Unhappy with any of the Madeleine McCann coverage on SKYNews or other media today? Complain via this link: https://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/tell-us/specific-programme-epg

Chris Roberts
17 mins
In case this is WHOOOSHED , I posted this in the Sky "news" page and emailed it to Martin Brunt and the Daily Mail. It does also serve to identify a number of issues that Summers and Swan would it seem to have preferred to ignore.
My name is Christopher David Roberts and I manage a Facebook group "McCann and other Mysteries" which is inter alia, a discussion group on the Madeleine McCann case.
To the members of this group I request that if they in any way disagree with what I write here, that they leave the group because if I am guilty of "trolling" then I do not wish anyone to be guilty by association with me or the group.
I have noticed that groups such as mine are being accused of "trolling" because in the main we do not accept the MSM line that the McCanns are innocent of all allegations levied against them.
The real problem that the McCanns have is that us "trolls" merely refer to and discuss the evidence as assimilated by the Portuguese police.
So without bias I will list the evidence that can in no way be refuted and see where that leads us.
Leaving aside the vagaries of Portuguese law, had the McCanns acted the way they claim to have done in the UK they would have been prosecuted for child neglect. There are also precedents where the remaining children have been taken into care.
The McCanns lied about how far they claim to have been from 5a and the visibility afforded to them by that distance and inherent visual obstructions.
The McCanns lied from the outset, re inter alia, the "jimmied window" and the locked/unlocked patio door. It is a fact that there was no evidence of forced entry at all.
The McCanns did not co-operate with the police as fully as would be expected, Kate McCann refusing to answer 48 questions having been advised by her lawyer not to do so.
However, questions such as " On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?" are very far from being in any way incriminating and it is incredible that she refused to provide a full and substantive answer to that question at least, under any circumstance whatsoever.
The McCanns received previously unheard of "assistance" direct from the UK government, far in excess of the usual consular involvement in any similar cases abroad, Ben Needham's disappearance being a particular example.
The McCanns incorporated a Limited Company and yet at the very least implied to the general public that donations were going to a charity. It is a matter of fact that the Charities Commission themselves raised concerns, particularly the haste with which the McCanns ceased negotiations with the CC. Registered charities must account for all expenditure as being relevant to the specific purpose of that charity, Limited companies do not.
The McCanns claimed that all funds donated would be used specifically in the search for Madeleine. That is proven to not be the case. beyond any doubt.
The McCanns employed their own private investigators and then took legal action to suppress the result of that investigation because it was allegedly "uncomplimentary " to both them and their "Tapas 9 " associates.
Then we must factor in the circumstantial evidence that us "trolls" regard as significant and the subject of much debate. That debate has of course led to the understandable use of much invective between opposing groups. It is fair to say that irrespective of opinion, none of this circumstantial evidence can be absolutely confirmed or refuted and therefore remains on the table.
The EVRD dogs supplied by Scotland Yard alerted to cadaverine ( the substance emitted by dead bodies ) only in locations and on property associated with the McCanns and nowhere and on nothing else.
Allegations have been made by those who support the McCanns that inter alia, the dog handler Mr Martin Grime was corrupt and that he or the Portuguese police "planted" cadaverine to incriminate the McCanns.
The description of a man carrying a child as reported by Jane Tanner changed several times and Ms Tanner pointed the finger at Mr Robert Murat who bears no resemblance whatsoever to her original description of an abductor.
The McCanns have preferred to use this description and artist's impression both on their website and in KM's book "Madeleine" instead of another description and E-fit emanating from a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a young child, the e-fit and physical description both bearing more than a passing resemblance to Gerald McCann and the original report by Mr Smith that he as “60-80%” sure it was Mr Cann he saw.

Like · Reply · 5 · 11 hours ago
Chris Roberts The witness statements of Katherina Gaspar and her husband made in May 2007 to Leicestershire police were not provided for whatever reason to the Portuguese police until five months later. It is a matter of opinion how significant to the investigation these statements may or may not have been.
These statements and that of Yvonne Martin , the lady social worker who journeyed to visit apartment 5a on the 4th May 2007 have never been reported upon and to my knowledge, never at any time even mentioned by the MSM or indeed DCI Redwood in his investigations.
For reference, Ms Martin works "directly with situations of children at risk" and in referring to Dr David Payne "thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or a witness." The capacity in which Ms Martin knew Dr Payne has to my knowledge never been verified and if so, never reported upon with sufficient prominence to alleviate suspicion.
DNA found in the luggage compartment of their hired Renault Traffic could not be eliminated as emanating from Madeleine and by some qualified commentators, is assessed as most likely to have been so.
The hire car's mileage was in excess ( 500 miles? ) of that commensurate to the journeys the McCanns said that they made.
The Ocean Club's children's club attendant Catriona Baker made three witness statements. The third and final statement made eleven months after the event and after Ms Baker had spent time with the McCanns at their home, includes previously unreported detail that wholly supports the McCann's version of events particularly on May 3rd 2007.
Scotland Yard's own stated position has always been that they are investigating an abduction to the exclusion of any other possible scenario
The book written by Snr Goncalo Amaral theorising as lead investigator on the basis of the official PJ files what happened to Madeleine McCann, has been banned from sale in the UK as a result of litigation by the McCanns whereas any book that supports the McCann's position of abduction is published without impediment.

Like · Reply · 5 · 11 hours ago
Chris Roberts The McCanns themselves have openly vilified the Portuguese police and particularly Snr Amaral and at no time have they made any attempt to retract or apologise for the statement that they are "fucking tossers" or that Snr Amaral "deserves to feel fear." For the McCanns to now complain that they find comments from internet fora distressing is at the very least, rank hypocrisy and their supporters continue this vilification on a daily basis, which it would seem the McCanns have no problem with at all.
None of us desire any physical harm to come to the McCanns and to suggest otherwise even on the basis of injudicious comments that may have been uttered in anger is puerile. It is to be noted that everything herein is referenced from the offical PJ files and/or reliable news reports. It is however disappointing that the vast majority of it has not and does not appear in the MSM and in the interests of balance I suggest that the Daily Mail and Sky News at least begin to report to the general public the vagaries of this case in order for them to make their own minds up, just as a jury would.
There is of course much more than this brief synopsis and my personal opinion is that prior to the abolition of capital punishment, men went to the gallows with less indication of guilt than that against Kate and Gerald McCann, guilty or not.
We seek justice for a child who has no voice, nothing more and nothing less.
For any further contact or discussion my personal details are available from Facebook or I will respond to Personal Messages.
Like

tiredofthebs wrote:I am absolutely livid about what I have seen today on sky news. I haven't been this annoyed about the case since 2007 and all the "ludicrous" covering up sky were doing while Kate McCann was being grilled.

But - and you can call me a coward for this - the last thing I am going to do at the minute is give them my name and address.

PeterMac wrote:https://www.facebook.com/groups/Findingmadeleine/permalink/1493776127542593/

Chris Roberts
17 mins
In case this is WHOOOSHED , I posted this in the Sky "news" page and emailed it to Martin Brunt and the Daily Mail. It does also serve to identify a number of issues that Summers and Swan would it seem to have preferred to ignore.
My name is Christopher David Roberts and I manage a Facebook group "McCann and other Mysteries" which is inter alia, a discussion group on the Madeleine McCann case.
To the members of this group I request that if they in any way disagree with what I write here, that they leave the group because if I am guilty of "trolling" then I do not wish anyone to be guilty by association with me or the group.
I have noticed that groups such as mine are being accused of "trolling" because in the main we do not accept the MSM line that the McCanns are innocent of all allegations levied against them.
The real problem that the McCanns have is that us "trolls" merely refer to and discuss the evidence as assimilated by the Portuguese police.
So without bias I will list the evidence that can in no way be refuted and see where that leads us.
Leaving aside the vagaries of Portuguese law, had the McCanns acted the way they claim to have done in the UK they would have been prosecuted for child neglect. There are also precedents where the remaining children have been taken into care.
The McCanns lied about how far they claim to have been from 5a and the visibility afforded to them by that distance and inherent visual obstructions.
The McCanns lied from the outset, re inter alia, the "jimmied window" and the locked/unlocked patio door. It is a fact that there was no evidence of forced entry at all.
The McCanns did not co-operate with the police as fully as would be expected, Kate McCann refusing to answer 48 questions having been advised by her lawyer not to do so.
However, questions such as " On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?" are very far from being in any way incriminating and it is incredible that she refused to provide a full and substantive answer to that question at least, under any circumstance whatsoever.
The McCanns received previously unheard of "assistance" direct from the UK government, far in excess of the usual consular involvement in any similar cases abroad, Ben Needham's disappearance being a particular example.
The McCanns incorporated a Limited Company and yet at the very least implied to the general public that donations were going to a charity. It is a matter of fact that the Charities Commission themselves raised concerns, particularly the haste with which the McCanns ceased negotiations with the CC. Registered charities must account for all expenditure as being relevant to the specific purpose of that charity, Limited companies do not.
The McCanns claimed that all funds donated would be used specifically in the search for Madeleine. That is proven to not be the case. beyond any doubt.
The McCanns employed their own private investigators and then took legal action to suppress the result of that investigation because it was allegedly "uncomplimentary " to both them and their "Tapas 9 " associates.
Then we must factor in the circumstantial evidence that us "trolls" regard as significant and the subject of much debate. That debate has of course led to the understandable use of much invective between opposing groups. It is fair to say that irrespective of opinion, none of this circumstantial evidence can be absolutely confirmed or refuted and therefore remains on the table.
The EVRD dogs supplied by Scotland Yard alerted to cadaverine ( the substance emitted by dead bodies ) only in locations and on property associated with the McCanns and nowhere and on nothing else.
Allegations have been made by those who support the McCanns that inter alia, the dog handler Mr Martin Grime was corrupt and that he or the Portuguese police "planted" cadaverine to incriminate the McCanns.
The description of a man carrying a child as reported by Jane Tanner changed several times and Ms Tanner pointed the finger at Mr Robert Murat who bears no resemblance whatsoever to her original description of an abductor.
The McCanns have preferred to use this description and artist's impression both on their website and in KM's book "Madeleine" instead of another description and E-fit emanating from a sighting by the Smith family of a man carrying a young child, the e-fit and physical description both bearing more than a passing resemblance to Gerald McCann and the original report by Mr Smith that he as “60-80%” sure it was Mr Cann he saw.

Like · Reply · 5 · 11 hours ago
Chris Roberts The witness statements of Katherina Gaspar and her husband made in May 2007 to Leicestershire police were not provided for whatever reason to the Portuguese police until five months later. It is a matter of opinion how significant to the investigation these statements may or may not have been.
These statements and that of Yvonne Martin , the lady social worker who journeyed to visit apartment 5a on the 4th May 2007 have never been reported upon and to my knowledge, never at any time even mentioned by the MSM or indeed DCI Redwood in his investigations.
For reference, Ms Martin works "directly with situations of children at risk" and in referring to Dr David Payne "thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or a witness." The capacity in which Ms Martin knew Dr Payne has to my knowledge never been verified and if so, never reported upon with sufficient prominence to alleviate suspicion.
DNA found in the luggage compartment of their hired Renault Traffic could not be eliminated as emanating from Madeleine and by some qualified commentators, is assessed as most likely to have been so.
The hire car's mileage was in excess ( 500 miles? ) of that commensurate to the journeys the McCanns said that they made.
The Ocean Club's children's club attendant Catriona Baker made three witness statements. The third and final statement made eleven months after the event and after Ms Baker had spent time with the McCanns at their home, includes previously unreported detail that wholly supports the McCann's version of events particularly on May 3rd 2007.
Scotland Yard's own stated position has always been that they are investigating an abduction to the exclusion of any other possible scenario
The book written by Snr Goncalo Amaral theorising as lead investigator on the basis of the official PJ files what happened to Madeleine McCann, has been banned from sale in the UK as a result of litigation by the McCanns whereas any book that supports the McCann's position of abduction is published without impediment.

Like · Reply · 5 · 11 hours ago
Chris Roberts The McCanns themselves have openly vilified the Portuguese police and particularly Snr Amaral and at no time have they made any attempt to retract or apologise for the statement that they are "fucking tossers" or that Snr Amaral "deserves to feel fear." For the McCanns to now complain that they find comments from internet fora distressing is at the very least, rank hypocrisy and their supporters continue this vilification on a daily basis, which it would seem the McCanns have no problem with at all.
None of us desire any physical harm to come to the McCanns and to suggest otherwise even on the basis of injudicious comments that may have been uttered in anger is puerile. It is to be noted that everything herein is referenced from the offical PJ files and/or reliable news reports. It is however disappointing that the vast majority of it has not and does not appear in the MSM and in the interests of balance I suggest that the Daily Mail and Sky News at least begin to report to the general public the vagaries of this case in order for them to make their own minds up, just as a jury would.
There is of course much more than this brief synopsis and my personal opinion is that prior to the abolition of capital punishment, men went to the gallows with less indication of guilt than that against Kate and Gerald McCann, guilty or not.
We seek justice for a child who has no voice, nothing more and nothing less.
For any further contact or discussion my personal details are available from Facebook or I will respond to Personal Messages.
Like

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:I am absolutely livid about what I have seen today on sky news. I haven't been this annoyed about the case since 2007 and all the "ludicrous" covering up sky were doing while Kate McCann was being grilled.

But - and you can call me a coward for this - the last thing I am going to do at the minute is give them my name and address.

I think this is a very good point. Given the rather horrific turn of events (and there have been many over the past 7 years in terms of the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann) why would an individual person who does not necessarily have the weight of any kind of influential organisation behind them want to expose themselves to people/organisations who are clearly, imo, ruthless and lacking in any kind of morality or integrity.

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:I am absolutely livid about what I have seen today on sky news. I haven't been this annoyed about the case since 2007 and all the "ludicrous" covering up sky were doing while Kate McCann was being grilled.

But - and you can call me a coward for this - the last thing I am going to do at the minute is give them my name and address.

I think this is a very good point. Given the rather horrific turn of events (and there have been many over the past 7 years in terms of the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann) why would an individual person who does not necessarily have the weight of any kind of influential organisation behind them want to expose themselves to people/organisations who are clearly, imo, ruthless and lacking in any kind of morality or integrity.

ChippyM wrote:For most of the people that post here and merely question the official story ( no insults, no wishing people dead etc.) , I don't see how those people could be targeted.

BlueBag wrote:

ChippyM wrote:For most of the people that post here and merely question the official story ( no insults, no wishing people dead etc.) , I don't see how those people could be targeted.

Most people here are very careful about what they write.

You can't be done for asking questions or opining about possibilities based on evidence.

BlueBag wrote:

ChippyM wrote:For most of the people that post here and merely question the official story ( no insults, no wishing people dead etc.) , I don't see how those people could be targeted.

Most people here are very careful about what they write.

You can't be done for asking questions or opining about possibilities based on evidence.

tiredofthebs wrote:I am absolutely livid about what I have seen today on sky news. I haven't been this annoyed about the case since 2007 and all the "ludicrous" covering up sky were doing while Kate McCann was being grilled.

But - and you can call me a coward for this - the last thing I am going to do at the minute is give them my name and address.

j.rob wrote:

tiredofthebs wrote:I am absolutely livid about what I have seen today on sky news. I haven't been this annoyed about the case since 2007 and all the "ludicrous" covering up sky were doing while Kate McCann was being grilled.

But - and you can call me a coward for this - the last thing I am going to do at the minute is give them my name and address.

I think this is a very good point. Given the rather horrific turn of events (and there have been many over the past 7 years in terms of the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann) why would an individual person who does not necessarily have the weight of any kind of influential organisation behind them want to expose themselves to people/organisations who are clearly, imo, ruthless and lacking in any kind of morality or integrity.

brixham wrote:Ive just written my complaint to OFCOM. 

I know that people may not want to give their details but personally I don't feel that I have a choice but to complain when a member of the public is harassed and harangued to her death by the media for some supposed 'crime.'  How can the media be judge, jury and now executioner?  If there was any reason to, why didn't the police privately investigate any 'crime?'