Re: The musical impresario and the witch behind 2&2TV

by BigRon 02.01.15 19:45

Tony is just putting more information into the forum. We all got VERY interested in the whole 2&2TV thing but, as I think many people pointed out, 2&2 would have garnered the attention they craved simply by posting what they had. It seems now they had nothing but an idea to use Madeleine's disappearance as a vehicle for some spurious forensic analysis outfit - surely they would realise anything groundbreaking in such a high profile case would go ballistic in the media and social media if it had substance. Pat Brown is absolutely right to ask for sight of proper credentials - but it seems the people behind 2&2 have lots of things they want to keep hidden too.

BTW - information, ideally backed up with hard evidence, is exactly what this case needs and what the McC's don't want (they prefer confusion I seem to remember). I have been reading the interestingly titled thread What Do We Know? on the Theories section. The answer.... a lot of contradictory T9 statements which SY do not seem to recognise as a very large red flag that has been waving under their noses from the start. We have the cadaver and blood dog evidence. Not much more. Unfortunately whatever source one tries to use is unreliable for a lot of other aspects (deleted mobile phone records, possibly altered creche records, tampered photo?!). Recognising any more red flags SY? Thought not. IMO of course.

by ShuBob 02.01.15 20:45

frost wrote:I wasn't going to comment on this thread but my conscience got the better of me . I disagree that the information in the opening post should have been posted at all . How do you know Tony that you have even 'named and shamed ' the correct people? It is so easy to come up with a name , do a bit of digging on the internet , post a load of bumf and then actually find woops ive got the wrong person .

Why are you even naming these people ? They chose to post on the internet annonymously under the name 2&2tv as do I posting under the name Frost and as did Brenda Leyland in posting under the name Sweepyface .

2&2TV as far as I am aware are not guilty of any crime , as far as I can see all they are guilty of is trying to raise awareness that all is not as it seems in the Mccann case .

By posting the details you have I do not see how you are any different from the pro Mccann trolls who posted sweepyfaces details resulting in poor Brenda Leyland being hounded to death . whats the difference I cannot see any ?

These people who you have named above as supposedly being behind 2&2 tv will now probably be hounded and abused by pro Mccann trolls and their lives made a misery at the very least . I hope that nothing more sinister happens as I personally would not want to be associated even by default ie being a member of the forum who named them and therefore responsible .

Whilst I myself had doubts about 2&2tv ie the doubts I had was the evidence they claimed to have would be any kind of breakthrough in the case they havent actually done anything wrong and if anything should be thanked even if they are a little misguided for attempting to reach a wider audience and get the word out that all is not well in the mccanns version of events .

I will probably get lambasted for this post as it seems anyone so called 'speaking out of turn ' on this forum is sent swiftly on their merry way am I bothered not one jot .

When I joined here it seemed to be the place to be if you wanted up to date info and discussion, however in the past few months I have cringed at some of the responses to new members , ive bitten my tongue and instead of saying anything ive just read the forum instead of joining in .Im sure there are more regular visitors who just read and do not post anymore because of this .

I also disagree with the treatment that Sonia Poulton has recieved this week on the forum . Surely as a forum supposedly seeking truth and justice for Madeleine Mccann anyone seeking truth and justice and trying to get the wider public aware of the inconsitensies in this case should be welcomed not disected and ridiculed at every opportunity ?

The new DCI also came in for similar treament even before she has started the bloody job .

this forum at present is effectively giving the pro Mccanns ammunition ? To me this makes no sense . I sincerley hope that the people behind 2&2tv remain safe and well , I hope Sonia takes the bull by the horns and produces the mother of all videos/ docummentories and I sincerely hope that DCI Nicola Wall goes out and gets the b*****ds responsible for demise of Madeleine regardeless of wether she is wearing daredevil red or algarve blue sea on her nails .

Well rant over and before I get accused of being uncle Tom Cobley and all I have never posted under any other name on this forum and infact on any other Madeleine Mccann forum I am just me Frost .

Hear, hear! It had to be said!

by plebgate 02.01.15 23:56

I think people may feel intimidated by Tony because he always comes back with an answer which, more often than not, is not challenged.

I feel it must be remembered that he put his money where his mouth was - in other words, he walked the walk, stood up and was counted.    How many of us can say that, not just on this forum but others as well. Twitter and facebook inlcuded.

I do not think he means to come over as "putting others in their place" but I can understand his frustration when new posters offer up theories for debate which they seem to end up trying to defend with nothing to back it up.

Old saying, if you can't stand the heat........................................ , but please, for those who feel they are being made to feel unwelcome, why not put your point of view and let others put theirs.   Once we put our view across we can do no more.   I often find it is pointless coming back time and again with the same argument just to try and prove a point.

I like Tony's posts as I have said before and he most certainly does make one stop and think, but I do feel a lot of the dissatisfaction some say they feel has stemmed from the last photo thread.

I think it's time to move on and hope everyone will join in but there are some who only post when a thread starts to turn against Tony and I do not think that is fair.

If this post makes me a rabid supporter of Tony, fair enough, but I do not always agree with what he has to say and will post my own opinions without a moan if someone disagrees with me.

by Joss 03.01.15 2:12

I thought the forum was to discuss the case of a missing child not stroking people's ego's. And the forum has rules about certain aspects of posting. i see it right here as i am posting my reply.
1. NO DISRUPTION ALLOWED- i.e. trying to derail threads
2. NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER- that includes calling people trolls etc. Any worries contact admin or mods
3. NO LIBELOUS POSTS

If people feel they are being unfairly attacked contact admin or a mod, simple.

by Snifferdog 03.01.15 3:48

Well said Joss!

by frost 03.01.15 8:36

Tony Bennett wrote:@ frost

@ tiny

@ PMR

Your comments on my posting of the information about Keith and Manja McCade duly noted.

This morning Pat Brown, U.S. Criminal Profiler, has posted this message on her Facebook account:

KEITH MCCADE - SCAMMER

Quote

2:58am Jan 2
From Pat Brown on Facebook - 2 Jan 2014

Just read your expose of Keith at your board [CMOMM]. He contacted me trying to get me to recommend him to Sonia Poulton. After a number of emails, I wrote the following and he never replied. He claimed he had a forensic guy from the FBI examine the photo but he refused to name him. He is indeed a scammer. Feel free to share this if you want.

------------------

Keith, I have absolutely no idea who you are or anything about your company. You and your company have zero presence on the net. I have no idea of your credentials and your scientific ability to analyze the last photo. If you are heavily credentialed you should know that your name and the expertise attached to it are what will propel your analysis of the photo and case to a place that someone will pay attention.

You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns.

If you want my assistance, I need you to be open, honest, and forthcoming with names, CVs, and proper reports.

Pat
Pat wrote:

"You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns".

Comment: EXACTLY. This man tried to con those seeking truth and justice about Madeleine McCann. He made false claims. Yet some on this forum claim it was wrong to expose this scammer

This post you claim to have been posted on Pat Browns facebook account is not a facebook post but must be a private message and therefore unable to be verified by anyone other than yourself or Pat.

Having read the above I fail to see how it has been proven that the people behind 2&2tv are scammers ?

What exactly have they scammed ? have they recieved money by deception ? who have they scammed and what have they scammed their unfortunate victim of ?

The above correspondance is merely yours and pats opinions and nothing more it certainly is not evidential that they are scammers and would not stand up in a court of law .

So on that note I stand by everything I have written in my post which judging by the responses as rattled a few people .

You should not be naming and shaming people who were posting annonymously for a reason especially in light of what happened to Brenda Leyland .

It is somewhat hypocritical as a forum to campaign for justice on behalf of Brenda and her family and then go do the exact same thing that the pro mccanns did to Brenda to someone else who so far as I can see is guilty of nothing other than trying to reach a wider audience to the discrepancies of the mccann case .

So far I have seen no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing by the people behind 2&2tv .

As far as I am aware being slightly misguided and a tad naive is yet to be classed as a criminal offence either here in the UK or anywhere else for that matter .

I presume innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country , it is many moons since I studied law so yes I am somewhat rusty however I presume the basic principles still apply .

by The Rooster 03.01.15 9:11

Well posted Frost. I agree with your comments.

by plebgate 03.01.15 11:13

Pat Brown said in her post that this person was a scammer as nothing was backed up even after being asked to provide evidence of his claims.

It may not be against the law, but trying to get someone to make contact with a third party on one's behalf and making claims that are not backed up would lead any reasonable person to feel that they were being conned/scammed and Pat came to that conclusion.

Also in her post she told Tony to feel free to share the info. she provided. Whether it was a private message or an actual Facebook post doesn't really matter imo. Pat gave permission to share her thoughts and Tony has done that.

How does this make Tony as bad as anyone who had dealings in what happened to Brenda?

You also seem to me to imply in your post Frost that we have no evidence that Pat posted this - are we now stooping to a level of accusing Tony of making things up?

Absolute nonsense imo and something that should not be permitted on this site - again my opinion.

by Joss 03.01.15 13:32

frost wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:@ frost

@ tiny

@ PMR

Your comments on my posting of the information about Keith and Manja McCade duly noted.

This morning Pat Brown, U.S. Criminal Profiler, has posted this message on her Facebook account:

KEITH MCCADE - SCAMMER

Quote

2:58am Jan 2
From Pat Brown on Facebook - 2 Jan 2014

Just read your expose of Keith at your board [CMOMM]. He contacted me trying to get me to recommend him to Sonia Poulton. After a number of emails, I wrote the following and he never replied. He claimed he had a forensic guy from the FBI examine the photo but he refused to name him. He is indeed a scammer. Feel free to share this if you want.

------------------

Keith, I have absolutely no idea who you are or anything about your company. You and your company have zero presence on the net. I have no idea of your credentials and your scientific ability to analyze the last photo. If you are heavily credentialed you should know that your name and the expertise attached to it are what will propel your analysis of the photo and case to a place that someone will pay attention.

You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns.

If you want my assistance, I need you to be open, honest, and forthcoming with names, CVs, and proper reports.

Pat
Pat wrote:

"You put me in a bad position, asking me to back something I don't, at this point, find valid without any known expert's analysis (you have not told me who your expert is and you need more than one) or even who you are....just some shadowy black website and claims that you have contacts with British media and Portuguese lawyers. Sorry, this is the same kind of thing we saw with the private investigators for the McCanns".

Comment: EXACTLY. This man tried to con those seeking truth and justice about Madeleine McCann. He made false claims. Yet some on this forum claim it was wrong to expose this scammer

This post you claim to have been posted on Pat Browns facebook account is not a facebook post but must be a private message and therefore unable to be verified by anyone other than yourself or Pat.

Having read the above I fail to see how it has been proven that the people behind 2&2tv are scammers ?

What exactly have they scammed ? have they recieved money by deception ? who have they scammed and what have they scammed their unfortunate victim of ?

The above correspondance is merely yours and pats opinions and nothing more it certainly is not evidential that they are scammers and would not stand up in a court of law .

So on that note I stand by everything I have written in my post which judging by the responses as rattled a few people .

You should not be naming and shaming people who were posting annonymously for a reason especially in light of what happened to Brenda Leyland .

It is somewhat hypocritical as a forum to campaign for justice on behalf of Brenda and her family and then go do the exact same thing that the pro mccanns did to Brenda to someone else who so far as I can see is guilty of nothing other than trying to reach a wider audience to the discrepancies of the mccann case .

So far I have seen no proof whatsoever of any wrongdoing by the people behind 2&2tv .

As far as I am aware being slightly misguided and a tad naive is yet to be classed as a criminal offence either here in the UK or anywhere else for that matter .

I presume innocent until proven guilty still applies in this country , it is many moons since I studied law so yes I am somewhat rusty however I presume the basic principles still apply .

So who do you think you have "rattled"? Sorry but i'm not seeing it. Are we not allowed to agree to disagree on this forum? All i see are varying opinions.
And i also don't think there is any comparison to what Tony has revealed and what happened to Ms. Leyland. If anyone should be "rattled" it should be those responsible for hounding the poor woman to her death.
My question to TB would be more along the lines of what the person in question exactly wants by contacting TB and then the guy asking P.B. to be recommended to S. Poulton. Why doesn't he contact her himself? I think she has a twitter people can contact her on? It all sounds a bit weird to me.

Log in for more topics