Important information from Joe Rider

by Guest 22.04.16 19:43

I've [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] my feelings about this, but as the thread came up again this week I decided to try and contact the Rider family, as I felt their clarification would draw a line through this 'MR alternate' theory.

A few people have criticised me for my directness in getting right to primary sources, but this is an occasion where my directness has paid dividends, and I hope Joe Rider's words, which he has given me permission to quote, will put an end to this. As I've said before, it's a theory based on little to no evidence (sans the school link) that's been handled very irresponsibly, and affected an innocent family.

The family's Contact Police officer was also CCed into these emails, because understandably Joe couldn't initially be aware of my intentions. I hope this fact will allay any 'he would say that' kind of reactions. This is a very different situation to the McCann's situation.

Here is Joe's first email to me, the second quote is from a separate email in which I clarified having his permission to quote him here.

Hi Ben,

Thank you for the reply.

In response, we were made aware of the activities of this forum two years ago by the headmistress of Madalene’s school. We subsequently informed the Police, who also attended the school and spoke to the headmistress.

For your information, my daughter was one of three children called Madeleine that shared a class with Elizabeth Naylor (although mu daughter is named after her Irish maternal great grandmother and used the Huguenot spelling Madalene). Madalene and Elizabeth were not really friends - hence we have had very little contact with the Naylor family and knew nothing about their visit to Playa de Lux. From speaking to the headmistress, I understand that they were aware of the activities of the forum, but understandingly chose not to engage or make any comment.

Historically someone has sought to find out where Elizabeth went to school in London and has found reference to my daughter Madalene Rider somewhere on the school website or newsletter. In doing so, they have introduced my family into this ridiculous conversation which is an extremely irresponsible action. My family has never been anywhere near Playa de Lux. In fact I am the only one who has even been to Portugal, and that was 2 years ago to attend a friend's wedding in Lisbon. We have no connection to any of these events or people, other than a shared class/school connection with the Naylors.

If you have any influence on this matters, I would be grateful if you could put this simple truth across, before it becomes an issue for my daughter.

I appreciate that you have made an effort to seek some clarification from us directly.

Very Best,

Joe

Hi Ben,

I think you can add my email reply in the right context. I am very well aware that some factions will choose to ignore this - which is why we have chosen not to engage with the irrational minority.

I think those people should be made aware that their actions are doing very real damage to children that have nothing to do with any of this.

Joe

by Guest 22.04.16 20:01

Would you post the emails you sent to Mr.Rider, please.

Playa de Lux?

by Guest 22.04.16 20:06

Ladyinred wrote:Would you post the emails you sent to Mr.Rider, please.

Playa de Lux?

Sure thing, I'll quote mine below. Respectfully, I don't think typos are the important part of his emails.

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your reply - I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my motivations, and I'm happy to be CC'ed in with your Police contact officer, it's reassuring actually.

I am personally researching the Madeleine McCann case and as a result I have noticed a lot of people who have been caught up in it as 'collateral'. Quite how your daughter's name ever came into this I am not sure. As I expressed in my previous email, I am very uncomfortable with the fact your daughter's photo was posted online in several places and her school mentioned, as to my mind that puts her at risk. It is highly irresponsible (old photo now or not).

I have expressed as much on the same forum - my username there is April28th, I expressed the same sentiments there that I have here; [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (page 3 if the link doesn't work).

My contact was simply hoping to get this nonsensical, sidetracking issue off the table and hopefully help you and your family escape this daft microscope.

If it is relevant information you need, I am someone who doesn't believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, I believe she died earlier in the holiday, not by the actions of her parents, but in a situation such that it had to be covered up. I don't think it was ever meant to become what it has. I also don't believe that your daughter was used as a decoy - as you rightly say, it's a ludicrous suggestion and as far as I can see has no basis in fact. Just 'same name must be true' - absurd.

As I said in my last email, I quite understand if you have been advised not to say anything. I'm not pushing for information,
be assured there's no need for caution with me - I'm just being altruistic as a matter of principle, being a parent myself. I won't/haven't share any private correspondence with you (or Sarah's previously), without your express consent. And I am, again, glad that .. has been CCed in to add surety to this promise.

If you'd like me to pass along any comments to the forum or wider on your behalf, please feel free to ask.

Hope you're well (and sorry if I waffled on here/caused any stress bringing it up),

- Ben

Hi Joe,

No problem at all. Should I present your email there (address removed obviously), or summarise what you've told me?

I'll not post anything without your prior confirmation. Hopefully this will clear up the issue, of course there will still be some with a 'he would say that' attitude, but with the added weight of having .. CCed (who I wont mention by name), these voices will be minority.

Anyway sorry I'm going on again, I'll pass on your comments in whichever form you prefer. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help as well.

Regards,

- Ben

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 20:27

Ben, how did you get Joe Rider's email address?

by Guest 22.04.16 20:29

I didn't - I had emailed Sarah seperately and he replied to me, with the Officer CCed.

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 20:34

April28th wrote:I didn't - I had emailed Sarah seperately and he replied to me, with the Officer CCed.

How did you get Sarah's email address?

By 'Officer' you mean police officer?

by Guest 22.04.16 20:34

I'd emailed her through her business. Yes, I mean their Police Contact Officer.

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 20:39

April28th wrote:I'd emailed her through her business. Yes, I mean their Police Contact Officer.

And she and Joe were quite happy to correspond with a stranger about their daughter?

Are you still a McCann supporter?

by Guest 22.04.16 20:47

You've seen the extent of the conversation, I didn't ask anything else of them. I didn't ask any personal questions, perhaps quoting from my initial email to Sarah would help:

All kinds of minutia and small details are whirling around and it would help the search for the truth if I could comprehensively end that conversation so people can focus in the right direction.

Some useful example questions would be;

Has your daughter ever been to Portugal?
Are your daughter and Elizabeth Naylor related?
Were you familiar with the Healy or McCann family in or before Madeleine McCann was reported missing?
When and how did you hear of Madeleine McCann's fate?

As you will note these are the only questions Mr. Rider answered, and I don't feel I need to ask any more of them.

I'm not a McCann supporter at all, not sure how this thread implies that (unless you mean where I wrote 'not by the actions of her parents'?), I think getting this issue out of the way helps both the family and the forum/search for truth. Spending time working on a dead end, and simultaneously affecting an innocent family, helps noone.

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 20:51

In response, we were made aware of the activities of this forum two years ago by the headmistress of Madalene’s school. We subsequently informed the Police, who also attended the school and spoke to the headmistress.

Is Joe referring to this forum?

by Guest 22.04.16 20:54

Yes, specifically the thread on the Naylor/Rider theory in the Richard D. Hall section.

by **Jill Havern** 22.04.16 20:57

April28th wrote:Yes, specifically the thread on the Naylor/Rider theory in the Richard D. Hall section.

But he said the police were notified two years ago.

The Headmistress reads this forum does she?

No action taken in two years?

Met Police was it? winkwink

by Guest 22.04.16 21:05

They aren't just looking at the forum though, there's Twitter as well (Kikoratton etc who first posted photos of their daughter and created the whole thing). And who knows where else needs monitoring, I stick to here/fb/twitter, but I know there are plenty of blogs and other forums.

I don't know if any action has been taken, what's been taken down here and there etc. Just that they are monitoring the channels, and we don't have any crazy people vowing violence here to my knowledge, so there's not been any major action needed.

by Verdi 22.04.16 23:49

The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how willing people are to enter into correspondence with a total stranger. Maybe because I'm a very private person but if a stranger contacted me by way of email, letter or telephone and started asking questions about anything, more so my private life, I'd ignore it or tell 'em to naff off in no uncertain terms, possibly pass onto the police if deemed necessary.

I said the same about Philip Edmonds reply to Tony Bennett's communication- but that's another kettle of fish altogether.

by whodunit 23.04.16 0:13

April28th wrote:You've seen the extent of the conversation, I didn't ask anything else of them. I didn't ask any personal questions, perhaps quoting from my initial email to Sarah would help:

All kinds of minutia and small details are whirling around and it would help the search for the truth if I could comprehensively end that conversation so people can focus in the right direction.

Some useful example questions would be;

Has your daughter ever been to Portugal?
Are your daughter and Elizabeth Naylor related?
Were you familiar with the Healy or McCann family in or before Madeleine McCann was reported missing?
When and how did you hear of Madeleine McCann's fate?

As you will note these are the only questions Mr. Rider answered, and I don't feel I need to ask any more of them.

I'm not a McCann supporter at all, not sure how this thread implies that (unless you mean where I wrote 'not by the actions of her parents'?), I think getting this issue out of the way helps both the family and the forum/search for truth. Spending time working on a dead end, and simultaneously affecting an innocent family, helps noone.

My goodness but you and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are all about arbitrarily ending conversations and cautioning us 'cranks' to 'focus in the right direction'. This one even comes with a police escort!

What, pray tell, is the 'right direction' according to you?

[do you know how to take screen shots? Selective copy-paste is useless in establishing credibility]

"They aren't just looking at the forum though, there's Twitter as well (Kikoratton etc who first posted photos of their daughter and created the whole thing). And who knows where else needs monitoring, I stick to here/fb/twitter, but I know there are plenty of blogs and other forums"

Oh dear dear. What a very unfortunate time to be using this particular word. You and your comrade should go back to class when it comes to how one should employ language in these situations.

by Guest 24.04.16 12:02

Verdi wrote:The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how willing people are to enter into correspondence with a total stranger. Maybe because I'm a very private person but if a stranger contacted me by way of email, letter or telephone and started asking questions about anything, more so my private life, I'd ignore it or tell 'em to naff off in no uncertain terms, possibly pass onto the police if deemed necessary.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I was not asking about their private life. I am not sure how that got lost in translation here. I asked some simple questions, which I have already posted in this thread, which would tie up this bizarre theory. I did not ask for anything further, so to imply I was prying into their private life is inane - indeed it is the theory itself which has been doing the prying, and my contact was seeking to help bring an end to that intrusion.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - As I said, a Police Contact Officer was CCed into the emails, so you're basically saying that Joe did the right thing.

I am not one to judge people's moral sensibilities. We are all different, certainly. I wouldn't reply to people intruding on my private life either - but that was not the case here.

whodunit wrote:My goodness but you and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are all about arbitrarily ending conversations and cautioning us 'cranks' to 'focus in the right direction'. This one even comes with a police escort!

arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I would put it to you that the only thing that could be described as arbitrary is this daft theory. And yes, I will keep calling it daft, and you can take offense if you are that sensitive, but it is not meant as an insult, it is just my view on one throroughly non-credibile, unsubstantiated 'theory'.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - This appeal to ridicule is unwarranted. You (seemingly) fail to comprehend the simple facts here, in your rush to ridicule. The family has a Police Contact because people started accusing them of using their child as a decoy, posted family photographs, and a personal photo of their daughter. I am sure you aren't that naive that you can't see the danger here. Of course they need a Police Contact, when they are being baselessly implicated in a huge crime, and simultaneously having their privacy threatened. So this jovial obscurantist attitude is very misplaced.

Let me ask you a rhetorical question - did you not join here to help find justice for an innocent young girl?
And another - do you not see the inherent transgression in carelessly throwing another innocent young child (and her family) under the bus?

whodunit wrote:
do you know how to take screen shots? Selective copy-paste is useless in establishing credibility

I have sent screenshots to a prominent member here. I leave it to their discretion if they want to confirm this.

Whodunit wrote:Oh dear dear. What a very unfortunate time to be using this particular word. You and your comrade should go back to class when it comes to how one should employ language in these situations.

No, it is not the wrong time to be using the word. I am as disturbed as you by TM's 'monitoring'. But to arbitrarily associate the word 'monitor' with TM is absurd. This is an innocent family, being implicated with a HUGE, INTERNATIONAL crime, having their privacy invaded, photos of them and their daughter posted online without care. If you can't see why a family would need help in that situation then I despair.

by Verdi 24.04.16 12:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I was not asking about their private life. I am not sure how that got lost in translation here. I asked some simple questions, which I have already posted in this thread, which would tie up this bizarre theory. I did not ask for anything further, so to imply I was prying into their private life is inane - indeed it is the theory itself which has been doing the prying, and my contact was seeking to help bring an end to that intrusion.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - As I said, a Police Contact Officer was CCed into the emails, so you're basically saying that Joe did the right thing.

My comment wasn't directed at you specifically - it was a generalization, hence the mention of correspondence between Tony Bennett and Philip Edmonds. I do however fell that your contact with this person was an invasion of privacy, so in the interest of clarity, please strike the word 'questioning' and replace with 'intruding' - it's too late for me to edit.

Forgive me, your point hash 2, I'm not very good with acronyms - don't understand what you mean by a police contact officer being CCed into an email. Sounds painful!

by Guest 24.04.16 12:41

I don't think an offer of help is an intrusion of privacy. If Joe or Sarah felt I was invading their privacy, neither would have replied, or they would've replied saying that, and I would not have contacted them further. Again, I was not emailing them for gossip. I was emailing to try and help.

CCed means Carbon Copied. In other words every email is also sent to them.

by Guest 24.04.16 13:29

Have you contacted Dewi Lennard?

by Guest 24.04.16 13:35

Ladyinred wrote:Have you contacted Dewi Lennard?

I haven't actually. I was under the impression he is a member here and will see it? I'll tweet him now just in case. Thanks.

by Guest 24.04.16 13:44

Kiko is a member but no longer posts. He's a prolific tweeter.

Let us know if he replies to your tweet.

by worriedmum 24.04.16 14:36

Writing a letter to some-one is 'an invasion of privacy'? Time to seal up your letter box, Verdi?

by whodunit 24.04.16 18:08

April28th wrote:
Verdi wrote:The thing that never ceases to amaze me is how willing people are to enter into correspondence with a total stranger. Maybe because I'm a very private person but if a stranger contacted me by way of email, letter or telephone and started asking questions about anything, more so my private life, I'd ignore it or tell 'em to naff off in no uncertain terms, possibly pass onto the police if deemed necessary.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I was not asking about their private life. I am not sure how that got lost in translation here. I asked some simple questions, which I have already posted in this thread, which would tie up this bizarre theory. I did not ask for anything further, so to imply I was prying into their private life is inane - indeed it is the theory itself which has been doing the prying, and my contact was seeking to help bring an end to that intrusion.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - As I said, a Police Contact Officer was CCed into the emails, so you're basically saying that Joe did the right thing.

I am not one to judge people's moral sensibilities. We are all different, certainly. I wouldn't reply to people intruding on my private life either - but that was not the case here.

whodunit wrote:My goodness but you and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] are all about arbitrarily ending conversations and cautioning us 'cranks' to 'focus in the right direction'. This one even comes with a police escort!
arbitrary
ˈɑːbɪt(rə)ri/
adjective
adjective: arbitrary
1.
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I would put it to you that the only thing that could be described as arbitrary is this daft theory. And yes, I will keep calling it daft, and you can take offense if you are that sensitive, but it is not meant as an insult, it is just my view on one throroughly non-credibile, unsubstantiated 'theory'.

Point [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - This appeal to ridicule is unwarranted. You (seemingly) fail to comprehend the simple facts here, in your rush to ridicule. The family has a Police Contact because people started accusing them of using their child as a decoy, posted family photographs, and a personal photo of their daughter. I am sure you aren't that naive that you can't see the danger here. Of course they need a Police Contact, when they are being baselessly implicated in a huge crime, and simultaneously having their privacy threatened. So this jovial obscurantist attitude is very misplaced.

Let me ask you a rhetorical question - did you not join here to help find justice for an innocent young girl?
And another - do you not see the inherent transgression in carelessly throwing another innocent young child (and her family) under the bus?

whodunit wrote:
do you know how to take screen shots? Selective copy-paste is useless in establishing credibility

I have sent screenshots to a prominent member here. I leave it to their discretion if they want to confirm this.

Whodunit wrote:Oh dear dear. What a very unfortunate time to be using this particular word. You and your comrade should go back to class when it comes to how one should employ language in these situations.

No, it is not the wrong time to be using the word. I am as disturbed as you by TM's 'monitoring'. But to arbitrarily associate the word 'monitor' with TM is absurd. This is an innocent family, being implicated with a HUGE, INTERNATIONAL crime, having their privacy invaded, photos of them and their daughter posted online without care. If you can't see why a family would need help in that situation then I despair.

(of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

"arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

synonyms:

autocratic, dictatorial, autarchic, undemocratic, despotic, tyrannical, authoritarian, high-handed; More

You should speak to Dewi Lennard. It's his theory, and it's my understanding that he has several points of interest which could lead a person to reasonably assume there is a connection between the two parties. A denial by an interested party is hardly conclusive.

by Guest 24.04.16 18:18

I've linked him here on twitter, its his call if he wants to look/comment or not. As I understand it the only link is sharing a class with E. Naylor. Hardly an acceptable pretext for invading a family's privacy and putting a young girl at risk in my book.