Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Madeleine McCann

1…104105107109110…168

Comments

  • #3182
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I never said I was suspicious of McCanns. Im just raising it as strange and hate when its dismissed as conspiracy. Its well documented that Smith and Janner (Apologies I said Granville - Its greville janner - used this law firm. Freud shared an office with smith and janner when MPs and is widely publicisised especially with smith and janner being from Leicester, where the McCanns are from.

    Sorry I shouldn’t have presumed you were suspicious of them.

    I’m certainly not dismissing it, I’m willing to talk about it and tease out whether it’s strange or not..

    Firstly I’m not sure the McCanns would be checking who Freud shared an office with previously or who he was friends with. Like who does background checks on people they’ve just met..

    Secondly maybe they did know that he was friends with these guys, maybe they asked him and he said ‘yeah I used to be friends with them, not anymore, can’t believe what they are being accused of’

    That all seems a lot more plausible to me than, the McCanns part of a massive paedo ring involving Freud, Smith and Janner.

    If the relationship wasn’t innocent on the McCanns behalf do you have a theory of what the story was?

    (Note, I’m asking for a theory, you do not have to believe it’s true)


  • #3183
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    "Over the years, starting in 1991, specific allegations of sex abuse of children by Janner in the past—dating ultimately from at least 1955[35]—were made to authorities. This did not lead to any official action, beyond Janner being questioned once, from the first allegations until 2015"

    So no public record then? The McCanns still knew about it in 2007 though....



    "In May 1979, a local underground magazine, the Rochdale Alternative Press, alleged that in the 1960s Smith had spanked and sexually abused teenage boys in a hostel he co-founded. The matter was investigated by the police but Smith was not prosecuted. The story was repeated in the same month by the satirical magazine Private Eye"

    "In November 2012, speaking in the House of Commons, Simon Danczuk,[60][61] the Labour MP for Rochdale, Smith's old seat, called for an inquiry into the alleged abuse"

    So an allegation was made in an underground magazine in Rochdale when the McCanns were children. Nothing again until 2012. Still, they must have known about it somehow...

    Also, where does it say he lived in Leicester anywhere?



    So, one of these men lived in Leicester, the other two didn't. But they were all besties. The McCanns knew about all their alleged predilictions anyway because...well, everyone in Leicester knew, even though nothing was made public in the media (save for the gossip about Smith in Rochdale in the 70's). People in Leicester know more than anyone else, of course.

    Armed with all this 'well known' knowledge, the McCanns decided to visit one of the 'Leicester 3' (only one actually lived in Leicester at the time, although not the one they visited) and they decided to regale readers with the happy tale of them having lunch with one of these 'known' alleged paedos. Sure, why not? Their reputation wasn't being dragged through the mud enough, so why not up the ante and tell the tale of lunch with a 'notorious' paedo for good measure!

    Sweet Jesus...

    Can you not post without using expletives. You appear to think you know everything and anyone who says different gets your scorn. You abuse posters and try and belittle any contribution. Try and be a bit nicer and debate or if you don't agree say so. Please lose the attitude.


  • #3184
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Sorry I shouldn’t have presumed you were suspicious of them.

    I’m certainly not dismissing it, I’m willing to talk about it and tease out whether it’s strange or not..

    Firstly I’m not sure the McCanns would be checking who Freud shared an office with previously or who he was friends with. Like who does background checks on people they’ve just met..

    Secondly maybe they did know that he was friends with these guys, maybe they asked him and he said ‘yeah I used to be friends with them, not anymore, can’t believe what they are being accused of’

    That all seems a lot more plausible to me than, the McCanns part of a massive paedo ring involving Freud, Smith and Janner.

    If the relationship wasn’t innocent on the McCanns behalf do you have a theory of what the story was?

    (Note, I’m asking for a theory, you do not have to believe it’s true)

    I really don't know. It would be difficult to have a conversation without Freud bringing his connections to Leicester up. He shared an office with Smith while MPs and was best friend with Janner. I understand where you are coming from with, about not being friends with them anymore etc,. apart from immediately McCanns have the same law firm as all of them. If someone was trying to distance themselves using a niche law firm, and giving that out to frineds doesn't fit.

    With regards to the last request/question, any theory will be me3t with conspiracy theory jibes by some posters.


  • #3185
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I really don't know. It would be difficult to have a conversation without Freud bringing his connections to Leicester up. He shared an office with Smith while MPs and was best friend with Janner. I understand where you are coming from with, about not being friends with them anymore etc,. apart from immediately McCanns have the same law firm as all of them. If someone was trying to distance themselves using a niche law firm, and giving that out to frineds doesn't fit.

    With regards to the last request/question, any theory will be me3t with conspiracy theory jibes by some posters.

    Yeah I hear you, I just don’t see how or why it would come up that he was friends with these two. Especially if Freud didn’t want it to come up.

    Also it’s quite hard for me to find something strange or suspicious without putting it into an overall theory. I’ll have a go..

    So the McCanns and the tapa’s 7 are all Paedo’s on holiday together, they organise to sell Madeline into a paedo ring. Freud, Smith and Janner are part of this paedo ring, the McCanns then write about their friendship with members of this paedo ring so the whole world knows about it..

    Sorry I couldn’t do it without going ott..

    It’s a lot more plausible that they didn’t know Freud would be accused years later, and they either didn’t know Freud knew Smith and Janner or they didn’t know Smith and Janner were Paedo’s.

    For these reasons I would be thinking that it’s just another conspiracy theory to be honest..

    What do you think?


  • #3186
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Yeah I hear you, I just don’t see how or why it would come up that he was friends with these two. Especially if Freud didn’t want it to come up.

    Also it’s quite hard for me to find something strange or suspicious without putting it into an overall theory. I’ll have a go..

    So the McCanns and the tapa’s 7 are all Paedo’s on holiday together, they organise to sell Madeline into a paedo ring. Freud, Smith and Janner are part of this paedo ring, the McCanns then write about their friendship with members of this paedo ring so the whole world knows about it..

    Sorry I couldn’t do it without going ott..

    It’s a lot more plausible that they didn’t know Freud would be accused years later, and they either didn’t know Freud knew Smith and Janner or they didn’t know Smith and Janner were Paedo’s.

    For these reasons I would be thinking that it’s just another conspiracy theory to be honest..

    What do you think?

    Youre probably right. I don't think it should be dismissed though and I hate when people abuse posters for raising it. I do find the law firm link with all of them the hardest thing to comprehend.

    I also have heard about a pre-existing link with Janner and the McCanns prior to them ever meeting with Freud. And this would be a similar link to that law firm.


  • Advertisement
  • #3187
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Can you not post without using expletives. You appear to think you know everything and anyone who says different gets your scorn. You abuse posters and try and belittle any contribution. Try and be a bit nicer and debate or if you don't agree say so. Please lose the attitude.

    Expletives? Where did I use expletives?

    I'm not claiming I know everything at all. You claim to know an awful lot, though. Lots about paedophiles, their friendships, what people knew about them, what law firms they use etc. I didn't claim any of this stuff, you brought it up, not me!

    If none of it adds up or makes any sense, I have a right to point it out, just as you have the right to your 'theories'. It would just be an echo chamber otherwise. If you find my attitude objectionable, feel free to ignore me!

    Again, with the abuse of posters...yet no one can point out where I've actually been personally abusive to anyone. funny that...


  • #3188
    Babooshka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Babooshka


    Banana Republic. wrote: »
    If you actually read this thread I was commenting on a comment about Peado tendencies in the group of Tapas and remember comments by the Gaspars and linked it to show someone else who asked about it. Bring some context to your comments on my postings. In regards to posting new stuff if I find an article I haven’t seen here or the latest update I’ll post it here instead of the same old tripe everyday. In fairness most ppl have no interest in any new links which is weird in itself. So church the thread before making comments about other posters. Thanks. Open to debate any points.

    You're linking to something that's been linked a million times as if it was some amazing new piece of "evidence"...I'm not saying you're the only one. That's why this thread is ad nauseum. It shouldn't be in current affairs any more it's edging the side of CT's. Absolutely no proof of "paedo tendencies" by the MCCanns or their friends. Twaddle.


  • #3189
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Expletives? Where did I use expletives?

    I'm not claiming I know everything at all. You claim to know an awful lot, though. Lots about paedophiles, their friendships, what people knew about them, what law firms they use etc. I didn't claim any of this stuff, you brought it up, not me!

    If none of it adds up or makes any sense, I have a right to point it out, just as you have the right to your 'theories'. It would just be an echo chamber otherwise. If you find my attitude objectionable, feel free to ignore me!

    Again, with the abuse of posters...yet no one can point out where I've actually been personally abusive to anyone. funny that...

    Well three of mine:
    One you ended with LOL, hardly an appropriate way to finish - you laugh out loud about what I said.

    Another you simply said ffs - do you know what that acronym means - is that an expletive.

    Another you finish with Sweet Jesus - hardly appropriate - sweet jesus is expletive. Reign it in. I find it difficult to engage with you and you have a poor manner.


  • #3190
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Youre probably right. I don't think it should be dismissed though and I hate when people abuse posters for raising it. I do find the law firm link with all of them the hardest thing to comprehend.

    I also have heard about a pre-existing link with Janner and the McCanns prior to them ever meeting with Freud. And this would be a similar link to that law firm.

    No abuse here Joe...

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on the law firm link though. Their rich, celeb new friend recommends a law firm to them, two guys they don’t know, may never have heard of used the same law firm... and the McCanns would most likely not know these two used this law firm!

    Just doesn’t add up for me.. anyway, cheers


  • #3191
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Rock77 wrote: »
    No abuse here Joe...

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on the law firm link though. Their rich, celeb new friend recommends a law firm to them, two guys they don’t know, may never have heard of used the same law firm... and the McCanns would most likely not know these two used this law firm!

    Just doesn’t add up for me.. anyway, cheers


    Definitely not from you. Would it add up if they were friends with the two before they became friends with Freud? Just wondering?


  • Advertisement
  • #3192
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Well three of mine:
    One you ended with LOL, hardly an appropriate way to finish - you laugh out loud about what I said.

    Another you simply said ffs - do you know what that acronym means - is that an expletive.

    Another you finish with Sweet Jesus - hardly appropriate - sweet jesus is expletive. Reign it in. I find it difficult to engage with you and you have a poor manner.

    Lol is not an expletive. I never wrote ffs anywhere. Sweet Jesus? If that's considered an expletive...well, not much I can say. Seems to be one of those expletives you can use pre watershed anyway!

    Listen, put yourself in the McCanns shoes for a minute. We're all safe here behind our keyboards, but they've lost their child. On top of that, they have nutters all over the internet calling them all sorts without any foundation or proof. Stuff that, were it written about you or I, could not only get us into a lot of trouble, but might send us over the cliff in many other ways. There's two other kids to think of here too.

    I believe it's so important, before bringing the gavel down on someone's good name, people should stop and think about what they're saying or writing...what they're accusing someone potentially innocent of. The damage caused by Chinese whispers and insinuations can last a lifetime. That's why facts matter so much and I won't apologise for sticking to my guns there.


  • #3193
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    dark crystal wrote: »
    Lol is not an expletive. I never wrote ffs anywhere. Sweet Jesus? If that's considered an expletive...well, not much I can say. Seems to be one of those expletives you can use pre watershed anyway!

    Listen, put yourself in the McCanns shoes for a minute. We're all safe here behind our keyboards, but they've lost their child. On top of that, they have nutters all over the internet calling them all sorts without any foundation or proof. Stuff that, were it written about you or I, could not only get us into a lot of trouble, but might send us over the cliff in many other ways. There's two other kids to think of here too.

    I believe it's so important, before bringing the gavel down on someone's good name, people should stop and think about what they're saying or writing...what they're accusing someone potentially innocent of. The damage caused by Chinese whispers and insinuations can last a lifetime. That's why facts matter so much and I won't apologise for sticking to my guns there.

    Stick to your guns but you come across as abusive and a knowitall. Until there is a conclusion then every aspect should be discussed respectfully. And all persons of interest should expect that.


  • #3194
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 680 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Granville and Smith, not private. Smith and Granville are well known cases in Leicester. Especially if you knew them personally. This is not Q-anon. This is public record. You seem quite closed to anything. What makes you special.

    Why would anyone want to become friends with strangers when their daughter is abducted anyway.

    I know its been said already, but I don't know of any link between Cyril Smith and Leicester. He was always synonymous with Rochdale. I can't even find anything on Google however tenuous.


  • #3195
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Stick to your guns but you come across as abusive and a knowitall. Until there is a conclusion then every aspect should be discussed respectfully. And all persons of interest should expect that.

    Thanks for taking everything in my post on board and then continue on to call me abusive. You obviously didn't take on board the point I made about the abuse of others over the internet, calling them all sorts and the effect that might have on them and their families. I don't see your posts reflecting much respect for them.

    That being the case, you really shouldn't post conspiracy nonsense, then cry about being abused because someone calls you out on your tall tales. If you make a claim, own it. No point becoming defensive just because those claims don't hold up to any scrutiny!


  • #3196
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Definitely not from you. Would it add up if they were friends with the two before they became friends with Freud? Just wondering?

    Were they friends with them though? Conspiracy theorists typically find a few random instances and then invent some more instances to link them together to force their square peg theory into a round hole. You seem to be suggesting that’s it’s almost impossible that 2 very ordinary parents in their 30s from very ordinary backgrounds who live in Rothley couldn’t possibly not have been very good friends with an octogenarian MP who lived in a nursing home in Rochdale. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? I know that you are probably very proud of this theory but it’s ludicrous.


  • #3197
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Were they friends with them though? Conspiracy theorists typically find a few random instances and then invent some more instances to link them together to force their square peg theory into a round hole. You seem to be suggesting that’s it’s almost impossible that 2 very ordinary parents in their 30s from very ordinary backgrounds who live in Rothley couldn’t possibly not have been very good friends with an octogenarian MP who lived in a nursing home in Rochdale. Can you not see how ridiculous that is? I know that you are probably very proud of this theory but it’s ludicrous.

    What theory? Proud of what?


  • #3198
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    joeguevara wrote: »
    What theory? Proud of what?

    I wouldn't bother tbh.


  • #3199
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Definitely not from you. Would it add up if they were friends with the two before they became friends with Freud? Just wondering?

    If the McCanns were friends with Smith and Janner before they met Freud?

    It would certainly be more of a connection than I have at the moment, however, I think it was pointed out here already that it was only really common knowledge about the accusations on these guys years later. But yeah I will say it would certainly peak my interest.


  • #3200
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    What theory? Proud of what?

    Right Joe. The last few pages don’t exist. You never suggested that the McCanns must have known Smith because they both lived in the North of England and obviously the North of England is like any tiny Irish village where everyone knows what everyone else ate for breakfast.
    And you never suggested once that they must have therefore known that Freud was a paedophile (even though no one else knew) because he was friends you say with Smith who they knew very well.
    Leave it Joe it’s embarrassing at this stage.


  • #3201
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Right Joe. The last few pages don’t exist. You never suggested that the McCanns must have known Smith because they both lived in the North of England and obviously the North of England is like any tiny Irish village where everyone knows what everyone else ate for breakfast.
    And you never suggested once that they must have therefore known that Freud was a paedophile (even though no one else knew) because he was friends you say with Smith who they knew very well.
    Leave it Joe it’s embarrassing at this stage.

    I will so.

    It was Greville Janner that would have been the link to Smith and Freud. Who they did know. If you are happy with them palling around with paedos after their daughter was abducted, off with you.


  • Advertisement
  • #3202
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I will so.

    It was Greville Janner that would have been the link to Smith and Freud. Who they did know. If you are happy with them palling around with paedos after their daughter was abducted, off with you.

    They weren’t “palling” around with paedos though joe. Because they didn’t know that they were paedos. Nobody knew that they were paedos. And they weren’t “palling around“ with them anyway. You’ve just made that up in your head.
    You’ve made a delicate connection between Freud and other paedos. Then you’ve made a connection between Freud and the McCanns. Then you’ve added 2+2+2 together to get 43.
    Just so you can make your theory work.
    You’ve not got any reason why any of the many hugely qualified and experienced detectives from at least 3 different countries now HAVENT in 13 years if uncovering every piece of evidence also made the same connection as you. Are they waiting for the right time to swoop? Are the playing the long game?
    You can’t explain why if the McCanns handed their daughter over to a paedophile ring they’re still making a ding dong over her 13 years later. Are they also playing a long game?
    You can’t explain why Kate McCann would draw attention to their friendship with Freud in her book if she didn’t want to be exposed as a paedophile. Why would she do that Joe?


  • #3203
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    They weren’t “palling” around with paedos though joe. Because they didn’t know that they were paedos. Nobody knew that they were paedos. And they weren’t “palling around“ with them anyway. You’ve just made that up in your head.
    You’ve made a delicate connection between Freud and other paedos. Then you’ve made a connection between Freud and the McCanns. Then you’ve added 2+2+2 together to get 43.
    Just so you can make your theory work.
    You’ve not got any reason why any of the many hugely qualified and experienced detectives from at least 3 different countries now HAVENT in 13 years if uncovering every piece of evidence also made the same connection as you. Are they waiting for the right time to swoop? Are the playing the long game?
    You can’t explain why if the McCanns handed their daughter over to a paedophile ring they’re still making a ding dong over her 13 years later. Are they also playing a long game?
    You can’t explain why Kate McCann would draw attention to their friendship with Freud in her book if she didn’t want to be exposed as a paedophile. Why would she do that Joe?

    I will leave you with three questions:

    Were they palling around with Clerment Freud.
    Was he a paedo.
    Why were they getting sloshed on vodka strawberry cocktails and having a right old hooley with a stranger a mere few months after their daughter was abducted.


  • #3204
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Unless anyone can conclusively prove that the McCanns were fully aware that there were allegations of pedophilia against Freud at the time when they met him then it’s completely irrelevant.
    Without proof it’s just mud slinging and irrelevant wild speculation.

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest the public were aware, let alone Kate & Gerry. It’s tinfoil hat nonsense and nothing more.


  • #3205
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Unless anyone can conclusively prove that the McCanns were fully aware that there were allegations of pedophilia against Freud at the time when they met him then it’s completely irrelevant.
    Without proof it’s just mud slinging and irrelevant wild speculation.

    There is absolutely nothing to suggest the public were aware, let alone Kate & Gerry. It’s tinfoil hat nonsense and nothing more.

    Conclusively prove? Didn't know this was the crown prosecuting service.

    As for wild speculation and tinfoil speculation, why is it so distasteful to raise the following: a child was abducted. The childs parents became very close friends with someone who transpired to be a paedophile.


  • #3206
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Strange company the McCanns kept, the Gasper statement (Mrs), Freud. Of course though no one is supposed to note this .


  • #3207
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Strange company the McCanns kept, the Gasper statement (Mrs), Freud. Of course though no one is supposed to note this .

    Even stranger when Ghislaine Maxwell staying in Clement Freuds brothers house and turning up as his personal guest (Lucian Freud) at art shows. Now, didn’t McCann investigators release an efit is someone who is remarkably similar to her. But god forgive anyone who try and raise this.


  • #3208
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I will leave you with three questions:

    Were they palling around with Clerment Freud.
    Was he a paedo.
    Why were they getting sloshed on vodka strawberry cocktails and having a right old hooley with a stranger a mere few months after their daughter was abducted.

    This has turned into that famous scene in Fr Ted with him trying to explain to Fr Douglas with help of a child’s plastic toy cow the concept of distance and size.
    Lots of posters have tried to explain the concept of time frames to you here but you can’t grasp it at all.
    In a period where the McCanns had unwittingly and for the most tragic of reasons become the most famous couple in the world, their stricken face spread across newspapers worldwide, a British icon living very near to where their daughter disappeared befriended them
    I suppose they thought that it would possibly keep them, and Madeleine near the top of the news stories, making it continue to be impossible for Maddies abductor to take her anywhere without someone noticing her.
    Years later when he was dead this icon was proven to be a paedophile.
    But nobody but the icon and associates and his victims knew that at the time.
    For reasons best known to yourself you’re insisting that they did know that he was a paedophile. When asked how would they know you say it’s because Freud you’ve associated with Cyril Smith
    and Cyril Smith is from the North of England
    and the McCanns are from the north of England so.....
    You can’t answer any of the other points I put to you because there is no answer, so you’ve decided to leave it now. I think you should too.


  • #3209
    joeguevara
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,255 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    splinter65 wrote: »
    This has turned into that famous scene in Fr Ted with him trying to explain to Fr Douglas with help of a child’s plastic toy cow the concept of distance and size.
    Lots of posters have tried to explain the concept of time frames to you here but you can’t grasp it at all.
    In a period where the McCanns had unwittingly and for the most tragic of reasons become the most famous couple in the world, their stricken face spread across newspapers worldwide, a British icon living very near to where their daughter disappeared befriended them
    I suppose they thought that it would possibly keep them, and Madeleine near the top of the news stories, making it continue to be impossible for Maddies abductor to take her anywhere without someone noticing her.
    Years later when he was dead this icon was proven to be a paedophile.
    But nobody but the icon and associates and his victims knew that at the time.
    For reasons best known to yourself you’re insisting that they did know that he was a paedophile. When asked how would they know you say it’s because Freud you’ve associated with Cyril Smith
    and Cyril Smith is from the North of England
    and the McCanns are from the north of England so.....
    You can’t answer any of the other points I put to you because there is no answer, so you’ve decided to leave it now. I think you should too.

    So In conclusion the McCain’s were friends with a paedo. These paedos are small. These paedos are far away. Still Paedos.


  • #3210
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Even stranger when Ghislaine Maxwell staying in Clement Freuds brothers house and turning up as his personal guest (Lucian Freud) at art shows. Now, didn’t McCann investigators release an efit is someone who is remarkably similar to her. But god forgive anyone who try and raise this.

    The e fit I believe was an Aussie tourist who came forward.
    Possible coincidences the people they associated with but very unfortunate none the less.


  • Advertisement
  • #3211
    splinter65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,420 ✭✭✭splinter65


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Even stranger when Ghislaine Maxwell staying in Clement Freuds brothers house and turning up as his personal guest (Lucian Freud) at art shows. Now, didn’t McCann investigators release an efit is someone who is remarkably similar to her. But god forgive anyone who try and raise this.

    Do you ever wonder Joe when your making all these connections why all the 100s of professional highly qualified and experienced detectives from 3 different sovereign states who have worked on this case have never reached the same conclusions as you?


Advertisement