Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

ah, well. if it makes you happy, it can't be that bad.

Only the word "pup" appears instead of the running dog.

That is an improvement, thank you!

well, i've just made an improvement but it would be pointless for you to respond.

I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

the portuguese police dismissed yvonne martin's statement. they checked payne and found nothing. get over it.

The Portuguese would not have had direct access to the database and must have relied upon UK police to conduct any search.

jassi wrote:The Portuguese would not have had direct access to the database and must have relied upon UK police to conduct any search.

and you're probably quite right. fits nicely into the coverup theory don't it. i'm surprised that cherry, in her looong list of clues, hasn't mentioned the unidentified individual who left early the following morning in a private jet or is that the yet to be played 'trump card'?

What's with all the "cherry picking".

dazedandconfused wrote:What's with all the "cherry picking".  

there's no 'cherry picking' going on but that did make me chuckle.

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

yup, from the inner circle. nothing more.

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

I quite agree. Nothing is open and clear and hasn't been since day 1.

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

yup, from the inner circle. nothing more.

How can you be so sure Marky ?

Krisy22 wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

I quite agree.   Nothing is open and clear and hasn't been since day 1.

and so you look at the inner circle. everything else is just flowers.

Krisy22 wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

yup, from the inner circle. nothing more.

How can you be so sure Marky ?

no one can be 100% sure but then not ever thing is complicated. the truth or reality, whichever you prefer, is oft clouded by people who are trying to be too clever. this is not a TV show.

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand...

from her statement...

'What she states in respect of the individual who was close to Madeleine’s parents when she met with them, and who was later identified as David Payne, reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual was involved in a situation related to a professional activity of the deponent. She clarifies that on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, could she remember concretely the locale or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne. She continues to think that the same individual is known to her but cannot state the particular situation. She adds that she may have come to know him professionally through work, potentially having been colleagues at work but she cannot be certain where she would have known him.'

now then, would you put a bet on that horse?  

Krisy22 wrote:

Marky wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I don't for one moment believe Yvonne Martin's statement can be dismissed out of hand, she wanted the Police to check the register, that in itself tells us a lot, take that with Gaspars and the bathing of other peoples children, and don't forget Marky little chats between Gordon and his counterpart. Because a police officer has signed something as not being relevant - doesn't mean that is so!

Since day one there has unquestionably been a sustained effort to cover up the truth relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann…

yup, from the inner circle. nothing more.

How can you be so sure Marky ?

He can't... It's just his opinion and nothing more...

The truth is we are all arm chair detectives... judging everything on the news we are given. None of us have the full facts of what really happened. We probably will never know.

Krisy22 wrote:The truth is we are all arm chair detectives... judging everything on the news we are given.  None of us have the full facts of what really happened.  We probably will never know.  

no, we probably won't but if you take the indicative evidence, the inconsistencies, the somewhat 'staged' events that evening together with the behaviour of the parents in the weeks that followed and ignore ever thing else, you're left with only two probabilities.

Marky wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:The truth is we are all arm chair detectives... judging everything on the news we are given.  None of us have the full facts of what really happened.  We probably will never know.  

no, we probably won't but if you take the indicative evidence, the inconsistencies, the somewhat 'staged' events that evening together with the behaviour of the parents in the weeks that followed and ignore ever thing else, you're left with only two probabilities.

Yes Marky I agree. Although of course Madeleine is foremost in the mind ... It is the behaviour of the parents ... that has kept me here all these years.

What are your thoughts from here onwards. Do you think SY will continue or the case will be wound up... because of the amount already spent and probably rising by the hour.

Krisy22 wrote:

Marky wrote:

Krisy22 wrote:The truth is we are all arm chair detectives... judging everything on the news we are given.  None of us have the full facts of what really happened.  We probably will never know.  

no, we probably won't but if you take the indicative evidence, the inconsistencies, the somewhat 'staged' events that evening together with the behaviour of the parents in the weeks that followed and ignore ever thing else, you're left with only two probabilities.

Yes Marky I agree.     Although of course Madeleine is foremost in the mind ...   It is the behaviour of the parents ... that has kept me here all these years.

What are your thoughts from here onwards. Do you think SY will continue or the case will be wound up... because of the amount already spent and probably rising by the hour.

i think the review is drawing to a natural close rather than being wound up. murat's reinterview suggests that they have worked from the outside in and are now focusing on the central players, after which there's nowhere to go except to a conclusion.

But will it be a conclusion that satisfies anyone?

jassi wrote:But will it be a conclusion that satisfies anyone?

possibly, possibly not.

jassi wrote:But will it be a conclusion that satisfies anyone?

Probably....but I bet it won't satisfy most people on here!

Angelina wrote:

jassi wrote:But will it be a conclusion that satisfies anyone?

Probably....but I bet it won't satisfy most people on here!

and you'd be right.