A couple of frauds

Let's make this really really simple for you, arsehead


Why is a brief sighting by a cleaner who did not know Madeleine, deemed reliable, yet the testimony of several nannies, all of whom knew Madeleine, and who spent all day with her, which is also reinforced by documented evidence in the form of the registers, deemed unreliable?

Because, dear, it looks very much as if you simply cherry pick from the evidence to discount any which blow your half-witted, shit-for-brains, fantasy theory out of the water.

Which is why you, and El Trampo, are enormous, steaming great frauds

One day I'll lie away.........

Well, she's back again, with a real corker

IMPORTANT

No, you're not 

First I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

I did this research a few years ago and it has been sat waiting to be 'recognised'.  Thanks to Jill and Tony for hosting the discussion.  

Recognised? Great artists wait to be recognised. You have done fuck all, my dear, except a huge disservice  to the truth

I compiled many threads on the subject as well as summary's to help assist, but it's not a subject that can be addressed simply.

Or in other words, you obfuscated with as much bollocks as possible 

What I feel everyone should know is that the discrepancy questions and the 'Who saw Maddie' research is not a theory in itself.

It is basically the 'canvas' of the week for everyone to base their own theory on.

Sadly it's a canvas covered in shite 

After realising the discrepancies starting Tuesday, I felt that looking at witness statements to see if there was any PROOF that she was seen during the week would help to support that possibility or not.  I had NO IDEA what I would find.  I don't look for details to fit a theory, I look to see if details support what is 'known'.

There are no discrepancies starting on Tuesday 

I was quite shocked to see that Fatima's statement was the ONLY statement that was 'relative' proof that Maddie was seen, but was on Sunday which allowed for something to have happened before the discrepancies started TUESDAY.

Complete bollocks. You cannot just keep saying this and expect people not to question it. You and Baldy do make me laugh - you accept as true a sighting by a cleaner who crossed ways with the family briefly, and why not, as there is nothing to suggest otherwise, but you reject the versions of child care workers who spent every day with Madeleine on a pretext that they might have been ''confused''

Please know that if Fatima's statement had been about WEDNESDAY, THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST.  I would be relatively satisfied that Maddie WAS seen during the week, and would then look for reasons why the discrepancies started on Tuesday (and why there appeared an effort to cover something up)

Relatively satisfied. Christ, the world according to a Canadian fence painter 

However, Sunday supported the discrepancies starting Tuesday because of maybe trying to cover something up.

What?! Again in a human language, please.

I have seen NOTHING to change my mind since I did the research in 2010 (or sooner)

So you're still wrong 

Please keep in mind this isn't about trying to prove Maddie WASN'T seen during the week...It's about trying to find proof that she WAS seen.

There is ample proof that she was seen, from independent witnesses who knew her well, all of which you have arbitrarily dismissed. 

Proof she WAS seen would be the basic 'canvas' for  nothing having happened to her until that day...

So nothing happened to her until that Thursday, as there is proof she was seen.

No PROOF she was seen, tells us that anyone suggesting somehing happened earlier in the week is supported.

No, there is ample proof she was seen 

It also stands true for the alternative beliefs of anyone that believes something didn't happen until Thursday. 

Its NOT a theory, it is the basis for whether anyone's theory stands up.

Bullshit. And meaningless bullshit at that 

As mentioned, if Fatima had claimed she saw her Wednesday for example and the details weather times etc fitted, then THAT would be sufficient for me to claim there was proof she was seen Wednesday and I would look for alternative explanations as to why the discrepancies started Tuesday morning.

But the fact that three independent witnesses saw her on Thursday - people who saw her every day - you dismiss out of hand. 

We don't have PROOF of some of the evidence, but by EXCLUSION we know it could be possible.

That's not how evidence works 

No evidence to EXCLUDE something happening to Maddie before Tuesday

No, there is plenty of evidence that she was alive and present on Thursday 

No evidence to EXCLUDE Maddie's blood being in the car.

Her blood was not found in the car 

No evidence to EXCLUDE the parents from being complicit in their daughter's disappearance

That was a genuine finding by someone else, not you. They have no specific witness evidence which alibis them, so the statement is true. Claiming that no-one saw Madeleine on Thursday is not true, as there is evidence to the contrary  

Try and understand this, you dozy, duplicitous cow.
There are at least three completely independent people who all knew Madeleine by sight or better, who can all testify to her being alive and present on Thursday. What is more, their evidence corroborates. You cannot, therefore, simply dismiss it as ''they might have been mistaken'' when they clearly weren't. Most ludicrous of all is the suggestion that a girl who had looked after both children all week would be unable to tell the difference between Madeleine and her friend.

All your claims are fraudulent nonsense, and you are frankly an embarrassment. 

"If I only had a brain"

Well, the Halfwit is back, adding two and two together and coming up with the square root of fuck all.

Take this, for example

@HiDeHo wrote:I have been posting one, by one the witnesses that CLAIM they saw Madeleine and posting on a new message each time for anyone that disputes to quote and add their comments.

I think you can see that so far, witnesses that many people have believed saw Madeleine are being shown to have probably been incorrect.

Does anyone disagree with the witnesses I have posted so far?

FATIMA
CATRIONA
MARIA (tapas cook)
JERONIMO (Waiter)
CECILIA (Millenium hostess for breakfast)

Are they bollocks shown to be incorrect.

Fatima the cleaner saw her - you don't dispute that because it fits your idiot theory

Catriona did too, not that you would know because - yet again, and despite me pointing this out last time  - you misquote the files and attribute quotes to the wrong statement

Maria saw her

Jeronimo never claimed to

Cecilia - it was quite clear that she confused the McCanns with one of the other families and she has never been regarded as a witness to the events that week.

You also left out Charlotte, who testified that she read to her that day

Your entire theory is that all these people were mistaken, that they could have confused Madeleine with another child - which just goes to show how fucking clueless you are with respect to anyone who works with kids; one thing they learn to do very quickly is remember the kids names.

So for your idiot theory to be correct, all the paperwork would have to have been falsified, all these witnesses would have to be mistaken or lying, and that is without even touching on the fact that we know there are photographs taken that day showing Madeleine in the background

Stop talking out of your arse, you bloody fraud. Actually, I don't think you are primarily a fraud. Essentially you are a liar, but a pathetically stupid one.