Re: Today's Sun - 7th September 2014

by sammyc 09.09.14 21:05

BlueBag wrote:
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.

Flash bathroom - to clean up after Kate had to have a bath and then a shower shortly after, for what reason we do not know.

Flash kitchen - to clean up after the fridge which was said to be broken and had to be dumped?

Flash bleach spray - to attempt to disguise and get rid of bloodstains behind the sofa and on the wall.

Flash cleansing wipes - to get rid of all DNA traces of anybody having been in 5a.

Flash anti bacterial - to get rid of cadaver odour but Kate forgot to use them.

Flash all purpose/all surface spray - this would have the best one to buy but Hey!, the Fund was up and running and money then became irrelevant.

by Guest 09.09.14 21:14

Anti-cadaverine-bat-spray would have been better.

by sammyc 09.09.14 21:20

The Baptista supermarket didn't stock it BlueBag. nah

by MRNOODLES 09.09.14 21:48

'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'.

IMO the meaning of the sentence above depends on how Summers wishes to twist the words. ie Summers wants to paint the picture the same as Gerry, the dogs are unrelialble full stop. However the sentence can also mean the dogs' alerts cannot be relied on as evidence on their own without anything else to get a conviction in a court. Therefore the dogs are still correct there was a body there, but you still need DNA to prove which body. (Even though common sense answers that as no other death has been reported there)

by HelenMeg 09.09.14 22:16

jeanmonroe wrote: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."
-------------------------------------------

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

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

Thanks Jean Monroe! He / she who sits 'at the top' sure is getting a lot of support and protection. If the face is ever revealed I bet most of us wont even know who it is, that's the stupid thing about this.

by aiyoyo 09.09.14 22:38

aquila wrote:

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.

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

Are S&S for real? They said:
"Had there been a Burglators Warning Notice on the wall, the Mccanns would not have left the patio door unlocked." (not verbatim but words to that effect)
What? Would they then, because of the notice, have locked the door leaving their children alone nonetheless inside the dark apt ?

Had the dogs not been brought in, the Mccanns would not be declared as suspects?
Precisely! Because the dogs marked Mcs apt and items belonging to Mcs, and to no other places/items despite been given other venues to work through.

Had they done proper extensive research, they would have known historical records proved that cases taken to court on dogs evidence alone sans body had resulted in successful prosecutions. Also, had the Mcs been held in custody at the time of being declared suspects they would have been in prison by now.
They state the obvious yet ironically fail to grasp the blinking obvious staring them in the face. Their noses are too close to Mcarse methinks. A fat lot of good their "definitive" gibberish-ful account embellishing the data on files which grow arms and legs under their pens (err.. fingers I think ? keyboard and PC vs pen and paper?) would do to enlighten their readers.

They did not say -- had there been a notice on the wall, the Mccanns would not have left their children alone - if they did not say it, we can't say it for them. I learned a lot, thanks to Hobs.

You'd expect a pair of established novelists (writing to put food on the table), to output something if not of substance for lack of trying and objectivity, then at the very minimum to produce a definitive plausible version. Instead we were given a tall tale full of their twisted interpretations.

Priceless!

by Okeydokey 10.09.14 1:00

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:

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.

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

Are S&S for real? They said:
"Had there been a Burglators Warning Notice on the wall, the Mccanns would not have left the patio door unlocked." (not verbatim but words to that effect)
What? Would they then, because of the notice, have locked the door leaving their children alone nonetheless inside the dark apt ?

Had the dogs not been brought in, the Mccanns would not be declared as suspects?
Precisely! Because the dogs marked Mcs apt and items belonging to Mcs, and to no other places/items despite been given other venues to work through.

Had they done proper extensive research, they would have known historical records proved that cases taken to court on dogs evidence alone sans body had resulted in successful prosecutions. Also, had the Mcs been held in custody at the time of being declared suspects they would have been in prison by now.
They state the obvious yet ironically fail to grasp the blinking obvious staring them in the face. Their noses are too close to Mcarse methinks. A fat lot of good their "definitive" gibberish-ful account embellishing the data on files which grow arms and legs under their pens (err.. fingers I think ? keyboard and PC vs pen and paper?) would do to enlighten their readers.

They did not say -- had there been a notice on the wall, the Mccanns would not have left their children alone - if they did not say it, we can't say it for them. I learned a lot, thanks to Hobs.

You'd expect a pair of established novelists (writing to put food on the table), to output something if not of substance for lack of trying and objectivity, then at the very minimum to produce a definitive plausible version. Instead we were given a tall tale full of their twisted interpretations.

Priceless!

Summers and Swan are not stupid. They've seen how horrendously pro-McCann the British judiciary are (Hogg declared them innocent before the Portugese authorities lifted their arguido status, and had cosy tete a tetes with the McCanns while they were still arguidos).They've seen the libel settlements .They've seen how powerful people like Murdoch have swung behind the McCanns after initial scepticism.

They must have noticed how information about MMcC being a ward of court has been effectively suppressed, how transmission of the Gaspar letter to the Portugese authorities was delayed for several months. Surely they must - since they have been sifting through the evidence.

And they have, quite legitimately as writers, seen just how wonderfully lucrative a McCann book could be as long as it didn't fall foul of the authorities.

But have they addressed all the many and serious anomalies identified on this site? The answer would appear to be a resounding NO.

by Liz Eagles 10.09.14 2:04

Written in the Sun 8th September 2014 (no link I have copy typed it from the paper copy).

WE OWE IT TO MISSING KIDS

BRITISH Maddie cop Jim Gamble, below, warned that a shake-up is needed to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

He said: "We need a UK national centre to co-ordinate child protection activity, a body that is at arm's length from government.

"Collaboration is key, and in Europe our efforts should be consolidated through Europol."

He added: "It would be a legacy of sorts for the McCanns and for other parents of missing or murdered children."

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

I'm struggling to comment on this without spitting feathers.

ETA: I think this is worthy of a separate topic. If Admin agrees can they please do it.

by **PeterMac** 10.09.14 7:39

aquila wrote:
BRITISH Maddie cop Jim Gamble, below, warned that a shake-up is needed to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

He said: "We need a UK national centre to co-ordinate child protection activity, a body that is at arm's length from government.

There is a National Centre to coordinate child protection activity.

It is call the English law, and is administered by the Courts. Wilful neglect, deliberate abandonment, and failure to protect your child is an offence known to law.

by jeanmonroe 10.09.14 9:53

BRITISH Maddie cop Jim Gamble, below, warned that a shake-up is needed to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

He said: "We need a UK national centre to co-ordinate child protection activity, a body that is at arm's length from government.
---------------------------------------------------

"WITH ME, HONEST JIM GAMMBLE, AS THE BOSS, er NATRUALLY!" (with the same terms and conditions as a PCC, where i set my own 'salary' AND i can't EVER be 'sacked' by ANYONE.)

Just remind me,

Has Gammble taken ANY responsibility, for all the recently exposed child EXPLOTATION cases, in Derby, Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, the 4 towns just last week, with offences dating back to 'coincide' with Gammble's tenure at CEOP, which ALL happened ON HIS 'WATCH', when he was the BIG BOSS at CHILD EXPLOITATION online PROTECTION?

How did this child 'protection' GURU possibly MISS all of these appalling 'cases' ..............or.....OR...................did he KNOW?

But said nothing, did NOTHING, because the perpetrators were (almost) exclusively, non-white, Asian males!

Don't worry Gammble you ain't been 'rumbled'!

And all this BS from a 'man' who won't even SAY, vocally and in print, that Madeleine McCann 'was ABDUCTED'!

JG:
"but the fact that a child was, you know, has... was... did go missing... is still missing, and that those parents are tortured..."

"And I really don't like to speculate about what may, or may not have happened," ( I BET YOU DON'T WANT TO 'SPECULATE' GAMMBLE!)

So, a bit like,

"all those THOUSANDS of children who may, or may not, have been exploited, ON MY 'WATCH', while i was the CEO at the CHILD EXPLOITATION online PROTECTION fiefdom"

IMO, this is the very last man, on Earth, who should be anywhere near 'protecting' vulnerable exploited children.

He 'protected' NONE of the girls abused and exploited by mainly Pakistani males! ON HIS 'WATCH'!........................NONE!

Young, vulnerable, underage girls do NOT need 'protection' BY self appointed, self proclaimed, child protection 'experts', middle aged men, they need 'protecting' FROM middle aged men and 'others'! (imo)

"HEY, GAMMBLE?,........ LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!"

by fred c dobbs 10.09.14 14:17

jeanmonroe wrote:BRITISH Maddie cop Jim Gamble, below, warned that a shake-up is needed to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

He said: "We need a UK national centre to co-ordinate child protection activity, a body that is at arm's length from government.
---------------------------------------------------

"WITH ME, HONEST JIM GAMMBLE, AS THE BOSS, er NATRUALLY!" (with the same terms and conditions as a PCC, where i set my own 'salary' AND i can't EVER be 'sacked' by ANYONE.)

Just remind me,

Has Gammble taken ANY responsibility, for all the recently exposed child EXPLOTATION cases, in Derby, Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford, the 4 towns just last week, with offences dating back to 'coincide' with Gammble's tenure at CEOP, which ALL happened ON HIS 'WATCH', when he was the BIG BOSS at CHILD EXPLOITATION online PROTECTION?

How did this child 'protection' GURU possibly MISS all of these appalling 'cases' ..............or.....OR...................did he KNOW?

But said nothing, did NOTHING, because the perpetrators were (almost) exclusively, non-white, Asian males!

Don't worry Gammble you ain't been 'rumbled'!

And all this BS from a 'man' who won't even SAY, vocally and in print, that Madeleine McCann 'was ABDUCTED'!

JG:
"but the fact that a child was, you know, has... was... did go missing... is still missing, and that those parents are tortured..."

"And I really don't like to speculate about what may, or may not have happened," ( I BET YOU DON'T WANT TO 'SPECULATE' GAMMBLE!)

So, a bit like,

"all those THOUSANDS of children who may, or may not, have been exploited, ON MY 'WATCH', while i was the CEO at the CHILD EXPLOITATION online PROTECTION fiefdom"

IMO, this is the very last man, on Earth, who should be anywhere near 'protecting' vulnerable exploited children.

He 'protected' NONE of the girls abused and exploited by mainly Pakistani males! ON HIS 'WATCH'!........................NONE!

Young, vulnerable, underage girls do NOT need 'protection' BY self appointed, self proclaimed, child protection 'experts', middle aged men, they need 'protecting' FROM middle aged men and 'others'! (imo)

"HEY, GAMMBLE?,........ LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE!"

by aiyoyo 10.09.14 14:46

Okeydokey wrote:

And they have, quite legitimately as writers, seen just how wonderfully lucrative a McCann book could be as long as it didn't fall foul of the authorities.

But have they addressed all the many and serious anomalies identified on this site? The answer would appear to be a resounding NO.

I dont think they would concern themselves about falling foul of the authorities or not.
It's the Mcs they should be wary of falling foul of? It would appear they took care of that going by the pre-release previews. They condoned the Mcs for children neglect; it was a mummy that did it having checked the creaky gate beforehand etc -- that pretty much tells us they would paint the Mcs as fault-free victims. No negative or criticism of the mccanns would be in the book. They definitely aimed at penning a sue-proof book, otherwise no publisher would touch it, as publisher would also be wary of lawsuit from the litigious Mcs.

I believe the selective few in team Mccann that S&S interviewed acted as springboard for the authors to apprise the Mccanns' reaction to their book. If S&S had access to JG that's pretty much as good a gateway to the Mcs as it can get, this is on top of having access to close members of the team Mccann, yet they did not interview the Mccanns. Assuming it wasn't due to lack of access to the Mccanns, then it could well be that friends/family members of Mcs they interviewed were source/conduit of relay communications between the authors and the Mcs; and that seemed sufficient for the authors purpose.

If the authors' purpose for writing the book had nothing to do with finding the truth of what really happened to Madeleine, then the fate that befell Madeleine wasn't a primary concern to them. It was not about Madeleine nor about her parents for that matter. IMO, the authors' motive was to take advantage of a high profile controversial case and to make money from writing about it, simple as that. That had been the pattern of the type of literatures they'd produced and made money from going by their records.

by XTC 11.09.14 23:46

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
BRITISH Maddie cop Jim Gamble, below, warned that a shake-up is needed to make sure the same mistakes are not made again.

He said: "We need a UK national centre to co-ordinate child protection activity, a body that is at arm's length from government.

There is a National Centre to coordinate child protection activity.

It is call the English law, and is administered by the Courts. Wilful neglect, deliberate abandonment, and failure to protect your child is an offence known to law.

Exactly.

Is it possible because they were British that they thought the same penalties could have applied in Portugal?

Let's put it this way: despite being professional middle class couples were they really all in the same boat - vis child neglect and its legal implications and effects?

Payne's had a monitor - better than MW's baby listening in Greece?

Checks every 30 mins - better than other offers by holiday companies MW et al?

If that was the problem- what's the problem?

All you have to prove is that you were checking.

A reconstruction could have pointed towards that fact.

Or at least indicated towards it.

They so called Tapas 9 didn't want to do one as they didn't see how it would further the investigation.

What can you say apart from what the AG's said?

Seven years plus later we are no nearer to the truth.

I don't think you can blame the so called " haters ". They weren't there, but the Tapas 9 were. They know what they saw and did.

I'm not a hater . All I want to know is what happened?

No-one is saying and no-one is likely to say.

S&S are in no way adding to the evidence neither.

I have always thought tha Mr Amaral and his team were on the right track- until the train was derailed and no book - no Crimewatch or alleged experts will convince me otherwise.

Trenchant maybe, but the freshest evidence is normally the best. Everything else becomes an added layer of confusion as history and time passes.

The opposite of a peeling onion to get to the core. Layers are added in order to hide or disguise the core.

Opinion though.