Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

I think he sums it up very well

What do you think

I really wish something new would break in this case. So fed up of going over the old ground.

cherry1 wrote:I think he sums it up very well

What do you think  

paragraph two of my post sunday answers that question for you. also interesting is what mr amaral doesn't say.

Do you think it was an accident or something more sinister Marky?

cherry1 wrote:Do you think it was an accident or something more sinister Marky?

nope and neither does mr amaral.

What do you think happened then

cherry1 wrote:What do you think happened then

well, the evidential blood spatter pattern on the wall suggests a possible head or neck injury.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:What do you think happened then

well, the evidential blood spatter pattern on the wall suggests a possible head or neck injury.

So how do you guess the blood got there then Marky ...if there was no accident or any thing sinister.. I don't understand.

Krisy22 wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:What do you think happened then

well, the evidential blood spatter pattern on the wall suggests a possible head or neck injury.

So how do you guess  the blood got there then   Marky ...if there was no accident or any thing sinister.. I don't understand.

i meant nothing sinister. didn't make that clear. sorry.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:What do you think happened then

well, the evidential blood spatter pattern on the wall suggests a possible head or neck injury.

that would tie in with this

BBC News 24 7 September 07 I believe was the date Jane Hill reporting live outside the Portimao police station after Kate and Gerry had been interviewed and named as arguidos she made reference to Madeleine dying from a broken neck, I believe the words were, - an early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned certain blood spray in common with a certain type of broken larynx - some DNA samples found related to cerebral fluids indicates a broken neck or fractured skull.

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:What do you think happened then

well, the evidential blood spatter pattern on the wall suggests a possible head or neck injury.

that would tie in with this

BBC News 24 7 September 07 I believe was the date Jane Hill reporting live outside the Portimao police station after Kate and Gerry had been interviewed and named as arguidos she made reference to Madeleine dying from a broken neck, I believe the words were, - an early forensic report is alleged to have mentioned certain blood spray in common with a certain type of broken larynx - some DNA samples found related to cerebral fluids indicates a broken neck or fractured skull.

indeed.

However she died, how on earth could these two people be laughing & smiling days later?

saloongirl wrote:However she died, how on earth could these two people be laughing & smiling days later?

That would be after having set up the "fighting fund". Why the need to raise funds for a "fight" if your child is dead (or missing as they alleged). Unless of course the money raised was to go to their defence lawyers in the event they were charged in connection with the death and or disappearance. Why did the inital fighting fund later become a limited company making the money available to the McCanns for living expenses, etc. etc. That seemed to give them a lot to laugh and smile about.

saloongirl wrote:However she died, how on earth could these two people be laughing & smiling days later?

it was that sort of behaviour that made a lot of people uncomfortable thereby giving rise to the 'something's not quite right here' train of thought some of us still ride. they were quite possibly the strangest couple i've ever come across in these sort of circumstances although they could do 'sombre' when required.

and then there was mick philpott.

They appeared to do sombre when they knew the cameras were on them.

cherry1 wrote:They appeared to do sombre when they knew the cameras were on them.  

Aye, for a few minutes.

jassi wrote:

cherry1 wrote:They appeared to do sombre when they knew the cameras were on them.  

Aye, for a few minutes.

Yes, sombre when the TV camera was on them then captured giggling when they thought it was turned off.

There's a classic example of that on 2nd May 2008, the eve of the first anniversary of when Madeleine was reported missing.

Thinking that they're off camera, they jump up looking as if they've won the lottery. If I can find it again, I'll post it.

Marky wrote:

saloongirl wrote:However she died, how on earth could these two people be laughing & smiling days later?

it was that sort of behaviour that made a lot of people uncomfortable thereby giving rise to the 'something's not quite right here' train of thought some of us still ride. they were quite possibly the strangest couple i've ever come across in these sort of circumstances although they could do 'sombre' when required.

and then there was mick philpott.

I seem to remember when the Philpott neighbours set up a fund to cover funeral expenses for the six children he and his wife killed, he saw the fund as a get rich (for him) fund. Their fraud fund seems to have worked out well for the McCanns.

interested wrote:

Marky wrote:

saloongirl wrote:However she died, how on earth could these two people be laughing & smiling days later?

it was that sort of behaviour that made a lot of people uncomfortable thereby giving rise to the 'something's not quite right here' train of thought some of us still ride. they were quite possibly the strangest couple i've ever come across in these sort of circumstances although they could do 'sombre' when required.

and then there was mick philpott.

I seem to remember when the Philpott neighbours set up a fund to cover funeral expenses for the six children he and his wife killed,  he saw the fund as a get rich (for him) fund.  Their fraud fund seems to have worked out well for the McCanns.

i was referring to the bawling his eyes out in front of the cameras and the behaving like a giggling schoolgirl when they were off. the police copped that straightaway.

With the election campaign in full swing, I don't expect the press to question the candidates about the Madeleine McCann case, but I would expect someone at a meet and greet the candidates rally to question why the establishment is protecting the parents. Surely there are people who are outraged that VIP's are being protected from prosecution for alleged sex abuse crimes and worse. If the candidates are being questioned about these things the press don't seem interested in reporting it - or possibly they are told by their editors such queries will not be printed or reported on.

The mccanns are really not that important.

Lioned wrote:The mccanns are really not that important.

and the public at large could care less about this case.

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:The mccanns are really not that important.

and the public at large could care less about this case.

This is true. Well I must say... I never hear any of my friends even mention it. There seems to be so many other missing people in the news on a daily basis.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:There's a classic example of that on 2nd May 2008, the eve of the first anniversary of when Madeleine was reported missing.

Thinking that they're off camera, they jump up looking as if they've won the lottery. If I can find it again, I'll post it.

Found it!

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1h5wxd_the-mccanns-show-their-true-colours_news