Re: Today's Sun - 7th September 2014

by plebgate 08.09.14 9:20

@tony, hope you had a very Happy Birthday.

I wouldn't bother responding to NIT, not worth your effort IMO Tony.

by plebgate 08.09.14 9:21

Newintown wrote:Post deleted.

Please adhere to the forum rules. Stay on topic. Engage in good discussion and debate, but please refrain from heated and personal arguments.

Have you deleted Parapono's post, no, I thought not and WHY NOT? I was only answering her/his "nasty" reply.

If I get banned I'll know why.

Awwww poor NIT.

I have never seen a nasty post from Parapono - on the other hand NIT.

by Guest 08.09.14 9:22

aquila wrote: wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that

This is outrageous!

There was DNA evidence found in those locations.

It was consistent with it being Madeleine's.

They are 100% percent engaged in apologetics for TM.

Whatever happened it is big... there are very big guns being thrown at this from the establishment. Summers and Swann are establishment apologists.

by plebgate 08.09.14 9:25

Looks as there will be another two "biting the dust" so to speak by the time The Sun has finished publishing their objective conclusions. big grin

When will they learn, the internet tecs are watching and COMMENTING. clapping

by whatsupdoc 08.09.14 9:44

It's obvious that the S&S fleeting 2 year research didn't know about Martin Brunt's piece to cam...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3HQ74Rfdbk

The UK questioned the results and then shut FSS down. I know other large companies /govts who trash the evidence as well.

Not only but also, Ms Swan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq5UcyQ_NfE...

So what were S&S saying about no follow up evidence? Two Johnny Come Lately, Fly-by-Nights with only 2 years on the case....

by palm tree 08.09.14 10:12

nglfi wrote:
aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for tha
The idea of these dogs is that they are indicators - Summers hasn't addressed the issue of what the dogs are trained to indicate, and what they did indicate in apartment 5a. I'll help them out - The dogs indicated that a bloody cadaver had been present behind the sofa, in the cupboard in the adult bedroom, and in the renault scenic. They also indicated that a cadaver had been handled by Kate McCann. These things were and are still being 'followed through'. Police are still looking for Madeleine's body, after both the PJ and Andy Redwood decided she did not leave the apartment alive.

What part of cadaver and blood dog do these idiots not understand.

If you watch these border force type programmes, I've seen many many examples of a drug dog that identifies a person. Said person is then taken aside and their belongibgs are swabbed. Items then show positive for sone drug, eg cocaine. However, no drugs are found on the person or in their bag. Now, do we think

A) both the dog and hi tech machine made a mistake and there were never any drugs, or

B) they have already taken/disposed of the drugs they had?

In the same way, are we now going to just pretend there was no DNA match for Madeleine found in the car or blood found behind the tiles either?
Morons.

Perfect post there nglfi, which this could be thrust in their face, sorry, it's just plain to see IMO

by The Rooster 08.09.14 11:03

The dogs indications, together with the conflicting police statements are very damaging for the McCanns and their friends which they are all to aware of. No wonder GM tried to have his say at the end of the libel trial and trash them again. For these two authors to similarly discredit the dog results will ridicule their investigative reputations. When will this case get real. It's a complete joke and an embarrassment to the British, together with the fiasco with Ashya King the British authorities are a world laughing stock.

Wake up Britain!!!

by jeanmonroe 08.09.14 15:21

'Irish Summers and American Swan took up the case in 2012 after police released an age-progression image of Madeleine. Their young daughter asked 'is that Madeleine still missing. How long would you search for me?'

Swan told the Sun on Sunday 'I didn't have good answers'.
------------------------------------------

Surely, SURELY, having researched the McCann 'case' to the 'nth' degree the reasonable, responsible mother, Ms Summer, would have answered her daughter's question with:

"I would have employed Control Risks security firm, Oakley International, the big boys of private investigation, Metoado 3, from Spaiin, with their 35 elite private detectives and Grabbit 'n' Leggit aka as Edgar and Cowardly. They wouldn't have found you Hunny Bunny, but at least they would have tried before some of them were jailed for fraud. As for how long i'd search for you? That would depend on when the gullies stopped buying 'tat' from our online store and donating to the Madeleine Fund, our registered private ltd company, we set up to fund our pretendy search for you,"

"Now, be a good girl, and go look after the twins, whilst mummy and daddy go out to din dins, and don't forget to leave the doors unlocked in case of fire"

"But i'm only 3 years old mummykins"

"So was that Maddie er Madeline, erm Margaret um oh whatshername, and no harm came to her twin siblings, did it?"

"But what if a burglator dosen't break in?"

"You're a big girl now, Hunny Bunny, and, if that extremely unlikey event happened, as it's so safe around here, you can carry a twin under each arm and come and find us at the restaurant, can't you? But be careful of those steep stone steps on the way down. We'll be at that restaurant over there, somewhere. Good girl"

Mwahhh, mwahhh.

"Mummy , mummy, will you come back if the twins and i start crying'?

"Erm,...... NAH!"

"We wouldn't be able to hear you crying anyway. We will be far to far away, from the house for that"

by Brian Griffin 08.09.14 17:15

The Rooster wrote:When will this case get real.

When the veil of protection is removed and the police are allowed to start asking the parents and their dining companions awkward questions unimpeded.

That's right - never!

In my opinion.

by Newintown 08.09.14 18:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Newintown wrote:
REPLY: If we begin with your original claim, it was: 'You are obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion'. First point, is your accusation justified?

Well, no it isn't, actually. Look back at say my last 50 or 100 posts and Murat hardly features. I have more usually been accused lately of being 'obsessed with the Smith sighting'. But that's not true of my recent posts either. So you cannot substantiate your charge. Which leaves me wondering why you made that false allegation against me. I can hazard a guess, mind.

So, putting all your points tonight together, here are my replies...

What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?

REPLY: As you well know, my simple point was that Hall had bothered to go out to Praia da Luz. I am not yet aware that Summers & Swan did so. If they did, all well and good - so far as that goes.

He visited and took shots at quite a few locations.

I mentioned the Palmeras Golf Club and the meeting at the Eveleighs in November 2007 because they are important events IMO in understanding all the many events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

Put simply, when Murat was asked about his movements on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, inter alia he denied two separate meetings and at least one 'phone call with Sergei Malinka, claiming he was elsewhere, and then lied about his movements on the all-important afternoon of 3rd May. He was at Palmeras Golf Club meeting various people - but again lied to police in his first interview, saying he was elsewhere. When one person can give me an adequate explanation - bearing in mind this was an enquiry about a missing 3-year-old girl - for Murat lying about these and several other matters, I shall let that matter rest completely. But no-one has yet done so.

Hall also visited the Eveleigh's property. Quite right, too. Murat was the chief suspect when one of Britain's wealthiest Britons, Brian Kennedy, and his high-ranking Freemason who acted as his Chief Legal Officer, Edward Smethurst, went out to visit Murat, his mother, and the Eveleighs. Murat had his lawyer Francisco Pagarete there. Kennedy was the head of the McCann Team's private investigators; Smethurst was (and as far as we know still) is the McCanns' co-ordinating solicitor and has been a director of the Find Madeleine Fund since 2009. When Kennedy was asked about this meeting, he claimed it was 'to offer Murat a job helping to find Madeleine'. IMO that doesn't convince anyone. Not even you, I suspect.

So I think Hall was right to highlight these two aspects of the case. Do you disagree?

You seem to be obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion.

REPLY: See above.

Give it a rest TB, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

No, I'm not angry, why did you think that.

REPLY: It is plain that your tone was hostile.

I was curious as to why Murat was brought into a discussion about a book by Summers and Swan.

REPLY: I was comparing a book costing £10 that avoids the truth with a film that is laden with facts and is free to watch. I added that, in favour of Hall's film, he had obviously undertaken not only a lot of research but had also taken the trouble to visit and film in Praia da Luz.

You seem to be the one on the defensive.

REPLY: If so, that's hardly surprising if a person has been attacked, is it?

I support anyone who is on the side of MBM, I often wonder which side of the fence you're on??

REPLY: An echo of some similarly absurd comments being made in another place. My position is that everything about this case - what people have done, not done, said, not said etc. - is open to examination. That includes Murat's actions and it includes querying the basis of the Smith's claims.

Often when people make accusations against others, they are simply holding up a mirror to themselves. Are you sure it's not you who does not seek the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

What does that mean? Am I not allowed to query anything because it's his Birthday, oh, deary, deary me, so sorry to upset TB's birthday, well he shouldn't be posting on his Birthday then should he if he doesn't like criticism which he obviously doesn't.

REPLY: No-one likes criticism, though if it is a fair criticism, hopefully the person criticised will take the criticisms on board and learn from them. But in this case, your basic criticism - 'being obsessed with Murat' - has simply not been made out. Actually, you haven't upset my birthday in the least. On the contrary, you have enhanced it, as by your reaction and subsequent comments, both I and other forum members have learnt something valuable about you.

Excuse me for living and upsetting TB's Birthday.

REPLY: Please carry on living, Newintown.

Have you deleted Parapono's post, no, I thought not and WHY NOT? I was only answering her/his "nasty" reply. If I get banned I'll know why.

REPLY: I've not seen your deleted post. But what is clear that such 'nastiness' as there has been on this thread was injected by yourself.

As my posts do not reveal any obsession with Murat, the courteous thing for you to do would be to withdraw your unpleasant accusation.

Finally, I gave you an opportunity to acknowledge the informative content of Hall's four DVDs, as so many other people have done already.

You have not done so yet

In red - you have conveniently not read Parapono's post to which I was replying. Parapono's post was far from nice, if there was any nastiness I suggest you read Parapono's post.

With regard to Murat, Murat was NOT MENTIONED at all in the any post about the Summers and Swan book but you had to mention him out of context, for your own reasons. You seem to have an agenda regarding Murat and the Smiths which hasn't gone unnoticed.

Parapono in another post defended you on your birthday because I asked a question but he/she seems to have overlooked the fact that you posted on your Birthday, so obviously you weren't too busy blowing out birthday candles to post on the forum, but Parapono jumped in to defend you, why was that?

Oh dear TB, suggesting that I'm not seeking the truth for Madeleine, that really is scraping the barrel.

Why not look at the parents and tear them to shreds as you have done with the Smiths and Murat, or is that not in your remit.

by Liz Eagles 09.09.14 8:23

2 snips from yesterday's Sun (8th September 2014). Please excuse typos - I'm copy typing.

Kate found her missing at 10pm and the police arrived by 11pm and others with dogs at 1.15am. But the animals were trained primarily in 'public order work, not tracking'.

Search and rescue dogs only arrived the following morning.

...............................................................

The most damaging turn in the investigation was the Portuguese police decision to name the couple as suspects after 'cadaver' and 'blood' dogs had apparently alerted them in the McCanns apartment.

But the authors write 'The discoveries the British sniffer dogs had apparently made had utterly changed the direction of the investigation. Had the dogs not been brought in, it is fair to say there would have been no Portuguese police decision to declare Madeleine's parents suspects'.

'A careful reading of the case files however, indicates that the decision that was made was premature and grew out of a perhaps understandable Portuguese misinterpretation of a poorly worded but key forensic finding in a preliminary email from the British Forensic Science Service.

'The British liaison officer who passed the email on to the Policia judiciaria appears to have warned them to wait for the arrival of the formal laboratory report.

'The PJ team, however, seem not only to have ignored the liaison officer's caution but the caveat in the report of the British specialist who had handled the dogs in Praia da Luz. 'No evidential or intelligence reliability' could be made as the result of a dog having 'alerted', handler Martin Grime had written. 'Unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence'.

'Corroborating forensic evidence that Madeleine had died in the McCanns' apartment, had bled there - indeed had even been there - never would materialise.

'Two veteran dog handlers told the authors that without forensic evidence, no reliance can be put on the alert indications the dogs made in the Madeleine case'.

by Guest 09.09.14 8:35

That is an outrageous slant on the dogs and the DNA evidence and the Forensic reports.

S&S are writing this book for TM.

There is no doubt.

by nglfi 09.09.14 9:38

I have to say this is starting to make me quite depressed. The only possible small positive from this is that there must be a reason Kate and Gerry McCann feel they need to write this book now, perhaps they fear a court case and sentence are in the horizon. On the other hand, it could be the cherry on the cake to top off winning their damages trial against Amaral, which I sincerely hope doesn't happen. I've always felt the media are only interested in what will sell papers, and if they thought Kate and Gerry's guilt would sell then they would publicise it. Hopefully the day comes when there is enough evidence to charge them and an absolute avalanche of s**t hits the pair. Otherwise I'm starting to despair.

by Bishop Brennan 09.09.14 10:10

BlueBag wrote:That is an outrageous slant on the dogs and the DNA evidence and the Forensic reports.

S&S are writing this book for TM.

There is no doubt.

That is quite correct, there is no doubt at all. This was the missing link in the whitewash - how to deal with the dogs. The police could not criticise them for obvious reasons, and the McCanns just looked guilty when they tried. The answer was to use 'independent', 'respected' investigative authors. It is now clear that the book is designed to be the public, highly-promoted, 'agreed by all parties', shelving report of Operation Grange.

You have to grudgingly take your hat off to the organisers of the whitewash - it's been an absolute classic: wide-ranging, long-lasting, well-financed and fully integrated. As for the book, I cannot think of any other non-fiction (sic) book that has ever received such wall-to-wall publicity. We are watching a master at work here, and he or she hasn't missed a beat since the start.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.14 10:23

Bishop Brennan wrote:
You have to grudgingly take your hat off to the organisers of the whitewash - it's been an absolute classic: wide-ranging, long-lasting, well-financed and fully integrated.

And if it is this, Bishop B, and if you are a British taxpayer as I am, a lot of it has been carried out at our expense!

by plebgate 09.09.14 10:32

Snipped from the article posted by Aquila today:

"
'Two veteran dog handlers told the authors that without forensic evidence, no reliance can be put on the alert indications the dogs made in the Madeleine case'.

I do wish people would name names when using quotes or info gleaned from other people.

So how is this new info?

It could also be said that no reliance can be put on the abduction "thesis" as so far there has been no forensic evidence provided.

Where does that leave the case?

Well we are waiting to find out, but IMO it certainly does not show that Maddie was abducted.

I may not be remembering very well, but wasn't it the British police who suggested that the dogs be brought in?

Why would the Brit. police think it a good idea to do that then I wonder?

I cannot see how the Pt. police will not speak out if this is indeed the way any kind of whitewash is going to take place.

Rocky will not shut up, of that I am sure.

No way can a whitewash take place in my view on the opinion of two authors. Nonsense.

by notlongnow 09.09.14 11:00

Surely this is the best and yet the worst whitewash in history.

by Bishop Brennan 09.09.14 11:28

plebgate wrote:
I cannot see how the Pt. police will not speak out if this is indeed the way any kind of whitewash is going to take place.

Rocky will not shut up, of that I am sure.

No way can a whitewash take place in my view on the opinion of two authors. Nonsense.

I wish I could share your optimistic view. But there won't be any PJ speaking out, because I don't believe they are running any kind of investigation. As Amaral himself told us on TV, the PJ reopened the file because legally they had to. They couldn't assist SY with the ILRs otherwise, it's just not permitted of them. Of course they had to present a 'reason' for it, but using Tractorman (who they quickly and officially ruled out) was simply a device to get it open. There never was a second investigation, there never was any 'new evidence', and so unfortunately there will be no new revelations from them.

As for Amaral - well he's been defending libel cases since the book was published back in 2008, and he will most certainly continue. I hope beyond hope that he wins this latest round against the McCanns, and if he does then I suspect he will call it a day (a few chat-shows to make up some of his losses first perhaps). He's been the star in this entire story - and nobody (other than on the internet) has supported him. He remains Madeleine's only champion - a lone public voice doing battle with the massed ranks of whitewashers.

by jeanmonroe 09.09.14 11:56

He's been the star in this entire story - and nobody (other than on the internet) has supported him. He remains Madeleine's only champion - a lone public voice doing battle with the massed ranks of whitewashers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Today's Sun - 7th September 2014 - Page 3 Mitche11

Today's Sun - 7th September 2014 - Page 3 Mitche11

And that's an old compilation of Team McCann!

We can now add, imo,

Summers&Swan
BHH&AR&HC&SF.
TMay&D Cameron.
J Gamble
Brookes&Murdoch
Entire BBC&CW.

And there are many, many, more now ranged against the 'truth' seekers.

And no matter how many 'more' TM add, they just can't 'out balance' to the British Public, to 'believe', in their 'favour'

If someone possibly could 'update' the 'old' compilation of TM. Thx in advance.

"We're gonna need a bigger pair of 'scales'"

by HelenMeg 09.09.14 12:06

Like the scales!! big grin

But I think the person sitting at the top of those scales - above Kate and Gerry is the person whose
presence in PDL needed to be protected and hidden at all costs. Whoever he / she / they were / was.

by jeanmonroe 09.09.14 12:27

HM wrote:
"But I think the person sitting at the top of those scales - above Kate and Gerry is the person whose
presence in PDL needed to be protected and hidden at all costs. Whoever he / she / they were / was."
-------------------------------------------
Today's Sun - 7th September 2014 - Page 3 Scale10

Today's Sun - 7th September 2014 - Page 3 Scale10

Yeah. Adds rather a nice 'Symmetry' dosen't it?

The 'missing piece' of the jigsaw, 'EVERYONE' is always being asked to 'find'?

by Bishop Brennan 09.09.14 12:34

jeanmonroe wrote:

And no matter how many 'more' TM add, they just can't 'out balance' to the British Public, to 'believe', in their 'favour'

If someone possibly could 'update' the 'old' compilation of TM. Thx in advance.

"We're gonna need a bigger pair of 'scales'"

That's a great pic - hadn't seen it before big grin

And you make an important point. For as professional and expensive as this whitewash is, parts of the British Public do remain unconvinced. Admittedly large numbers take no real interest at all, but there is still a large minority that suspect that the parents may well have been involved. And when SY finally throw in the towel, the niggling thought "I guess it must have been the parents after all" will always remain as a cloud.

by Harriet94 09.09.14 19:40

Going by the snippet posted above, Summers and Swan claim that there is no corroborating evidence that Madeleine was ever in apartment 5A. What are we supposed to deduce from that?

by Guest 09.09.14 19:58

Harriet94 wrote:Going by the snippet posted above, Summers and Swan claim that there is no corroborating evidence that Madeleine was ever in apartment 5A. What are we supposed to deduce from that?

Flash.. cleans surfaces without scratching.

by Harriet94 09.09.14 20:15

It will be interesting to see if Summers and Swan shed light on who forensically cleaned apartment 5A and when. I agree BlueBag, Flash has excellent cleaning properties, but would bleach be better for getting rid of all traces of blood and DNA?