Today's Daily Mail

Panda wrote:Actually mossman, you can't see properly the Patio doors from thhe restaurant, the wall is in the way. I would like to know who SY is referring too when he says one of the "persons of interest" has split from their Partner, what difference does that make.?

Thanks

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:Actually mossman, you can't see properly the Patio doors from thhe restaurant, the wall is in the way. I would like to know who SY is referring too when he says one of the "persons of interest" has split from their Partner, what difference does that make.?

Thanks

I think when this case reaches endgame mossman we ought to set up a Detective Agency . Branches in various countries where our Members live , I think we would do well, dont you,?

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:Actually mossman, you can't see properly the Patio doors from thhe restaurant, the wall is in the way. I would like to know who SY is referring too when he says one of the "persons of interest" has split from their Partner, what difference does that make.?

Thanks

I think when this case reaches endgame mossman we ought to set up a Detective Agency . Branches in various countries where our Members live , I think we would do well, dont you,?

Panda, how wonderful it would be to reach the day where one could log on here and have nothing to discuss because SY have done their job.

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:Actually mossman, you can't see properly the Patio doors from thhe restaurant, the wall is in the way. I would like to know who SY is referring too when he says one of the "persons of interest" has split from their Partner, what difference does that make.?

Thanks

I think when this case reaches endgame mossman we ought to set up a Detective Agency . Branches in various countries where our Members live , I think we would do well, dont you,?

Panda, how wonderful it would be to reach the day where one could log on here and have nothing to discuss because SY have done their job.

And Madeleine would have received justice.

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:Actually mossman, you can't see properly the Patio doors from thhe restaurant, the wall is in the way. I would like to know who SY is referring too when he says one of the "persons of interest" has split from their Partner, what difference does that make.?

Thanks

I think when this case reaches endgame mossman we ought to set up a Detective Agency . Branches in various countries where our Members live , I think we would do well, dont you,?

Panda, how wonderful it would be to reach the day where one could log on here and have nothing to discuss because SY have done their job.

I would have my Politics mossman , but I suspect there would be a mass exodus from MM when the case is closed. In that Article it said the McCann/Amaral Trial would be held six months after the offer to settle out of Court was rejected. That takes us to July , no news on Kate's Book so she may be delaying the Publishing until after the Trial. They might at the last minute make an offer to Amaral he cannot refuse, but I hope he refuses.

Having come this far I don't think he is likely to accept any dodgy deals. He has nothing left to lose. Tony Bennett did, which is why (imho) he did the right thing by agreeing to shut up and pay costs, even though it was only 7% or so of what the McCanns were asking.

Now there's a thing. If the McCanns were so sure of themselves, why did they agree for their lawyers to reduce the settlement by 93%??? And why was none of that in the Daily Wail?

Iris wrote:Having come this far I don't think he is likely to accept any dodgy deals. He has nothing left to lose. Tony Bennett did, which is why (imho) he did the right thing by agreeing to shut up and pay costs, even though it was only 7% or so of what the McCanns were asking.

Now there's a thing. If the McCanns were so sure of themselves, why did they agree for their lawyers to reduce the settlement by 93%??? And why was none of that in the Daily Wail?

Is that what they did Iris? Obviously they knew if Tony went to jail for non payment or had to sell his house they would look like the villains of the piece.I presume they had to pay thier own legal Fees, including a Barrister........I bet that will teach them and maybe why they wanted to do a deal with Amaral.

It's a big gamble. Amaral cannot give them what he does not have. If they were awarded ten million euro, unless he can pay it, it's of little use. Of course he could offer to write another book to make money to pay them

What do they do ? Effectively they are suing somebody who probably has little money, so what's to gain ? Not much. Lots to loose though. They run the risk of what might be said during the trial, win or loose, once it is said out loud it cannot be taken back.

I do not think he will settle either. Tony Bennett was in a different situation, he was in breach of a court undertaking, which is something all courts would frown upon. I imagine even if the McCanns were found guilty of something, Bennett would still have to stay quiet. He would have to go back to court to have the ruling changed, if such facility exists under uk law.

mossman wrote:
It's a big gamble. Amaral cannot give them what he does not have. If they were awarded ten million euro, unless he can pay it, it's of little use. Of course he could offer to write another book to make money to pay them

What do they do ? Effectively they are suing somebody who probably has little money, so what's to gain ? Not much. Lots to loose though. They run the risk of what might be said during the trial, win or loose, once it is said out loud it cannot be taken back.

I do not think he will settle either. Tony Bennett was in a different situation, he was in breach of a court undertaking, which is something all courts would frown upon. I imagine even if the McCanns were found guilty of something, Bennett would still have to stay quiet. He would have to go back to court to have the ruling changed, if such facility exists under uk law.

mossman, they are suing Amaral for E1.2 million and sequestered the money, probably from the sale of his book . Ass for Tony, what more is there to report, if something big breaks you can guarantee the Press would milk it dry.

So after all the furore at the weekend about big breakthrough, drama and breaking news. Is this case any further forward. I think a lot of people would like to know that.

MaryB wrote:So after all the furore at the weekend about big breakthrough, drama and breaking news. Is this case any further forward. I think a lot of people would like to know that.

Who knows.......but some interesting stuff has happened.

Healy and McCann photographed looking like they should have looked when Madeleine first went missing.
Kate photographed in Portugal on a private visit they saw fit to tell us all about
Murat making his call for a reconstruction
Martin brunt tweeting the murder word by "mistake" and going to PDL for no reason - where is he now ?
Strange and unbelievable stories appearing in the press, none of which paint the couple and their friends in a good light

And miracle of miracles, Clarrie seems to be tongue tied.

So it's been a strange couple of weeks all we can do is wait

jinvta wrote:This middle aged couple is most likely one of the tapas couples, as they were allegedly checking on each others' kids, though apparently the McCanns never checked on anyone else's kids. This certainly looks bad for the McCanns as it is getting out that the kids were alone and crying night after night. What terrible parents they are!

Exactly jinvta.....you dont need a pre run the night before, why would they need to go back the 2nd night when they could have taken her easly the previous night?.

mossman wrote:

MaryB wrote:So after all the furore at the weekend about big breakthrough, drama and breaking news. Is this case any further forward. I think a lot of people would like to know that.

Who knows.......but some interesting stuff has happened.

Healy and McCann photographed looking like they should have looked when Madeleine first went missing.
Kate photographed in Portugal on a private visit they saw fit to tell us all about
Murat making his call for a reconstruction
Martin brunt tweeting the murder word by "mistake" and going to PDL for no reason - where is he now ?
Strange and unbelievable stories appearing in the press, none of which paint the couple and their friends in a good light

And miracle of miracles, Clarrie seems to be tongue tied.

So it's been a strange couple of weeks all we can do is wait

He is in lyon reporting on the childrens murder by their own father.

Yes I saw that on the news. Very sad indeed. But he was in PDL at the weekend. I wonder if it was because they thought the re-opening of the case was about to be announced. Would the middle aged couple be new evidence if they could be traced. And I wonder if they were in the files. It's such a mystery.

MaryB wrote:Yes I saw that on the news. Very sad indeed. But he was in PDL at the weekend. I wonder if it was because they thought the re-opening of the case was about to be announced. Would the middle aged couple be new evidence if they could be traced. And I wonder if they were in the files. It's such a mystery.

It's nothing new really, the family were in the flat that they own, which is above Mrs Fenns, they gave statements when the 'abduction' happened, and now Mrs F is dead, and the news is once again having another airing, they are tryingto defame her. No news story as per usual. Just something yet once more to distract from coming news

What news is expected? Do you mean the re-opening of the case or more evidence. I wish wish wish things would move forward. Everyone wants to see this case solved.

not quite everyone Mary B. I can think of at least two that hope it is never solved!

Totally despise the MaCanns and have no doubt they played a big part in the disappearance of their daughter, but just cannot go along with the Portuguese story she was thrown off a cliff, heartless b*****ds they may be, but I am sure they would have never done that.

duncanmac wrote:Totally despise the MaCanns and have no doubt they played a big part in the disappearance of their daughter, but just cannot go along with the Portuguese story she was thrown off a cliff, heartless b*****ds they may be, but I am sure they would have never done that.

I don't believe the PJ are responsible for the story of Madeleine being thrown off a cliff, but I'm amazed the McCanns haven't issued legal action against the person/s responsible for printing this story.

I'm still convinced that whatever happened to Madeleine, including her removal from the apartment, happened before the McCanns went out to dinner.

There would be no media or police around and it would have been easy for Madeleine to be removed from the McCanns apartment. Anyone walking past the block of apartments, wouldn't have batted an eyelid, if they saw someone, carrying a child. However, I don't believe the McCanns removed Madeleine, I believe someone removed her with the McCanns blessing.

The McCanns would have been aware that once Madeleine's disappearance became public knowledge, someone would have come forward, to say they saw one of the McCanns walking from the apartment with a child wrapped in a blanket.

Kathy, I believe you may be right, somewhere in the PJ report there is the mention of simulated abduction. What we do not know is if the body was simulated or both the body and the abductors were simulated. Always been a firm believer in the theory that the daughter of JT was used

duncanmac wrote:Totally despise the MaCanns and have no doubt they played a big part in the disappearance of their daughter, but just cannot go along with the Portuguese story she was thrown off a cliff, heartless b*****ds they may be, but I am sure they would have never done that.

Morning duncanmac, well if the McCanns WERE responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and probable death, how else could they dispose of her body, ?maybe one of the Tapas Guys did.
BTW, it was not a report but the opinion of some Portugese people who thought she was thrown from cliffs.

duncanmac wrote:Kathy, I believe you may be right, somewhere in the PJ report there is the mention of simulated abduction. What we do not know is if the body was simulated or both the body and the abductors were simulated. Always been a firm believer in the theory that the daughter of JT was used

Duncanmac

I'm thinking that if someone did walk past the block of apartments and seen a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, walking out of the block with a child in their arms, whilst paying no heed at the time, going to the police, when Robert Murat's photograph was splashed across the newspapers, saying they had seen Robert Murat coming out of the apartment.

I believe that this is why, if Robert Murat was framed by Jane Tanner, this was the reason. The McCanns had to think of every eventuality, that could link them and their 'helpers' with Madeleine's disappearance.

However whilst I believe a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, was the one who could removed Madeleine, the fact is Robert Murat hasn't been accused of removing Madeleine from the McCanns apartment.

The plot thickens.

kathybelle wrote:

duncanmac wrote:Kathy, I believe you may be right, somewhere in the PJ report there is the mention of simulated abduction. What we do not know is if the body was simulated or both the body and the abductors were simulated. Always been a firm believer in the theory that the daughter of JT was used

Duncanmac

I'm thinking that if someone did walk past the block of apartments and seen a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, walking out of the block with a child in their arms, whilst paying no heed at the time, going to the police, when Robert Murat's photograph was splashed across the newspapers, saying they had seen Robert Murat coming out of the apartment.

I believe that this is why, if Robert Murat was framed by Jane Tanner, this was the reason. The McCanns had to think of every eventuality, that could link them and their 'helpers' with Madeleine's disappearance.

However whilst I believe a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, was the one who could removed Madeleine, the fact is Robert Murat hasn't been accused of removing Madeleine from the McCanns apartment.

The plot thickens.

Kathybelle, I thought the 3 Tapas said they saw Murat outside the Apartment , not coming out.

Panda wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

duncanmac wrote:Kathy, I believe you may be right, somewhere in the PJ report there is the mention of simulated abduction. What we do not know is if the body was simulated or both the body and the abductors were simulated. Always been a firm believer in the theory that the daughter of JT was used

Duncanmac

I'm thinking that if someone did walk past the block of apartments and seen a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, walking out of the block with a child in their arms, whilst paying no heed at the time, going to the police, when Robert Murat's photograph was splashed across the newspapers, saying they had seen Robert Murat coming out of the apartment.

I believe that this is why, if Robert Murat was framed by Jane Tanner, this was the reason. The McCanns had to think of every eventuality, that could link them and their 'helpers' with Madeleine's disappearance.

However whilst I believe a certain person with an uncanny resemblance to Robert Murat, was the one who could removed Madeleine, the fact is Robert Murat hasn't been accused of removing Madeleine from the McCanns apartment.

The plot thickens.

Kathybelle, I thought the 3 Tapas said they saw Murat outside the Apartment , not coming out.

Hi Panda

I don't think I explained myself very well in my post.

What I was trying to say was, always assuming the man in question, whose name I would love to say, but fear I can't, was carrying Madeleine out of the McCanns apartment and made eye contact with a passer by, he would have been worried that once Madeleine's disappearance became public, he could find himself in deep trouble.

Once Robert Murat was brought in for questioning and this announcement, along with his photograph, was circled in the media. The passer by, could have contacted the police and told them that they saw Robert Murat, leaving the McCanns apartment carrying a child. This is what made me come to the conclusion that Robert Murat was being framed by Jane Tanner, who said she saw him near the McCanns apartment.


I hope this post, makes more sense than my previous post.

it is a possibility, jimo