Re: Ben Needham - Extracts from the book

by Verdi 31.10.16 11:52

MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18

Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist

On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

----------

Anyone out there still fool enough to believe the 'blood spot in a cardboard frame' was in fact a blood sample taken at the birth of Madeleine McCann, a Guthrie Card otherwise known as a heel prick test - watch listen and learn..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtGRULg-bs

@ 53 seconds onward
Not sure what you are trying to say or for us to learn?

For a Guthrie card to be retrieved from the NHS archives for use in a police investigation, the authority of a high court judge is required. This is a lengthy process as illustrated by the words of Kerry Needham, if the McCanns had followed this procedure you can be sure the public would have heard. There was never any mention of this, plus the documented evidence held by Leicester police specifically states 'a blood spot in a cardboard frame' - NOT a Guthrie Card or infants heal prick test. I don't ask for 'us' to learn anything, my comment was aimed at a few out there who insist the item was a Guthrie card without a scrap of evidence to prove it.

If it wasn't the Guthrie test what was it?

That's what I would like to know!

Madeleine was under eighteen so it would not need the courts permission to access surely?

Covered above.

by Verdi 31.10.16 12:08

hogwash wrote:Ben Needham case has hallmarks of cover-up with cops wanting probe closed quickly and sex lies in bid to blacken mum's name

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ben-needham-case-hallmarks-cover-9161080?ICID=FB_mirror_main

All the hallmarks of the mystery of Madeleine McCann, I think the Mirror would do well to back out of this one.

Extraordinary isn't it - a member of the general public who takes an interest in a particular case is openly accused of interfering with a police investigation and invading the lives of witnesses, yet here we have a UK tabloid bulldozing there way in, sullying the names of Greek citizens and the islands reputation, interfering with an active investigation - all in the name of investigative journalism?

I despair.

by willowthewisp 31.10.16 13:07

Hi Verdi,like many people on the forum,I sincerely hope no harm has happened to Ben(kid napping aside) and hope he is alive.
What is coming to light is a lot of (hearsay)with regard to factual information from person's no longer with us.
We now hear that Greek Police may have not investigated the disappearance correctly and a lot of talk of a cover up to the child(Ben's)abduction?
Mr Barkas told Greek Police of Three person's in a white vehicle in the vicinity of where Ben Needham was reported to have disappeared from on 24 July 1991.
Then after Mr Barkas death,the UK Police have heard from a person,proclaiming a Confession,as to what happened to little Ben Needham and a digger on site of the farm house and a Toy car discovered 650 Metres from the farm House area,is this where an Abduction happened?
Then we have the(mystery) of the owner of the White Suzuki Alto and who was in the Car on that day,it wasn't Mr Barkas as he was a witness for Greek Police to investigate the occupants?
Quite why South Yorkshire Police failed to take EVRD Dogs along to the scene of digging,excavations has to be asked,especially when the Police Force have spoken to Kerry Needham and the family the way they have done,(expect the Worst)scenario,without conclusive evidence to that account having happened?
I sincerely hope that Ben Needham's disappearance case and Madeleine McCann's can be solved as to what may have happened but we know that there is a disparity of resources appertaining to both cases,when they are both"Missing person's"until determined by Officialdom.

by Equity 31.10.16 13:30

Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18

Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist

On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

----------

Anyone out there still fool enough to believe the 'blood spot in a cardboard frame' was in fact a blood sample taken at the birth of Madeleine McCann, a Guthrie Card otherwise known as a heel prick test - watch listen and learn..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtGRULg-bs

@ 53 seconds onward
Not sure what you are trying to say or for us to learn?

For a Guthrie card to be retrieved from the NHS archives for use in a police investigation, the authority of a high court judge is required. This is a lengthy process as illustrated by the words of Kerry Needham, if the McCanns had followed this procedure you can be sure the public would have heard. There was never any mention of this, plus the documented evidence held by Leicester police specifically states 'a blood spot in a cardboard frame' - NOT a Guthrie Card or infants heal prick test. I don't ask for 'us' to learn anything, my comment was aimed at a few out there who insist the item was a Guthrie card without a scrap of evidence to prove it.

If it wasn't the Guthrie test what was it?

That's what I would like to know!

Madeleine was under eighteen so it would not need the courts permission to access surely?

Covered above.

Hi MayMuse

Do you have a link for "a Guthrie card to be retrieved from the NHS archives for use in a police investigation, the authority of a high court judge is required"?

I thought a Caldicott Guardian, especially with parental consent could make the decision to share the Guthrie Card.

I'm not 100% sure, so would appreciate the link that states a ruling from a high court judge is required.

Thanks

by MayMuse 31.10.16 14:55

Equity wrote:
Verdi wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
Verdi wrote:Deposition of: JOHN ROBERT LOWE BSc CBiol MlBiol RFP Age: Older than 18

Profession of Witness: Forensic Scientist

On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

----------

Anyone out there still fool enough to believe the 'blood spot in a cardboard frame' was in fact a blood sample taken at the birth of Madeleine McCann, a Guthrie Card otherwise known as a heel prick test - watch listen and learn..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FtGRULg-bs

@ 53 seconds onward
Not sure what you are trying to say or for us to learn?

For a Guthrie card to be retrieved from the NHS archives for use in a police investigation, the authority of a high court judge is required. This is a lengthy process as illustrated by the words of Kerry Needham, if the McCanns had followed this procedure you can be sure the public would have heard. There was never any mention of this, plus the documented evidence held by Leicester police specifically states 'a blood spot in a cardboard frame' - NOT a Guthrie Card or infants heal prick test. I don't ask for 'us' to learn anything, my comment was aimed at a few out there who insist the item was a Guthrie card without a scrap of evidence to prove it.

If it wasn't the Guthrie test what was it?

That's what I would like to know!

Madeleine was under eighteen so it would not need the courts permission to access surely?

Covered above.

Hi MayMuse

Do you have a link for "a Guthrie card to be retrieved from the NHS archives for use in a police investigation, the authority of a high court judge is required"?

I thought a Caldicott Guardian, especially with parental consent could make the decision to share the Guthrie Card.

I'm not 100% sure, so would appreciate the link that states a ruling from a high court judge is required.

Thanks

@Equity Sorry i dont as i did not say that as it was in answer to my question, as I am under the impression that because Madeliene was only three the parents can give consent, no court requirement. Courts were required for Ben as at that time he would have been over eighteen. I will look more into it but you can check on the internet and the health. Gov websites.

Edit I have just phoned my GP surgery and you can request the heel prick test or guthrie card for your child under 18, there is form filling... over 18 only the child can request. I was told that there were updates in possibly 2005 and 2011 or 12 and would have to check but as far as they know that is the normal process. Considering the McCanns are Drs I think to obtain Madeleine's card, this would have been made easy for them?

by Verdi 31.10.16 15:46

www.gov.uk - Code of Practice for Residual blood Spots

Release

Residual newborn blood spots may be released for uses as specified above. An appropriate legal permission (court order) is required for the release of residual newborn blood spots from specific dead or missing people for forensic purposes. Samples from individuals who are alive and not missing should not be released for this purpose since alternatives are available.

An appropriate legal permission (court order) is required for the release of residual newborn blood spots from deceased children for the purposes of establishing maternity or paternity.

Samples from individuals who are alive should not be released for this purpose since alternatives are available.

Newborn screening laboratories may not sell, or grant exclusive access to, residual newborn blood spots to commercial organisations.

by Verdi 31.10.16 20:38

Further information on the subject of Guthrie Cards..

How are the interests of the public protected?

There are a number of ways in which the interests of the public and personal information are protected:

Regulations and laws governing the storage and use of blood spot cards:

Strict guidance exists about who is allowed to access these blood spot cards and how the cards can be used.

Code of practice:

The NHS Newborn Blood Spot Screening Programme has developed a code of practice to govern the storage and use of newborn blood spot cards. Under the code of practice, it's recommended that the cards are stored for at least five years, and they may be stored for longer. Laboratory directors are "custodians" of the cards, storing them and ensuring guidelines are followed. The programme is currently reviewing the code of practice.

Laws:

Laws covering the use of the cards include the Data Protection Act 1998, the Health and Social Care Act 2001, and the Human Tissue Act 2004. Guidance on the management of blood spot cards has been developed with careful reference to these laws.

Ethical approval and scientific peer review:

Stored blood spot cards can only be used in research if the research is approved by a medical research ethics committee. All potential research projects must also be reviewed by other scientists. These scientists judge the scientific value of the research before a project can be approved. This process is known as "scientific peer review".

Parental consent:

When parents are offered newborn blood spot screening for their baby, they are given a pre-screening leaflet and have a discussion with their midwife. This is to help them make an informed choice. Parents are also asked to consent to screening.

Anonymity and confidentiality:

Steps are taken to keep private any personal information contained in, or linked in any way to, the blood spot card collection. Where blood spot cards are used anonymously, identifying information is separated from the spots before they are tested.

When identifiable blood spots are used for research that parents or patients have given their consent to, steps are taken to protect patient confidentiality. When the newborn blood spots are collected, parents can choose whether or not they want to receive invitations to take part in this type of research in future.

Page last reviewed: 04/02/2015
Next review due: 04/02/2017

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/Pages/newborn-blood-spot-cards.aspx

by Verdi 01.11.16 12:45

willowthewisp wrote:
I sincerely hope that Ben Needham's disappearance case and Madeleine McCann's can be solved as to what may have happened but we know that there is a disparity of resources appertaining to both cases,when they are both"Missing person's"until determined by Officialdom.

The two cases are not like for like though are they - I just see many latter day similarities between the McCanns behaviour and that of the Needhams, which offer no logical explanation. I see contradictions and unlikely events in both cases, compounded by staged performances for public consumption.

Let's face it, Operation Grange wouldn't have been feasible without the PJ files (in full or in part I don't know but I strongly suspect the latter) to 'review' and more recently to 're-investigate' - titter ye not! So in terms of case longevity it's a big plus for the McCanns - except I doubt if they reckoned on the general public also having access to the files.

Yes, the McCanns were (past tense) in a privileged position of having widespread support from money (not their own I hasten to add) and people in the know, so to speak, something the Needham family wouldn't have in a million years - I'm afraid that's a fact of life! Might not like it and see the disparity of equality but unfortunately that's how our society works, it's always been the same and will always be despite what Jeremy Corbyn and his socialist army might have you believe. Taking a few steps back and detaching yourself from emotion, both cases are the subject of a criminal investigation so are on equal footing, if only for that reason.

Of course no one in their right mind can readily accept a child coming to any harm, the reason most of us are here I think. I do however reserve the right to question and make comparisons between these two particular cases - not withstanding inequality in terms of social standing. Social standing shouldn't be allowed to determine guilt or innocence - that is all down to hard evidence, something distinctly lacking in both cases.

Ultimately, Madeleine McCann disappeared because her parents failed her - Ben Needham disappeared because his parents failed him.

by JRP 01.11.16 13:17

There are similarities in these cases.
Both families are British, both events happened in foreign countries, and neither child has been sighted since the day they went missing
Also, in both cases local police, local that is to their respective countries have come to conclusions which involve family members being key to the disappearances.
The more surprising similarity is that in both cases, British police have not pursued the most obvious avenues, to consider what the Greek and Portuguese police found as evidence.

by Verdi 01.11.16 15:16

JRP wrote:
The more surprising similarity is that in both cases, British police have not pursued the most obvious avenues, to consider what the Greek and Portuguese police found as evidence.

Very good point thumbsup

!

Aided and abetted by the UK media, who is seems are now attempting to picture the Greek police as inept and the McCann machine tried with the PJ - leading readers up the garden path with tales of dead heavy duty machine operators and gypsies who allegedly sell their children on every street corner - or abduct little children playing in the wilderness, that aren't properly supervised by an adult.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.16 22:55

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:
The more surprising similarity is that in both cases, British police have not pursued the most obvious avenues, to consider what the Greek and Portuguese police found as evidence.
Very good point !

Aided and abetted by the UK media, who is seems are now attempting to picture the Greek police as inept and the McCann machine tried with the PJ - leading readers up the garden path with tales of dead heavy duty machine operators and gypsies who allegedly sell their children on every street corner - or abduct little children playing in the wilderness, that aren't properly supervised by an adult.

Yes, as I've said before, the similarities between events following the disappearances of Ben Needhm and Madeleine Mcann are so striking as to be eerie. The identification of the likely killer of each being a tractor/digger-driver who is dead almost feels like they are deliberately taking the mickey and freely exercising the power the media to shove any old rubbish down our throats.

Richard D. Hall has just produced a new show and has devoted 9 minutes to a brief analysis of the recent coverage of the abduction/death of Ben Neeedham:

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=234&part=1 (start at 7 min 30 secs, continues to 16 mins 30 secs).

In short, he thinks that Stephen Needham killed Ben by accident giving him a ride on his bike and that Stephen used the three hours in which he was absent to bury his little body. He invites viewers to consider that South Yorkshire Police were used by powerful media figures to conduct an intensive psychological operation intended primarily to echo the Madeleine McCann case and reinforce the message that bad things like an abduction (Madeleine) or an accidental death under the wheels of a digger (Ben Needham) happen to innocent British families in bad foreign places which have useless police forces.

He believes the public will link the two cases, in which case the Madeleine McCann abduction narrative will be reinforced once again.

In both cases, suggests Richard, the public have been denied the key facts - and the media have merely regurgitated material given to them by the British police and security forces - or, in the McCanns' case, also by their chief PR adviser, former Blair spin doctor Clarence Mitchell.

by Verdi 02.11.16 1:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard D. Hall has just produced a new show and has devoted 9 minutes to a brief analysis of the recent coverage of the abduction/death of Ben Neeedham:

http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=234&part=1 (start at 7 min 30 secs, continues to 16 mins 30 secs).

Oh, that is just too good smilie

thank you! Looks like it's already been watched.

I have to mention why the Needhams in their various accounts of events, refer to the area outside the derelict building as 'the terrace'. It wasn't 'a terrace', it was builders rubble and dirt outside a derelict building - please don't try to romanticize the scene.

The biggest question of all - why did the Needham family take so long before alerting the police? Remember this was a 21 month old child, not a disgruntled teenager. Normal response would be panic within seconds not hours!

by JRP 02.11.16 12:05

I think Kerry Needham's book answers many of her own questions. Uncle Stephen leaves on his moped, 3 minutes later Ben is nowhere to be seen. The horizon is scanned by the grandmother, and there is no sign of anything. No mention of a digger truck, no mention of running to a digger driver to ask if he saw a toddler. They then search for Ben, jogging down the road in 110 degree heat; after some time they come to the conclusion that Ben must have gone off on the uncles moped, because logic told them so.

Uncle Stephen is gone for 3 hours, and according to Greek police, the bike had suffered recent accident damage.
Uncle Stephen then has a "what if" moment... What if I did take Ben on my Bike? what if he did fall off?

I think most rational people would at this point think to themselves... well that's that then!

But no. It can't be uncle, it must be that digger man who wasn't there. How do we know he wasn't there? It's written in her book!

In Portugal, our police from the famous Scotland Yard want us to look for Smithman, a man so important to the case we have two e-fits for him. Not just one likeness... but two! Two likenesses for one man, which to my eyes are not even alike to each other.

If that doesn't make British police look stupid enough, South Yorkshire Police fly to Koss and dig up half a building, because for some reason they don't seem to want to believe the Greek police findings about the uncle and his moped. And then Kerry wonders why the Greek police are slow to answer their questions...

I do feel sorry for Kerry Needham, she went to work one day and left her child with her family, and never saw him again.

I did watch Richard D Hall's video, (Friday comes earlier each fortnight smilie

) and in a nutshell, he's probably right.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.16 12:21

JRP wrote:I think Kerry Needham's book answers many of her own questions. Uncle Stephen leaves on his moped, 3 minutes later Ben is nowhere to be seen. The horizon is scanned by the grandmother, and there is no sign of anything. No mention of a digger truck, no mention of running to a digger driver to ask if he saw a toddler. They then search for Ben, jogging down the road in 110 degree heat; after some time they come to the conclusion that Ben must have gone off on the uncles moped, because logic told them so.

Uncle Stephen is gone for 3 hours, and according to Greek police, the bike had suffered recent accident damage.
Uncle Stephen then has a "what if" moment... What if I did take Ben on my Bike? what if he did fall off?

I think most rational people would at this point think to themselves... well that's that then!

But no. It can't be uncle, it must be that digger man who wasn't there. How do we know he wasn't there? It's written in her book!

In Portugal, our police from the famous Scotland Yard want us to look for Smithman, a man so important to the case we have two e-fits for him. Not just one likeness... but two! Two likenesses for one man, which to my eyes are not even alike to each other.

If that doesn't make British police look stupid enough, South Yorkshire Police fly to Koss and dig up half a building, because for some reason they don't seem to want to believe the Greek police findings about the uncle and his moped. And then Kerry wonders why the Greek police are slow to answer their questions...

I do feel sorry for Kerry Needham, she went to work one day and left her child with her family, and never saw him again.

I did watch Richard D Hall's video, (Friday comes earlier each fortnight ) and in a nutshell, he's probably right.

Concise...great post @ JRP

If you're right, then we must accept that dark and powerful forces, aided and abetted by the mass media, are openly lying to us.

If they can do that so openly e.g. in the case of missing Ben Needham, in what other spheres are they deliberately - and successfully - misleading us?

by Verdi 02.11.16 12:32

JRP wrote:I think Kerry Needham's book answers many of her own questions. Uncle Stephen leaves on his moped, 3 minutes later Ben is nowhere to be seen. The horizon is scanned by the grandmother, and there is no sign of anything. No mention of a digger truck, no mention of running to a digger driver to ask if he saw a toddler. They then search for Ben, jogging down the road in 110 degree heat; after some time they come to the conclusion that Ben must have gone off on the uncles moped, because logic told them so.

..and according to grandmother, Christine Needham, 'it felt so safe' - now where have I heard that before? Kerry Needham doesn't know because she wasn't there, her book is therefore worthless in terms of fact finding - just like madeleine by KATE MCCANN.

Even if logic told them so (later refuted by Eddie Needham I believe), maternal/paternal instinct calls for instant panic, not a casual stroll around the lumpy ground of the idyllic island calling out the name 'Ben' from time to time.

What of the neighbouring elderly lady that has since died (god rest her soul), sitting out in the noon day sweltering sun soaking up the rays - did they ask her if she had seen a little boy, she managed to see Stephen Needham driving off didn't she? Maybe the intelligent tabloid can fill in the gaps.

by JRP 02.11.16 13:31

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:I think Kerry Needham's book answers many of her own questions. Uncle Stephen leaves on his moped, 3 minutes later Ben is nowhere to be seen. The horizon is scanned by the grandmother, and there is no sign of anything. No mention of a digger truck, no mention of running to a digger driver to ask if he saw a toddler. They then search for Ben, jogging down the road in 110 degree heat; after some time they come to the conclusion that Ben must have gone off on the uncles moped, because logic told them so.

..and according to grandmother, Christine Needham, 'it felt so safe' - now where have I heard that before? Kerry Needham doesn't know because she wasn't there, her book is therefore worthless in terms of fact finding - just like madeleine by KATE MCCANN.

Even if logic told them so (later refuted by Eddie Needham I believe), maternal/paternal instinct calls for instant panic, not a casual stroll around the lumpy ground of the idyllic island calling out the name 'Ben' from time to time.

What of the neighbouring elderly lady that has since died (god rest her soul), sitting out in the noon day sweltering sun soaking up the rays - did they ask her if she had seen a little boy, she managed to see Stephen Needham driving off didn't she? Maybe the intelligent tabloid can fill in the gaps.

One thing us Brits are really good at is moaning about the weather. It's too hot, it's too cold... (moan moan moan) But 110 degrees is hotter than your average oven. 70 degrees is a nice day, 80 degrees you feel a bit lethargic, 90 degrees is getting uncomfortable. I've been on holiday in 100 degrees and you really don't want to be out in the glaring sun at all, you'll burn in minutes.
To have a 21 month old toddler with no hat, no mention of sun cream, running around in a t-shirt and sandals, is that safe?
"It felt so safe"! Nope, I don't agree, that doesn't sound safe at all.

But, she probably meant it was safe in the sense that the location was remote and he was with his family.
I've never really thought too deeply about going into the abduction business, but after a brief glance I think remote areas might be a bit sparse of available subjects, all that time hanging around in your camouflage white car... perhaps better sticking to town centres and cities?

by JRP 02.11.16 14:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
JRP wrote:I think Kerry Needham's book answers many of her own questions. Uncle Stephen leaves on his moped, 3 minutes later Ben is nowhere to be seen. The horizon is scanned by the grandmother, and there is no sign of anything. No mention of a digger truck, no mention of running to a digger driver to ask if he saw a toddler. They then search for Ben, jogging down the road in 110 degree heat; after some time they come to the conclusion that Ben must have gone off on the uncles moped, because logic told them so.

Uncle Stephen is gone for 3 hours, and according to Greek police, the bike had suffered recent accident damage.
Uncle Stephen then has a "what if" moment... What if I did take Ben on my Bike? what if he did fall off?

I think most rational people would at this point think to themselves... well that's that then!

But no. It can't be uncle, it must be that digger man who wasn't there. How do we know he wasn't there? It's written in her book!

In Portugal, our police from the famous Scotland Yard want us to look for Smithman, a man so important to the case we have two e-fits for him. Not just one likeness... but two! Two likenesses for one man, which to my eyes are not even alike to each other.

If that doesn't make British police look stupid enough, South Yorkshire Police fly to Koss and dig up half a building, because for some reason they don't seem to want to believe the Greek police findings about the uncle and his moped. And then Kerry wonders why the Greek police are slow to answer their questions...

I do feel sorry for Kerry Needham, she went to work one day and left her child with her family, and never saw him again.

I did watch Richard D Hall's video, (Friday comes earlier each fortnight ) and in a nutshell, he's probably right.
Concise...great post @ JRP

If you're right, then we must accept that dark and powerful forces, aided and abetted by the mass media, are openly lying to us.

If they can do that so openly e.g. in the case of missing Ben Needham, in what other spheres are they deliberately - and successfully - misleading us?

I remember when almost everybody bought a newspaper. Everyone trusted the BBC. There must have been a turning point where the news became a method of serving somebodies agenda. It must be post WW2... I would guess 1960's perhaps? and it took decades for us to notice?

by Verdi 02.11.16 15:50

JRP wrote:But, she probably meant it was safe in the sense that the location was remote and he was with his family.
I've never really thought too deeply about going into the abduction business, but after a brief glance I think remote areas might be a bit sparse of available subjects, all that time hanging around in your camouflage white car... perhaps better sticking to town centres and cities?

Yes, I've no doubt she did mean that - identical to the parents McCann who thought it so safe to leave three very young children alone in the dark in a strange place. Thoughts of abduction must be at the very bottom of the list of lurking dangers for three unsupervised young children.

I've said a million times before, IF a potential abductor is looking for a target, whoever would hang around school gates, a playground or anywhere else where children congregate en-mass. Why go to the bother of watching and waiting for one target when it would be so much easier to snatch any old child off the street; Jon Corner & co implied that Madeleine had 'that special quality' (or words to that effect) that could endanger her - but that's another story.

As regards Ben Needham's disappearance, it looks to me as though there is another pact going on. After all this time, I can't believe that one family member doesn't suspect another - it's flying in the face of human nature to presume otherwise. I still can't comprehend why Kerry Needham is so supportive of her parents and brother, I would be demanding answers if they lost my child. Whatever, the case is getting very messy in exactly the same way as the McCanns when they over exploited their glory days. If you want people to back-off and stop asking awkward questions - best to quietly leave the stage before the encore.

I might watch the television adaptation of Gerald Durrell's 'My Family And Other Animals' - see if I can pick up any clues.

by JRP 02.11.16 20:12

Verdi wrote:
JRP wrote:But, she probably meant it was safe in the sense that the location was remote and he was with his family.
I've never really thought too deeply about going into the abduction business, but after a brief glance I think remote areas might be a bit sparse of available subjects, all that time hanging around in your camouflage white car... perhaps better sticking to town centres and cities?
Yes, I've no doubt she did mean that - identical to the parents McCann who thought it so safe to leave three very young children alone in the dark in a strange place. Thoughts of abduction must be at the very bottom of the list of lurking dangers for three unsupervised young children.

I've said a million times before, IF a potential abductor is looking for a target, whoever would hang around school gates, a playground or anywhere else where children congregate en-mass. Why go to the bother of watching and waiting for one target when it would be so much easier to snatch any old child off the street; Jon Corner & co implied that Madeleine had 'that special quality' (or words to that effect) that could endanger her - but that's another story.

As regards Ben Needham's disappearance, it looks to me as though there is another pact going on. After all this time, I can't believe that one family member doesn't suspect another - it's flying in the face of human nature to presume otherwise. I still can't comprehend why Kerry Needham is so supportive of her parents and brother, I would be demanding answers if they lost my child. Whatever, the case is getting very messy in exactly the same way as the McCanns when they over exploited their glory days. If you want people to back-off and stop asking awkward questions - best to quietly leave the stage before the encore.

I might watch the television adaptation of Gerald Durrell's 'My Family And Other Animals' - see if I can pick up any clues.

Even two 10 year olds worked out the value of crowded places. When Robert Thompson and Jon Venables lifted James Bulger from a busy shopping centre, the cctv from the day shows how easily, smoothly and quickly it was done.
He went with them very quietly, and nobody even noticed.
No need for casing holiday apartments, no need for a dry run, just an opportunistic snatch.

by batmann 09.11.16 22:28

Ben Needham - Extracts from the book - Page 2 Blood%20spot%20collection-500x500

Would you say this is a cardboard frame? this test is specifically to highlight vitimin D deficiency: http://newlifehealthcare.co.uk/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=60

by Verdi 10.11.16 15:52

batmann wrote:
Would you say this is a cardboard frame? this test is specifically to highlight vitimin D deficiency

To that question I would say a definite NO! Any more than I would say a neonatal heel prick test (otherwise known as a Guthrie Card) can be even remotely considered to be a 'blood spot in a cardboard frame'.

Ben Needham - Extracts from the book - Page 2 488560e-i1.0

Ben Needham - Extracts from the book - Page 2 488560e-i1.0

Sample Guthrie Card for illustration

We are talking here of an investigation into a very serious crime, that of a missing three year old child - I would at the very least expect information contained in police files to be accurate. Why not document the forensic sample as a neonatal heel prick test or a Guthrie Card or even a blood sample obtained from the NHS - anything to give it credence.

Snipped from John Lowes forensic report..

FSS-GF-679 Emissao 2, Pagina 2

At the same time, reference samples from those Portuguese police officers who had been active in the crime scene were delivered.

The Forensic Science Service(R) received the [above] objects on 7 August 2007, in sealed, secure packages.

On 8 August 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a piece of cloth/cotton wool (object MJN994) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.

Objective

Th objective of the laboratory examination was to examine the presented objects with respect to the presence of blood, cellular material and hair that may prove to be [have been] from Madeleine McCann or one or other member of her family, or from any of the Portuguese police who had been active [working/present] at the crime scene.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

Reverting to Kerry Needham, it took forever to obtain Ben's Guthrie Card for the police investigation through a High Court - why should the legal process be any different for the McCanns? Besides, I'm convinced it would have been reported in the press or some other source close to the McCann family had they applied through the courts for the release of a Guthrie Card for Madeleine - if indeed she had one.

by batmann 10.11.16 20:46

The test I exampled is available to purchase online from a Ltd company, it costs £28.00, the product is sent to your home, if you do not send it back to the company to analyse, it stays with the purchaser - perhaps in a drawer forgotten.. Ultimately, the packaging which folds to 'frame' the bloodspots belongs to the purchaser, to do with as they wish.

by Verdi 10.11.16 22:52

batmann wrote:The test I exampled is available to purchase online from a Ltd company, it costs £28.00, the product is sent to your home, if you do not send it back to the company to analyse, it stays with the purchaser - perhaps in a drawer forgotten.. Ultimately, the packaging which folds to 'frame' the bloodspots belongs to the purchaser, to do with as they wish.

Sorry I misunderstood your point. Not sure why you're taking this to a new level - you're off on a tangent so please excuse if I don't further comment.

by batmann 10.11.16 23:13

Verdi - I apolgise if my post wnt off willy nilly; i'm trying to understand - 'if its not a Guthrie test, then what is it' which is a viable and good question. I don't believe it was a Guthrie card, otherwise they would state the 'officialdom' of it, I believe it was a sample contrived by the mcs, from where - goodness knows! Gmc has knowledge and contacts, private companies do blood tests all the time and don't have to report them to health authorities or Gov.
Just sayin... smilie

by Verdi 11.11.16 0:48

batmann wrote:Verdi - I apolgise if my post wnt off willy nilly; i'm trying to understand - 'if its not a Guthrie test, then what is it' which is a viable and good question. I don't believe it was a Guthrie card, otherwise they would state the 'officialdom' of it, I believe it was a sample contrived by the mcs, from where - goodness knows! Gmc has knowledge and contacts, private companies do blood tests all the time and don't have to report them to health authorities or Gov.
Just sayin...

OK point taken - at least we seem to be on the same page thumbsup

.