at the time to pre-empt any future evidence they thought could come to light

AnnaEsse wrote:

Forensicist wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:So these Pj's exist currently then with the washed 'tea stain' which could be blood? or are these ones that if maddie is found she will be wearing? however why would that matter if as she was found they'd have the body as evidence anyway?

unless this means the body is definitely findable somewhere and in which case when its found people are going to think its strange that the PJ's were clean... and if they were that would indicate that the Mccann's ritually cleaned the body before disposal and I'm speculating that there must have been blood everywhere, perhaps she staggered about in her last moments with the head injury? Hence the 'bleaching of the apartment' but more importantly hence the cleaning of the curtains.... You know I bet Kate was the only person to ever wash those curtains and if the police wanted to look for small specs of forensic evidence such as blood ala Stephen Lawrence the curtains would be a good place to look?

Dear loopy, I am hesitant to explain.

You will see.

Forensicist, I'm not really fond of people who come along hinting at having information no one else has. Either present it, with references, or keep quiet. There are things that I could say on certain topics, but as I'm not willing to disclose where those things came from, I say nothing. I suggest that you do the same. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up!

I was tired yesterday, i planned on following up with details.

See a thread I am starting about the similarities between this case and the JBR case.

Thanks, F

[quote="Forensicist"]

AnnaEsse wrote:

Forensicist wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:So these Pj's exist currently then with the washed 'tea stain' which could be blood? or are these ones that if maddie is found she will be wearing? however why would that matter if as she was found they'd have the body as evidence anyway?

unless this means the body is definitely findable somewhere and in which case when its found people are going to think its strange that the PJ's were clean... and if they were that would indicate that the Mccann's ritually cleaned the body before disposal and I'm speculating that there must have been blood everywhere, perhaps she staggered about in her last moments with the head injury? Hence the 'bleaching of the apartment' but more importantly hence the cleaning of the curtains.... You know I bet Kate was the only person to ever wash those curtains and if the police wanted to look for small specs of forensic evidence such as blood ala Stephen Lawrence the curtains would be a good place to look?

Dear loopy, I am hesitant to explain.

You will see.

Forensicist, I'm not really fond of people who come along hinting at having information no one else has. Either present it, with references, or keep quiet. There are things that I could say on certain topics, but as I'm not willing to disclose where those things came from, I say nothing. I suggest that you do the same. To put it bluntly: put up or shut up!

OK Forensicist. Scrub that lot and just give a couple of links and a VERY brief rundown on what each is about. This is not your personal soapbox and we don't need you to educate us. Just give the links and let people read if they want to.

ETA: Gone! Thank you.

First warning given, Forensicist. This thread is about the Dr Roberts article.

ETA: 10 minutes to delete your spam or I delete it! Counting!

AnnaEsse wrote:First warning given, Forensicist. This thread is about the Dr Roberts article.

ETA: 10 minutes to delete your spam or I delete it! Counting!

I've deleted it, and it is not spam, if you read it carefully.

Cheers!

F

Forensicist wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:First warning given, Forensicist. This thread is about the Dr Roberts article.

ETA: 10 minutes to delete your spam or I delete it! Counting!

I've deleted it, and it is not spam, if you read it carefully.

Cheers!

F

This is a message board. I, for one, would rather not be asked to read through a very long diatribe that you think is so important. As I said, just give links and maybe a SHORT paragraph for a long essay, and let people read it if they want to.

That took me a long time to put together, about an hour down the tubes.

It is a BRILLIANT article, written by a friend of mine, Vincent bridges. The similarities in the two cases are uncanny. Gerry has got some very peculiar holiday reading habits, and I would not be surprised if he and TM have not read this article. I made about 15 relevant points directly related to the MBM case.

Well, it's late, I'm off to bed.

BTW I can not post links, which is why I pasted the article in, with 15 comments intersperse within the article.

There is no way I can prune it down, it will not make any sense if I do try and do that. And it will take me another hour to do that.

Cheers!

F

Forensicist wrote:That took me a long time to put together, about an hour down the tubes.

It is a BRILLIANT article, written by a friend of mine, Vincent bridges. The similarities in the two cases are uncanny. Gerry has got some very peculiar holiday reading habits, and I would not be surprised if he and TM have not read this article. I made about 15 relevant points directly related to the MBM case.

Well, it's late, I'm off to bed.

Cheers!

F

It's gone to 'General Debate and Chatter' as we've had many a thread in the past, which you are not sure to know about, on the Ramsey case.