General anniversary topic

Hi, Rosa.

You could try one of the pics uploaded to Imgur (imgur dot com) and see if the linked image works here using the "insert a link" or "insert image" in the reply bar? It could be the forum software here isn't compatible with Google Photos? Though some images can be seen by some....so a little confusing!

It's really odd that some people can see them, or some of them as in my case. The ones that can't be seen have similar to a no entry sign - a circle with a line across it.

Not sure if it makes sense, Freedom, but one thought was those that have a Google Photo account can see the images others post?

Perhaps this might work? Let's see:


https://www.dropbox.com/s/xizi9982wi6go9e/Roundup.png?dl=0

Overview of yesterday's pics

https://www.dropbox.com/s/gqwl692ou1iv4l8/138.png?dl=0

My personal favourite

https://www.dropbox.com/s/iel12a0bt1qmwl0/Clarrie.png?dl=0

A bonus maquillaged Clarrie (he wasn't there, this was just a pic I found - taken in the last year)

Ah cheers, TTWO. Does this bogan black jeans pic work for you?

Yes it does, Rosa!

unreorganised wrote:

Rosa canina wrote:

Fellow in the navy cap - confused or shifty?

He looks like he was just walking past and has been co-opted into something he doesn't understand!

Although I'm surprised no comment on the apparent maple leaf hat, Rosa!

We must never forget the role Canada has played in this whole sorry mess...!



Kate's new necklace I don't have much to say about except it's well on display...

Gerry's hairdo fascinates me, he uses hairspray for sure, a spot of Grecian 2000 too, I'd say.

He lacks the fluffiness of propecia, but sometimes I've thought that fringe looks like a hair system.

My own locks are not far off Aunty Janet's these days:

From a Mirror write-up:

Renowned and respected cardiologist Gerry, 53, casually dressed in navy trousers, salmon-pink T-shirt and grey-blue sweater, later individually thanked well wishers for attending the half-hour gathering.


Kate, who appeared to be limping, was hugged by friends and supporters.







What's with the footwear? They all look ready to run away.

I've had to give up listening to this because of the garbage it contains but I hope that others will be able to watch it.

It just annoys me the first thing he does is criticise the PT police for what they didn't do what the UK police would (which for a missing live person he's largely wrong isn't he?). He well knows the UK police aren't exactly without mistakes even if we limit scrutiny to just the high profile cases. MWT for one knows well the Tia Sharp case.

I may check out his CH5 doc but it is pretty clear he's far from convinced about CB at least. It would be nice to know if he has any suspects or latest theory he wants to share. I really can't remember what he thinks happened.

Without looking it up, I think he believes that Madeleine wandered out and was abducted by a random stranger.

Rare but to be fair, that has happened - thinking of Sarah Payne in 2000 who was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a predator was there to snatch her.

Freedom wrote:

I've had to give up listening to this because of the garbage it contains but I hope that others will be able to watch it.

I don't think I'll be able to bring myself to watch that.

I don't blame you. Right at the start there is a reference to Madeleine disappearing from a hotel room which doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the rest of it.

Freedom wrote:I don't blame you. Right at the start there is a reference to Madeleine disappearing from a hotel room which doesn't bode well for the accuracy of the rest of it.

I need to watch "Madeleine Was Here" again but it's taking a multi day run-up to prepare myself and I'll probably still require a strong drink beforehand.

Is Madeleine Was Here still available? I can't find it on YouTube.

Against my better judgement I watched it.

The presenter says she was taken from her hotel room, then follows an old TV clip mentioning a hotel room.

Then cameras switch to MWT. We don't know for sure if he heard the opening bit and therefore heard their error.  He's not the smartest tool in the box but presumably he knows the McCanns had a ground floor apartment.

He criticises the Portuguese police's crime scene work, said the area wasn't secured and child abductions rare.  He doesn't say the the Tapas gang messed up any forensics by running all over the place so when the police came they didn't have a clean crime scene.

He said he was on the scene within 72 hrs.

He did say the police should have looked at close contacts first ie Family and friends. I couldn't agree more. He feels they wasted valuable time by not doing this first.

He then explained about arguidos - first Murat, then Gerry and Kate, and now Christian.

Presenter - now says whenever we do coverage of Madeleine we get communications from horrible online people who don't believe Gerry & Kate. Of course they are in the minority.

MWT continues - behaviour changes under pressure and the parents were in a terrible situation. They were reluctant to answer questions because they didn't know where the questions were going. This is why some people suspected the parents. He stresses that Gerry and Kate were totally exonerated by the police.

Were they? Wasn't it that they just didn't have enough evidence to charge them?

On to the German.

MWT says he came into the frame 2 years ago. Telephone data puts him in the area but MWT says this data not conclusive, doesn't put him in the immediate area. Only one person has come forward in response to police and media coverage of the mobile number he used (and nothing seems to have come from that). The Mirror claims the woman he was allegedly with from May 3rd to May 10th cannot give him an alibi for May 3. Not sure if he meant an alibi is dodgy as she is not an independent witness or that she hasn't said she was with him that evening.

Interview ends with him explaining about the 15 years statute of limitation which applies if the police think it's murder; if the police think it's abduction then the case stays open and the 15 years does not apply.

Last remark - there is poor communication between the German and Portuguese police.

Antonia wrote:
He said he was on the scene within 72 hrs.

Wazzle. Does he say why?

Antonia wrote:
 telephone data puts him in the area but MWT says this data not conclusive, doesn't put him in the immediate area.

Well quite, I've seen various media reports that say his mobile phone activated the OC tower, except to the best of my knowledge there never was an OC tower. The mast locations and relevant coverage details are quite exhaustively covered in the files.

Freedom wrote:Is Madeleine Was Here still available? I can't find it on YouTube.

I have my own copy; portions are available on Youtube but not the whole thing.

Yes, that's interesting that MWT was one of the hordes of people who flocked to the scene. It would be interesting to know why he did that. What did he think was so unusual about the case?

Why he went to PDL?  

Was he a serving police officer then? If he was, how could he feck off there?  

If he was then a consultant in crime as it were, then the trip could be charged to business.  

The case was interesting giving it involved 2 doctors and most of the tapas friends were also doctors. That might attract certainly journalists to go.

He wasn't a serving policeman then.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/mark-williams-thomas-ma-2b58843

He was an investigative reporter and was involved with child protection so there was some relevance to him being interested in the case.

I don't understand why he said that the police should have checked out the McCanns first. Isn't that what they did? They didn't believe the abduction yarn from the start and thought that the scene had been staged.

Somebody had to go over there and put the boot into Murat while the real culprit, Christian Brueckner, got away scot free.

Until now anyway.

We'll have to agree to differ as to whether Christian B is guilty!

The McCanns were screaming "paedos did it" almost from the start so wouldn't a blatant offender like Christian B have been spotlighted right away? Who would want to protect him?

I was just joking really. But your second paragraph highlights something that I have been struggling with throughout. If "everybody" knew he was so dodgy how come nobody dobbed him in at the time? Instead they went to lengths to ensure that Murat was chief suspect, possibly even with his own agreement. Did Brueckner know Murat? Did he know Malinka? Those are questions I would be interested in knowing the answers to.