From Sky's crime correspondent Martin Brunt

I don't suppose it will distract them from their endeavours this weekend, but two of Kate and Gerry McCanns' closest friends in Praia da Luz have been burgled ahead of the Madeleine anniversary.

Anglican priest Haynes Hubbard and his wife Susan lost a computer that contains personal and confidential email exchanges between the two couples.

The laptop also held notes on which Father Hubbard was basing his sermon about Madeleine at the weekend.

Mrs Hubbard is concerned, too, about private telephone numbers stored on a mobile that was also stolen.

The Hubbards became great friends and comforters of the McCanns in the days after Madeleine's disappearance and have kept in touch since Gerry and Kate returned to the UK.

I interviewed Father Hubbard several times and he was always a rather serious guy.

His wife was quite different.

One afternoon I spotted her emptying an impressive bag of bottles beside the recycling point at the end of the promenade.

"Oh no," she gasped in mock horror. "Vicar's wife in secret booze scandal."

She didn't strike me as the Amy Winehouse type.

But, then, I've never heard her sing.

Comments

[AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA 5 Jun 2008 15:05:27]

IF YOU CHECK THE PHOTOS OF THE ROOM WHERE MADELEINE AND THE TWINS SLEPT, THERE IS NO SIGN OF A SHELF ANYWHERE. SO WHERE EXACTLY DID CUDDLE CAT LIE THEN, WHERE DID KATE FIND CUDDLE CAT ???

[AMANDA SOUTH AFRICA 5 Jun 2008 14:24:44]

Why did that 1 doctor say they knew something was going to happen but they never expected this to happen. What happened in that week up to her abduction ? Were they watched, they knew about the people watching them or did something else happen to Madeleine as well in that week but we have never been told. WHAT HAPPENED ???

[Steve, Cheshire 28 May 2008 11:48:17]

"No Stone unturned"? Don't make me laugh....

Ever hear of the Trades Description Act?

The Tapas 9 should hang their Heads in shame...

No doubt the usual deluded people will leap to the defence of their Idols..pity they can't see the Wood for the Trees..

[virginia 27 May 2008 16:46:46]

Posted by: sian 26 May 2008 11:52:59

you must be out of your mind, how can you come out with this ****?
anything to put down portugal even if it is not true.

go and find something to do.

[maria, in portugal 26 May 2008 16:20:45]

Posted by: sian 26 May 2008 11:52:59

Sian

I admit I am extremely puzzled by your post. Sincerely, I don't understand where you are heading to.

My two posts were just to tell you that it never occurred to me before that the abductor (eventually in both cases) could be a cop, and it still seems hard to me, ALTHOUGH some posts, blogs and/or sites that may point in that direction (which I feel use slanderous language against portuguese People and Country) are being erased/closed.

Please elaborate a bit your post, I sincerely don't get it and I would like to.

Cheers.

[sian 26 May 2008 11:52:59]

Sian

Re my post 12 May 2008 18:05:31

I guess you may have got half a point. Someone is going through sites and blogs closing/erasing systematically certain types of informations/opinions - although they seem just slanders the fact is that other slanders in different directions are left and flourishing. It is too systematic.

Posted by: maria, in portugal 19 May 2008 10:20:53

hi maria how intresting MARIA RODERIQUES has given press coverage to the press coverage in your country.

why would she have done this i wonder?

Also,where is the museum for the portuguese launage held to.

your goverment are very intresting arnt they.also i wonder if you could tell us the story on carmona and the fact he left portugal to live in brazil.To avoid corruption charges,i understand hes returned now and a pro,at the lisbon university.

bluewaters i know your here on this blog i look forward to receving a reply from you;

god things you know hay,things you find out and things which can not be kept secret.

magical brazil hay.

[sandra rennie, south africa 20 May 2008 12:05:17]

Vera posted 19/5 12.15

Hi there Vera

You are hitting your head against a brick wall re the "listening service".

Kind regards
Sandra Rennie

[Ann Ireland 19 May 2008 16:50:27]

I can remember reading that Kate McCann said when she went back to the tapas bar after discovering Madeliene was missing. They have taken her! .What did Kate mean by that. Did she have a feeling that they were being watched in the days preceding 3rd May. Has she been told by the others to keep quiet. If there was even the slightest suspicion of being watched, would anyone take their eyes of their kids day or night, absolutely no chance.
I remember that my 10 year old daughter and I were being followed by a weirdo in a department store. He kept watching my daughter, he was so creepy. I still shudder at the thought of it. I never let her out of my sight.

[Vera, Essex 19 May 2008 12:15:04]

cluck 18 May 2008 22:15:32

How can you say that the ‘nanny service’ in PDL is the same as the McCann’s DIY version?

There was no listening service at PDL. Never has been and never will be. There was in the one in Greece, which some of their friends had used in the past, but never has there been one in Portugal.

The apartments are not all owned by the O.C. and they are also spread over a large area and not in a complex, so it would not be safe to have a listening service over such a distance. That’s why MW’s didn’t offer such a service.

There was an evening crèche, again with the some of the same staff as the daytime crèche, which they could have used, which was included in the holiday price.

If they had hired a nanny to stay with their children, that person would have been in the apartment with them ‘all’ the time until the parents returned to their children, not wandering in and out when it suited them.

The ‘nannies’ get paid to stay with any child/children that they are babysitting, not just to pop in and out. One babysitter per individual family is supplied for about £10 per hour. Maybe that was too high a price to pay for something as precious as children in the McCann’s point of view.

The nannies that would have sat in the McCann’s apartment to look after their children were the same people as the staff who worked in the crèche each day.

If they could trust their children with the staff of the crèche each day, then surely they could trust them to look after them at night. That’s would hardly be leaving them with strangers, would it?

Any parent with any common sense would know that children shouldn’t be left alone for one minute, never mind for thirty minutes.

The fact that accidents do happen even when you are with your children are enough to make a parent stop and think of what might occur to your own kids if you leave them alone.

The fact that both of these people were doctors and have had to work in A & E as part of their training should have also made them think before doing leaving them.

My daughter is a nurse and she has seen some horrifying accidents involving children in their own homes. The McCann’s have probably seen things just as bad or even worse in their jobs as doctors.

As a G.P. one of the things that Mrs. McCann would have had to do is report any parent to the Social Services if she thought that a child was being abused or neglected. G.P’s are the most likely people to contact the S.S. if they see something wrong. That is part of their job. So why did the McCann’ think that they were different and could neglect their own children by leaving them to any danger.

Just because a child is asleep one minute doesn’t mean that they won’t be awake within the next minute and children can have a serious accident within a matter of seconds, any parent would know that. They have probably seen children die in A&E through taking someone’s medication or drinking house-cleaning fluids and that’s just a few examples.

What kind of parents put themselves before their children?

Only parents who are downright selfish and think of what they want first. That pretty much sums up what the McCann’s and their friends are. Selfish to the last!

[Lisa - UK 19 May 2008 11:53:28]

Angel

The reason I made the comment:

"This forum was about Madeleine"

and not "is about Madeleine" is casing point really. I feel that the forum has become overtaken with personal indulgences and petty fights. I was asking that the forum once again becomes about Madeleine. A child I believe could still be alive and very much needs to be found.

As you have proclaimed to believe she is not alive I wonder at your correction of tenses but you were missing the point.

I hope this ahs helped clear it up.

Sandra Rennie - thanks for the show of support re: personal insults/stories on here. Lets hope others take heart and bring it back to Madeleine.

[James - Scotland 19 May 2008 11:43:38]

Hello Marilyn,

Responding to your post on 14th May - belatedly. The fan clubs may remain but others can see the dripping tap for what it is. Pointless and wasteful.

But humour the rhetorics as they probably keep this person ticking along...or do I mean dripping ?

[Louise Cheshire 19 May 2008 10:30:27]

Morning all.

Claire SW-
I must say it made me quite cheerful to know I had made someone happy. Thanks. And as you have read, many others agree with me. those that dont are just bitter.

Bunny-
You have made some excellent points and interesting to follow. It reminds me why I originally started to read these posts to review and discuss the mystery of Madeleine without hurling cruel abuse at the people involved.

Catherine Luz-
I have always enjoyed your posts as they are facts and discussion. You never abuse or get personal with bloggers (even when they somehow start attacking your comments) .You offer us something extra- an insite into the area. And unlike a certain blogger who was only on a brief holiday at the time but thinks this makes her an authority on Luz, the people, and the McCanns, your insite is incredibly interesting and informative.

[maria, in portugal 19 May 2008 10:20:53]

Sian

Re my post 12 May 2008 18:05:31

I guess you may have got half a point. Someone is going through sites and blogs closing/erasing systematically certain types of informations/opinions - although they seem just slanders the fact is that other slanders in different directions are left and flourishing. It is too systematic.

[Marilyn, Switzerland 19 May 2008 10:04:04]

These children did not stand a chance Marilyn.

Regards

Posted by: A.Miller 18 May 2008 10:32:01
--------------
On that point - I agree with you. But it doesn't help matters now to dwell on it; that issue can wait until it is finally known for sure what happened to Madeleine and where she is now.
I believe Madeleine was taken - nothing has changed my mind so far about that.

[cluck 18 May 2008 22:15:32]

MORNING BLOGGERS...

OVER THE WKEND I WAS SERFING NET ON MADELEINE AND FOUND THIS POST..AND I HAVE GOT TO SAY IT SAYS IT ALL FOR ME

HOPE THEY DONT MIND ME PASTING IT HERE.

Actually .. they have two year old twins. They have to adopt an attitude of "normal" to those kids or else they have a problem. Has that not occurred to anyone here?

Also there ist the "denial of a bad situation too" und you are going off paparazzi photos und press interpretations.

You do not know what go on in this case. Portugal ist not England. A different set of rules.

Parents drop guard on hols. We see this all the time in Lake Land. 24/7 parenting .... ist like saying you never break a speed limit

Press today full of the story of the two year old whose 6 year old brother carry him downstairs und child crawl through cat flap und if the taxi driver had not been a COAST type .. He thought he was dreaming when he saw this child .. in the road in early morning.

So perhaps that papa was negligent for being asleep in own home with family .. whilst shift working mama already at work. und no doubt she was "negligent" by going to work und perhaps they were both negligent because they did not foresee the danger of the cat flap

Folks .. you cannot judge anything here because you are simply reading what journalists report on this case und none of it ist proven fact really.

Just hope the little girl turn up und when all facts get reported ..then ist the time to say what you think.

But I think a lot of the bile ist because there ist a uneasy feeling that we all just might have done similar in a similar ambience of a family friendly hotel complex which we really thought "safe" und the the other problem I have ist the anecdote from folk I know to have stayed there .. of paying for a nanny service which ist not much different in reality from their choice of a DIY version

I do not thus think I would want to stay at such a place und rely on their "services without some hard questions" und gladdened I choose to holiday with other members of my family or even go home to my own parents for a break.

I am a fair play sort of person. I do not und will never look to condemn anyone until I have all the facts in

[A.Miller 18 May 2008 12:23:08]

May I ask?

Does anyone ever recall, hearing or reading of what was said to Mrs. McCann, by either Mr. McCann or any of their friends, when she announced to them at the tapas that Madeleine was gone?

Did anyone say to her -

Where are the twins?

You didn't leave them alone again did you?

Why didn't you bring them with you?

Is someone looking after them?

You see, I think that any partner being told that one of his/her three children had disappeared, would immediately ask, seeing that the other two children were NOT in the arms of his/her other half - Where are they?

I don't recall at any time this being brought up.

In any interview there is never any mention of the twins, what the adult McCann's immediate thoughts were for their safety.

No one has asked them on interview why she (Mrs. McCann) ran out and left the twins.

Did she think it safe to leave them again?

The twins, were not to my knowledge checked out immediately at a hospital or clinic to establish if they had been harmed in any way.
Be that, the possibility of them being given a drug, or harmed by a paedophile.

Mr. McCann later said in a documentary that it made him wonder if they (twins)had been given a substance as they slept through the noise.
He obviously didn't think it possible for them to do so.

Tests done very much later, showed, I believe that they had not been given a substance.

I wonder how he accounts then for them sleeping through it all?

I suppose medicinces such as Calpol would make a child sleep more soundly. But would not be in their system weeks/months later.

Surprises me they did not get children checked sooner, rather than later if their deep sleep had been a puzzle to him?

Just wondering if anyone had ever read anything in this regard?

Kind Regards

[A.Miller 18 May 2008 11:51:48]

James Scotland

Hello James,

I see you have taken issue with a term I use?

Let me put your mind at ease.

I use the term 'Mr & Mrs' and 'adult' when speaking of the McCann's.

Both terms are appropriate, acceptable and polite.
Neither derogatory by any means.

I therefore cannot be offended when you refer to me as 'Adult Miller.' (though I realise this was your intention.)

Your use of 'adult' is incorrect, but that is okay, you probably aren't to know.

Like you James, I too believe that there are several possibilities re what happened to Madeleine:

Possible she wandered out of the apartment.
Possible she was abducted, either by someone going into the apartment, or after she wandered off.
Possible she had an accident and it was covered up.
Possible her parents killed her and it was covered up.

I wouldn't like to think this, but as I am open-minded, it cannot be ruled from the list of possibilities.

You also, are open minded, so Iam sure you will agree.

So we have established we both think there are several possibilities?

In my opinion the most likely possibility is that she wandered out of the apartment. What happened then?

May I take it that you are of the opinion, that the most likely possibility, is that of abduction, at the time, and in the way stated by adult McCann's?

Where we differ then, is in which of the possibilities we each feel is the most likely.

You think one thing, I think another!

As for my 'version' of events?

I don't have a version of events of that evening.

I have never stated a version of events on this blog.

I have discussed the version of events as put forward by Mr. Mrs. McCann and voiced my opinion on this version.

I have also stated the possibility, which I think most likely.

Stating a version of events, and leaning more towards one of the possibilites on the list, is entirely different.

I don't go along with the version of events as told by Mr. Mrs. McCann.

In my opinion, nothing fits!

Mr. Mrs. McCann are, afterall, only speculating.

They were not in attendance so cannot possibly know what happened.

My other comments, which you clearly don't like are in respect of the interviews given by the adult McCann's the contradictions therein, made by adult McCann's.

My quotes are from these interview.

Please listen to the interviews. You will hear that what I have said is true.

Equally, you do not like the fact that I do not mince my words when speaking of the neglectful behaviour shown by adult McCann's.

Please don't hold your breath waiting for me to support them for what they have done, else you'll soon be for the next world James!

I speak out in support of children everywhere in our world, and against all who harm them.

I do, and did find your post in parts childish James.

Resorting to 'adult Miller' in the hope of insulting!

What were you thinking of?

I do not find posts which differ in opinion to mine 'childish.' just different.

I find only those posts, where a blogger has resorted to infantile and insulting personal remarks to be childlish.

Your post was disappointing.

It is a pretty poor show when you have to make comments about the style etc in which a blogger posts.

I hope this clarifies matters for you.

If not, c'est la vie.

Kind Regards

[A.Miller 18 May 2008 10:32:01]

Marilyn 16/5 14:01

Hi Marilyn,

Your point re the Irish chap's sighting?

I remember the sighting by the Irish chap being discussed a while back. Hannah in particular made some valid points in this regard.

From what I remember the Irish family reported it a couple of weeks after returning home, to both the British Police and Portuguese Police. The father of this family later returned to Portugal to give a statement.

What I don't remember, is, if the description given by this man- of the person he saw carrying a child (facial, length of hair etc) matched that of J. Tanner? I think clothing was similar.

I can understand if the man did not perhaps speak English, (Irish chap said he looked Portuguese?) why he would not have replied.
He may not have realised that he was being addressed.

On the face of it, I would agree that this sighting of a man carrying a child could be significant.

However, I would imagine that the Portuguese Police would have checked this out by now.

Also, Mr. Mrs. McCann would surely have done so too?

I would think that this would have been high on the list of priorities for Metodo 3!

I think sometimes we wrongly assume, simply because we, the public do not hear any more re sightings/suspects etc that nothing has been checked out by proper authorities.

Mr.Mrs. McCann have gone to the bother of having a photo-fit done of a man - who they both admitted, on one of the interviews recently - was NOT the same man as the one in the photofit, description given by J. Tanner.

They simply had this drawn up, as a member of the public had said she thought someone who looked like this had behaved oddly, some time prior to McCann family being in Portugal!

I seriously question their reason for doing this?

If a photo-fit of anyone, other than J. Tanner's man was to have been distributed, I would have thought it would have been, of the person sighted by the Irish man?
Afterall, his sighting was on the same night as Madeleine's disappearance.

That is what makes me think this person has been completely ruled out by the proper authorities.

If Clarence could contact the British woman who gave him the description of this man, who she said behaved oddly. Equally he could have contacted the Irish family for a description of 'their' man.

If Mr. Mrs. McCann thought for an instant that the Irish chaps sighting remained relevant, they surely would have jumped on this?

What other reason would they have, for not having done so?

McCann Team have never mentioned this sighting on any of their interviews etc.

Mentioning Metodo, reminds me :

I remember also, on an interview, Mr.McCann stating that there was no need for private investigators.

It had been put to him that perhaps this would be good use of the 'fighting fund.'

He disagreed, stating that it was being put to use for the purpose of a legal team, consultants, etc. This was before they were made arguidos.

Why would a legal team be of greater importance at this time, than investigators searching for their daughter?

The huge amount of resources provided by the Portuguese Police, he said, negated the need for private investigators!

He felt their 'best bet' would be information from the public.

They were asked also, why they did not go out and physically search, when many of the Portuguese people had taken a week off from their work to do so? They had been busy Mrs. McCann said, working on other things!

Marilyn, I truly hope that these parents have not harmed their daughter. But I am afraid I cannot feel for them in the way that you do.

I have the greatest sympathy for the loss of their child.

Their actions during this holiday, and their behaviour since, particularly their many and varied attempts at passing the buck, contradictory reasons given,denial of any wrong doing (re leaving the children) I find sad and sickening.

It shows a lack of respect, worth for Madeleine's welfare, for what has happened to her, for what she has suffered and may still be suffering now.

They continue to say, they have no reason to believe that anything serious has happened to her!!!!!!!!!!

These children did not stand a chance Marilyn.

Regards

[A.Miller 18 May 2008 09:26:12]

Trish 16/5 14:15

Hi Trish,

Indeed Trish.

The subject of why Mr. Mrs. McCann leaving their children unattended on so many occasions, ignoring their daughter's pleas, and, the "resons" they have given for doing so, have, very much, as you say, been 'hashed and re-hashed - by - Mr. Mrs. McCann!

They have used every excuse, imaginable, and some which were unimaginable to those of us who care for children.

Still, we are left with, 'they didn't think an intruder would come in and take any one of their three children, and they had no information to suggest this would happen!!!'

Do they mean, there was not a section in the holiday brochure dedicated to child abduction?

I don't know about you Trish, but these replies are quite incredulous.

They are not valid reasons (cannot think of a valid reason actually for two adults to leave three babies alone?) just extremely lame excuses.

I cringe when I hear two very well educated persons speak like this.

They should hang their heads in shame - for thinking that their excuses are acceptable to any decent member of the public.

I have often wondered too, what on earth Mr. McCann's colleagues at the hospital think when they hear him make these quite ridiculous comments?

Anyone, with an ounce of decency would be shocked -

'no information to suggest the danger of abduction!'

Mr. Mrs McCann,either take the public for fools, or are fools themselves to say such things.

I know which one my money is on!

None of us would think of abduction, but we sure in heaven's name, would not increase the risk or chances of it happening by leaving three babies on their own with an unlocked door!

They have avoided, on all interviews, the more obvious reasons for not leaving your children.

Hopefully one day, someone will ask them directly -

'Dud they not think of any other more obvious dangers, of which there are too many tomention?'

I, for one would love to hear what they have to say to this?

They behaved in a cold, callous, and neglectful way towards these children.

There is no getting away from that Trish.

Madeleine has paid the price for her parents lack of care and protection, for her, Sean and Amelie.

Mr. Mrs. McCann have received no punishment in respect of their behaviour.

That too is incredulous.

Perhaps one day this will come to Court?

______

You ask me about the Portuguese Police, or rather 'challenge' me to reply. What an extraordinary choice of word.

I'll be glad to give my opinion in response Trish, as a courtesy, not as a challenge. I have given my opinion on this many times previously, but once more will not hurt.

This subject too has been hashed and re-hashed many times, mainly by those who have stated a lack of confidence in the Portuguese Police.

I believe that it was the 'local' police who were first on the scene, with the Policia Judiciara arriving later. If I am wrong I am sure someone will correct me.

The apartment was not treated as a 'crime scene' immediately.

Clearly wrong. There is no getting away from this.

If there was an intruder, valuable forensic evidence may have been lost.

Unfortunately, if what has been reported is correct, there were many people in the apartment,well before any section of the police arrived.

I am not suggesting for an instant that it was for the adult McCann's to have thought of this - on the contrary, not in these circumstances. But contamination would have taken place before police arrived.

As there was no sign of forced entry or damage to the windows or shutters at all. No damage to the front (locked) doors - my understanding is, that the police thought Madeleine was more than likely to have left the apartment through the unlocked door, and then exited the unlocked gate at the top of the stairs.

Why adult McCann's told at least 4 members of their family that the shutters were jemmied is a mystery?

(Why would adult McCann's, not even have locked this gate? Those stairs were a danger. They also led to a road with vehicular traffic)

Mr. Mrs. McCann (& Co.) appear to be the only people on the planet who thought immediately that their daughter had been abducted.

They thought the place was so safe, yet their first thought is abduction? Contradictory really.

Haven't met anyone yet, who, knowing the circumstances - children left alone, door unlocked etc whose first thought would have been abduction.

Mrs. McCann has stated (on film) that not even for a split second did she think otherwise - yet she searched the apartment three times?

Did she think the abductor had hidden Madeleine in the apartment?

Mr. McCann also stated that they checked, double checked and treble checked before phoning the police. He also said police were called within 10 minutes of Mrs. McCann's discovery.

Mrs. McCann searched three times, then went to tapas, they all went back to aprtment, searched again three times, then phoned the police. They all knew instantly it was an abduction - why waste 10 minutes? Probably more!

Don't you think it odd that none of the group thought she might have wandered off?

For two adults, for whom the obvious dangers of leaving babies alone did not cross their minds - They made the bold leap from this to abduction with no other thoughts in between?

These things make me curious -they don't add up.

I can see why the Portuguese Police would have thought of it more, as a child wandering off rather than an abduction. But that does not make their inaction in declaring it a crime scene, right.

Mistakes were clearly made, by the police, at the beginning of this investigation.

One huge mistake,was not to take the adult McCann's off to the police station immediately - gather up all evidence, cuddle cat, for starters!

Adult McCann's and co. were afforded a leniency in this respect, which would not have been afforded them here in the U.K.

Portuguese Police were much too 'nice.' Wrongly so!

Due to secrecy laws in Portugal, we have little information/evidence etc police have.

That said, any police force, anywhere in the world, would not declare all information held in a case to the public.

I think also, it would be very naieve of us to assume that the Portuguese authorities are incompetent fools, or that they do not have some evidence, of whatever nature.

There are some who would like us to believe this.

May I say at this juncture :

Clarence reminds me of the 'clever? crocodile (Roald Dahl) with 'ecret plans and cunning tricks'- which fall through!

The Press Complaints Committee, reported at the time when adult McCann's won their case against Express Papers (correct decision by court in my opinion) that not only were reports re adult McCann's incorrect, but also items written about Mr. Murat and the Portuguese Police.

If you recall all those stories of long lunches not bothering to look for Madeleine etc. They were not true either.

If we are not to believe what is written about Mr. Mrs. McCann, I would say it runs both ways. What is written about Mr. Murat and the Portuguese Police also cannot be taken as fact.

This is why Trish, that I comment on what I have heard Mr. Mrs. McCann speak of on the various documentaries and tv interviews.

If I make comment on a newspaper article, it is not to say that I believe,what is written.

I do not know much else about the Portuguese Police, other than that they are working closely with the British Police.

I know that the 'evidence' that they have,in connection with the hired car etc. was given to them by the British Police.

I don't believe that any of us know much else for fact, regarding the Portuguese Police.

I have read many derogatory comments on this blog of how bloggers perceive the police, but not facts.

The Portuguese Police, have not closed this case. They continue to investigate.

What would you rather they do - shelve it?

They appear to be damned if they do/damned if they don't, by some. Contradictory really.

Interestingly, I do recall the interview Mr. Mrs. McCann gave to the Ms Hill way back last year, August perhaps, where the adult McCann's stated that initially the secrecy by police was frustrating, but once they had help of British Consulate British Liaison Officers, they were happy with information being conveyed to them. They commented also on the huge number of police allocated to the case.

Did this opinion change when they became arguidas? Perhaps.

Don't know if this will get through, Trish, but hope it answers your question.

Regards

[Blue in Luz 16 May 2008 21:31:57]

Louise Cheshire,
I'm sure Jenny Murat (or Mummy Rat) will totally agree with your kind words towards Claire SW.
Regards,
Blue

[Marilyn, Switzerland 16 May 2008 18:04:25]

Siobhan said...

Marilyn.. the irish family saw this guy at 10pm.. JT said she saw her guy at 9.15.. do you really think someone who had abducted a child would walking around with her in his arms for that length of time???
Posted by: Siobhan, Dublin 16 May 2008 16:11:14

----------
No, but this is only 45 mins. & not much time at all .. He could have hidden somewhere; in a nearby house; or otherwise, expecting mayhem to break out at any moment - & that didn't happen! - he detoured; he spoke with accomplices; he changed his plans .. who knows?
And I think Madeleine was unconscious, but alive.

[jen Ireland 16 May 2008 16:56:25]

I have read these blogs everyday for months now and i have only ever wrote 3 times. And me personnally think that a certain person wants all the attention on her. Who would come on here and tell the whole world about her own probelms about not leaving the house in 17 years to painting out her back getting ready for a bbq?????
What happened to madeleine this site is for her.
She is out there somewhere dead or alive and all that person has to say is she is out her back painting PLEASE stop with all the me me me me me.
I am young mother and my little girl is 4 next week and i would not know what to do you never know what way you would react so this is why until the day it's proved she was abducted or killed i will never judge or pass comment on any person involved.
Ps God bless you Maddie XXX

[cluck 16 May 2008 16:55:37]

Claire South Wales

I got to agree with Louise you are one tenacious lady with a big heart! but she forgot to add you have a terrific sence of humour, I have a good laugh when I read your blogs atleast you can ease the tension when the topic is such a serious one. Thank you.

Posted by: Trish 16 May 2008 14:15:45

trish your not wrong there..clair makes me laugh all the time here on the bloggs and msn she really is a funny person as has heart of gold...:)

no doubt this post will be pasted on 3a later!!!!

bloggers

one question id like to ask is.. how can a reconstruction help if its never going to been seen by the public!!!

[Siobhan, Dublin 16 May 2008 16:11:14]

For me, & I do feel like a broken record, the sighting that most impresses me is the one later that night .. the Irish tourists. They spoke to a man carrying a little girl "asleep" - he didn't respond - but they said he was definitely not R. Murat. OK, but I have never seen the actual description given by these people released, why? - I do think there is something in this, and for me it backs up JT. If he was 300lbs and wearing shorts I might say - different guy, but this is still out there. How many guys were out in PDL that night, within a short timeframe, carrying sleeping children around.

Posted by: Marilyn, Switzerland 16 May 2008 14:01:21

Marilyn.. the irish family saw this guy at 10pm.. JT said she saw her guy at 9.15.. do you really think someone who had abducted a child would walking around with her in his arms for that length of time???

[Trish 16 May 2008 14:15:45]

Catherine Luz

Hi, thanks for your reply I can see your side of the story and Im glad you have an open mind about it. Time will tell and I truely believe we will know the outcome one way or the other. Somehow I feel there are going to be alot of dissapointed bloggers when the truth is known!

A Miller

We have rehashed and rehashed this topic, (no disrespect intended). My challenge to you is (I think I have asked you once before) it would be nice if you would disect the actions of the PJ that night!

Claire South Wales

I got to agree with Louise you are one tenacious lady with a big heart! but she forgot to add you have a terrific sence of humour, I have a good laugh when I read your blogs atleast you can ease the tension when the topic is such a serious one. Thank you.