Maddie - The $30 Trillion Tot

[James Douglas]

Personally speaking I find it difficult to believe anything from a couple that were prepared to admit to leaving three toddlers alone in a holiday apartment while they went out on the razz.

I also think its stretching credibility to believe that a man trained to read cardiology results and his missus GP didn't check or realise that the two toddlers that weren't abducted by a faceless paedophile (or was it the shadey George Harrison lookalike with Shergars teeth that was spotted loitering with intent on the beach two weeks before Maddie was taken?)might have been drugged.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix6bKUnmOCM

'It does make you wonder'

Edited February 11, 2008 by James Douglas

[Guest David Guyatt]

FAO Mr James Douglas

The information and conclusions that I am/will be providing on this thread are the results of hundreds of hours of research.

Timeliners are not given to expressing opinions based merely on hearsay, nor do we take at face value the REPORTED statements of victims, suspects, witnesses, the police or the judiciary. We focus on discrepancies, omissions and recycling in official reporting to build a picture.

Timeliners examine very closely the reported behaviour of all protagonists in a case and the assumed chronology of events paying particular attention to abnormalities in police, legal, medical and diplomatic procedures, tensions between expressed intentions and actions and noteworthy co incidences with other seemingly unrelated events.

Timeliners are all too familiar with the hallmarks that spell intelligence service involvement in certain kinds of cases: the appearance of dual/multiple narratives, the identification of 'patsies' and, occasionally, evidence left deliberately that could incriminate some of the auxiliaries.

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

[John Simkin]

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

I have turned a blind eye to the fact that David Guyatt is breaking forum rules by posting the material of a moderated member. However, you will not be allowed to post the same kind of abusive comments that resulted in Michael Chapman being placed on moderation. This is your last warning. If it happens again you will also be placed on moderation.

[Guest David Guyatt]

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

I have turned a blind eye to the fact that David Guyatt is breaking forum rules by posting the material of a moderated member. However, you will not be allowed to post the same kind of abusive comments that resulted in Michael Chapman being placed on moderation. This is your last warning. If it happens again you will also be placed on moderation.

John, I have made it plain at the outset that I won't post anything I consider offensive, and I won't. I really don't consider the foregoing abusive. Sharp yes. Even unecessary, perhaps. However, there are a lot of unnecessary posts on the forum that do not generate this sort of emotive response. Meanwhile, for outright abuse, one could point a finger at Ashton Gray, who was a much loved figure here and who never (to my knowledge anyway) caused such an irrational rebuke. And Ashton was a master of abuse when it suited his mood.

I would also argue that your personal animosity is showing again and that you have been impatiently lurking waiting with an unscratchable itch to pounce at the slightest infringement. I can even trace the origin of this rancour back to your long series of posts on Hess and Prince George, where you considered Chappers to be engaged in some sort of Tory disinformation effort to undermine your work. Quite untrue, of course, but it demonstrates the personal aspect I know about.

I'm an old and crusty sort these days and react badly to any sort of threat. Especially when the underlying motive throbs with personal angst. I was never one to respect fascism, but I find the dictatorial Commissar approach equally unpleasant. Being placed on moderation will merely mean me leaving the forum for good, never to return -- as I assure you there are other places I can spend my time and energy and find entertainment.

As long as I am able to freely post I will. When you pull the plug -- and I know you will sooner or later - then I'm gone. So bye bye and farewell in advance to some of the cyber friends I've made here --- good riddance to a few others who use the rules to sow dissension and confusion.

[John Simkin]

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

I have turned a blind eye to the fact that David Guyatt is breaking forum rules by posting the material of a moderated member. However, you will not be allowed to post the same kind of abusive comments that resulted in Michael Chapman being placed on moderation. This is your last warning. If it happens again you will also be placed on moderation.

John, I have made it plain at the outset that I won't post anything I consider offensive, and I won't. I really don't consider the foregoing abusive. Sharp yes. Even unecessary, perhaps. However, there are a lot of unnecessary posts on the forum that do not generate this sort of emotive response. Meanwhile, for outright abuse, one could point a finger at Ashton Gray, who was a much loved figure here and who never (to my knowledge anyway) caused such an irrational rebuke. And Ashton was a master of abuse when it suited his mood.

I would also argue that your personal animosity is showing again and that you have been impatiently lurking waiting with an unscratchable itch to pounce at the slightest infringement. I can even trace the origin of this rancour back to your long series of posts on Hess and Prince George, where you considered Chappers to be engaged in some sort of Tory disinformation effort to undermine your work. Quite untrue, of course, but it demonstrates the personal aspect I know about.

I'm an old and crusty sort these days and react badly to any sort of threat. Especially when the underlying motive throbs with personal angst. I was never one to respect fascism, but I find the dictatorial Commissar approach equally unpleasant. Being placed on moderation will merely mean me leaving the forum for good, never to return -- as I assure you there are other places I can spend my time and energy and find entertainment.

As long as I am able to freely post I will. When you pull the plug -- and I know you will sooner or later - then I'm gone. So bye bye and farewell in advance to some of the cyber friends I've made here --- good riddance to a few others who use the rules to sow dissension and confusion.

It was James Douglas first post on this forum. The last thing he needs is to be attacked in this aggressive way. It was completely irrational and unwarrented and would not have been allowed through as he is on moderation. As I say, if you do it again, you will be placed on moderation.

[Guest David Guyatt]

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

I have turned a blind eye to the fact that David Guyatt is breaking forum rules by posting the material of a moderated member. However, you will not be allowed to post the same kind of abusive comments that resulted in Michael Chapman being placed on moderation. This is your last warning. If it happens again you will also be placed on moderation.

John, I have made it plain at the outset that I won't post anything I consider offensive, and I won't. I really don't consider the foregoing abusive. Sharp yes. Even unecessary, perhaps. However, there are a lot of unnecessary posts on the forum that do not generate this sort of emotive response. Meanwhile, for outright abuse, one could point a finger at Ashton Gray, who was a much loved figure here and who never (to my knowledge anyway) caused such an irrational rebuke. And Ashton was a master of abuse when it suited his mood.

I would also argue that your personal animosity is showing again and that you have been impatiently lurking waiting with an unscratchable itch to pounce at the slightest infringement. I can even trace the origin of this rancour back to your long series of posts on Hess and Prince George, where you considered Chappers to be engaged in some sort of Tory disinformation effort to undermine your work. Quite untrue, of course, but it demonstrates the personal aspect I know about.

I'm an old and crusty sort these days and react badly to any sort of threat. Especially when the underlying motive throbs with personal angst. I was never one to respect fascism, but I find the dictatorial Commissar approach equally unpleasant. Being placed on moderation will merely mean me leaving the forum for good, never to return -- as I assure you there are other places I can spend my time and energy and find entertainment.

As long as I am able to freely post I will. When you pull the plug -- and I know you will sooner or later - then I'm gone. So bye bye and farewell in advance to some of the cyber friends I've made here --- good riddance to a few others who use the rules to sow dissension and confusion.

As I say, if you do it again, you will be placed on moderation.

And as I replied, goodbye in advance...

[James Douglas]

FAO Mr James Douglas

The information and conclusions that I am/will be providing on this thread are the results of hundreds of hours of research.

Timeliners are not given to expressing opinions based merely on hearsay, nor do we take at face value the REPORTED statements of victims, suspects, witnesses, the police or the judiciary. We focus on discrepancies, omissions and recycling in official reporting to build a picture.

Timeliners examine very closely the reported behaviour of all protagonists in a case and the assumed chronology of events paying particular attention to abnormalities in police, legal, medical and diplomatic procedures, tensions between expressed intentions and actions and noteworthy co incidences with other seemingly unrelated events.

Timeliners are all too familiar with the hallmarks that spell intelligence service involvement in certain kinds of cases: the appearance of dual/multiple narratives, the identification of 'patsies' and, occasionally, evidence left deliberately that could incriminate some of the auxiliaries.

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

Michael you've obviously not familiar to Glasgow because I can assure you that anybody born and raised in Govanhill is nothing but working class.

Do you have a link to the results of the tests that were carried out on the McCann twins?

Preferably not some sh**e spewed by a McCann spokesperson, or a headline in the News Of The World.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcVncYr6xc

See I told you Chappers. Govanhill working class oik.

P.S.-If I knew beforehand posting on this thread would have created this furore I would have preferred not to.

Please post your evidence Michael.

Edited February 12, 2008 by James Douglas

[James Douglas]

The 'evidence' that you have presented above, Mr Douglas, is the type of unsubstantiated McCannophobic crap that you will find on most talk boards that cater for the semi literate. Can't you see the tension at the heart of your 'opinion' (either the McCanns 'allowed' their daughter to be abducted through their neglect or they did her in themselves - you can't have it both ways)?

It seems that you have also conveniently missed the results of the hair analysis that were performed on samples taken from Sean and Amelie McCann - the only certain and definitive forensic work conducted in this investigation to date.

Mr Douglas, the only reason why I post my findings on here (instead of in print) is because although I f*cking hate spooks and the utter misery that they bring to the lives of millions of ordinary people I don't fancy Richard Tomlinson's lifestyle much. Next time you choose to set yourself up in opposition to me show a bit more respect for the hours that I have put in on this case, my great experience in such matters and my extraordinary intuition that tells me...

you have a MASSIVE working class CHIP on your shoulder.

Chappers

I have turned a blind eye to the fact that David Guyatt is breaking forum rules by posting the material of a moderated member. However, you will not be allowed to post the same kind of abusive comments that resulted in Michael Chapman being placed on moderation. This is your last warning. If it happens again you will also be placed on moderation.

John, I have made it plain at the outset that I won't post anything I consider offensive, and I won't. I really don't consider the foregoing abusive. Sharp yes. Even unecessary, perhaps. However, there are a lot of unnecessary posts on the forum that do not generate this sort of emotive response. Meanwhile, for outright abuse, one could point a finger at Ashton Gray, who was a much loved figure here and who never (to my knowledge anyway) caused such an irrational rebuke. And Ashton was a master of abuse when it suited his mood.

I would also argue that your personal animosity is showing again and that you have been impatiently lurking waiting with an unscratchable itch to pounce at the slightest infringement. I can even trace the origin of this rancour back to your long series of posts on Hess and Prince George, where you considered Chappers to be engaged in some sort of Tory disinformation effort to undermine your work. Quite untrue, of course, but it demonstrates the personal aspect I know about.

I'm an old and crusty sort these days and react badly to any sort of threat. Especially when the underlying motive throbs with personal angst. I was never one to respect fascism, but I find the dictatorial Commissar approach equally unpleasant. Being placed on moderation will merely mean me leaving the forum for good, never to return -- as I assure you there are other places I can spend my time and energy and find entertainment.

As long as I am able to freely post I will. When you pull the plug -- and I know you will sooner or later - then I'm gone. So bye bye and farewell in advance to some of the cyber friends I've made here --- good riddance to a few others who use the rules to sow dissension and confusion.

It was James Douglas first post on this forum. The last thing he needs is to be attacked in this aggressive way. It was completely irrational and unwarrented and would not have been allowed through as he is on moderation. As I say, if you do it again, you will be placed on moderation.

John I appreciate it is your forum but I have no quarrel with Michael or David and have taken no offence.

If its acceptable please allow him to post his findings.

[John Simkin]

John I appreciate it is your forum but I have no quarrel with Michael or David and have taken no offence.

If its acceptable please allow him to post his findings.

He is free to post his findings. However, it is in the best interests of the forum that he treats people who question his views with respect.

[Duane Daman]

He is free to post his findings. However, it is in the best interests of the forum that he treats people who question his views with respect.

Apparently these rules do not apply to Craig Lamson and his insulting post comments to everyone he disagrees with .

I would think that the forum would not appreciate his constant ridicule of certain members and especially his constant use of the words "ignorant " and " moron" when replying to my posts.

Edited February 13, 2008 by Duane Daman

[Guest David Guyatt]

FAO James Douglas

I like a man who can take it on the chin. On this occasion, I must confess, my 'extraordinary intuition' let me down. Or rather, my memory (I spent two very happy years on the west coast of Scotland in a far out religious community):

you don't happen to kick with your right foot, sir, by any chance?

I intend to deal with the 'trich' analyses in my bespoke DNA debunking section a few chapters along. Until I come back with the results of the lab tests I prescribe three Hail Mary's thrice daily to suppress your chronic McCannophobia...

Pip! Pip!

Chappers

[James Douglas]

FAO James Douglas

I like a man who can take it on the chin. On this occasion, I must confess, my 'extraordinary intuition' let me down. Or rather, my memory (I spent two very happy years on the west coast of Scotland in a far out religious community):

you don't happen to kick with your right foot, sir, by any chance?

I intend to deal with the 'trich' analyses in my bespoke DNA debunking section a few chapters along. Until I come back with the results of the lab tests I prescribe three Hail Mary's thrice daily to suppress your chronic McCannophobia...

Pip! Pip!

Chappers

It's funny you mention taking it on the chin Michael because that is often the eventuality if you go around asking Glaswegians what foot they kick with.

I'm a left footer if you must know. The same foot Mr McCann kicks with.

Although I pleased to inform you that I learned long ago the Vatican had its line to the big man disconnected so they'll be no Hail Mary's from myself.

Looking forward to the revelation of this 'trich' analyses Chappers.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

BUMP!!

[John Simkin]

BUMP!!

Surely you don't expect Michael Chapman to fully explain his theory?

[Guest Stephen Turner]

BUMP!!

Surely you don't expect Michael Chapman to fully explain his theory?

Hope springs eternal, John.