Re: Chez Dannz

by Verdi 26.02.19 12:02

HKP wrote:It may very well be 'old ground' but a new and different set of eyes could very well spot something that has not been noted before (they might come up with a theory, alternative or otherwise which turns out to be correct, we won't know unless we let them 'bring it to the table'). New 'blood' and new ideas are welcome in my book otherwise we'd be just as well shutting up shop saying we've solved the case (not that it is ours to solve).

I've seen this suggested over and over again. Of course new ideas are welcome but new ideas are worthless without evidence to support them - this is where the point dramatically falls. After nearly twelve years, you don't truly believe that missing piece of the proverbial jigsaw is to be found in baseless theorizing - do you?

With respect, you've been a member here for nigh on four years this time around, with a grand total of 159 posts. Not an issue in itself, there is no stipulation as to the number of posts made by any member, however your contribution is too frequently in support of poorly researched theorizing and if I might say, criticism about the forum and members.

This kind of approach is not helpful. OK if members have something positive to contribute but talk for talk sake leads nowhere.

Strikes me you don't value the forum very highly which makes me wonder why you are a member here.

by Phoebe 26.02.19 12:24

Martin Smith's formal statement identifying Gerry McCann as the man he had seen must be viewed with cognisance of the implications of such a claim.
In stating that that he was up to 80% sure the man was Gerry, and that his wife concurred with him, Smith was, in effect, calling Gerry McCann a liar. Gerry claimed - A) he had no idea what had become of his daughter and - B) that he was at the Tapas table at the time of the Smith sighting. Martin Smith's statement poses a serious question over the McCanns' veracity.
Such a move must have been very difficult for the Smiths. Therefore it is not surprising that Smith did not rush forward but, in his own words, only volunteered this information after much anguish and anxiety. We know that the Smiths were interviewed by the Irish Gardai (although these were not rogatory interviews). We know that Tadhg Smith described the man's jacket and that Mary Smith did not wish to give ANOTHER statement in response to the P.J. letter re. the indentification of Gerry as Smithman.
I can understand why the Smiths were reluctant to involve any more of their family than necessary, especially children and a new mother. The P.J. letter requests that any other family members who agreed that it was Gerry that had seen should be asked to make formal statements to that effect. I can readily understand any reluctance to assert that a "grieving victim" such as Gerry was a liar unless they could be 100% certain of their facts, especially if some witnesses were children.
Martin Smith was, after much deliberation, prepared to stick his neck out. Since then he has been the witness most vilified by those who brand him a liar. By not having others also stick their heads above the parapet the rest of his family has, thankfully, been less targeted for abuse.

by Dannz 26.02.19 12:49

The scenario Tony Bennett depicts is indeed unlikely. However that is not the PJ hypothesis. Amaral took the view that Madeleine had an accident at the time Gerry was talking with Wilkins i.e. approx. 9pm. There is no prior discussion among friends or any pretence that all is well. Instead there is a rapid decision to conceal the death by a crude simulation of an abduction.

A GP could very rapidly establish Madeleine was beyond resuscitation. Paedophile anxiety had recently been discussed by Kate on this holiday. As a GP Kate would know child protection issues, including manslaughter by gross negligence. It is also possible they were unlawfully medicating Madeleine for ADHD using a class B controlled drug such as Ritalin.

To find her behind the sofa, decide she is dead and decide to conceal this - that would take little time. Clean the little blood from the floor and push the sofa against the wall (if death was near immediate there would be minimal bleeding) would also take little time. She might even have been washed and changed. Then put her in the tennis bag, and remove her. They are doctors, trained to set aside emotions in dealing with life/death emergency issues. Gerry conceals the body while Kate cleans the floor then goes to raise initial alert at about 9:55. The only evidence Gerry was there at that time is from the Tapas 9.

Is it unlikely that the Tapas 9 lied and followed a story fabricated the following day? (Possibly under the direction of Alex Woolfall and MI5).

The fake abduction was so crude and inept that it argues for this to have had little thought given to it. i.e. spur of the moment, not hours in advance. This also doesn’t require one to suppose concealment of anguish/grief until night of 3 May. Occam’s Razor points to death while the McCanns were out on the night of 3 May.

This shouldn’t be ruled out. False certainty that death was before 3 May would not help.

by Dannz 26.02.19 13:08

A. The presence of the Director (and his deputy) of a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company - the PR company, Resonate - in Praia da Luz during the days before the alarm was raised

The relevant facts are these. Immediately following the reported disappearance of Madeleine, the holiday company who arranged the holiday, Mark Warner, brought their PR company, Bell Pottinger, to Praia da Luz. Its Head of Risk, Alex Woolfall flew there the very next day (4 May) and he was later joined by another top Director of the company. But it later emerged that the Director and his deputy from a Bell Pottinger subsidiary company, Resonate, had flown out to help Mark Warner just days before, possibly on Monday 30 April. No satisfactory explanation for this has ever been provided. Were they sent ahead of Bell Pottinger as a kind of advance party because something serious had already happened to Madeleine? (The McCanns incidentally paid the amazing sum of £500,000 to Bell Pottinger to keep Madeleine’s name on the front pages of Britain’s newspapers for a year. That money appears to have come from donations made by the general public.

This is a misreading of the source. The item in PR Week says that Resonate were brought in by Mark Warner. link That means engaged by MW (with head office in London), not brought over to Portugal.

This unattributed story of 9 May 2007 was likely planted so as to give cover for Alex Woolfall, supporting the notion he was working for MW rather than HMG/MI5. I doubt MW did engage Resonate at that time and also doubt they paid Woolfall’s high fees. Woolfall certainly doesn’t appear to be concerned about MWs reputation as one might expect if that story is to be believed.

In any event, this is not evidence of death before 3 May. It is also consistent with death on 3 May and a story planted to give Woolfall cover.

by Dannz 26.02.19 13:12

Why suppose the twins would have to be moved? They were in their bedroom. Madeleine’s body was in the living room.

A dose of sedative seems to have been given to them. That would also fit - No? That would take long for one of the parents.

by Rachel007 26.02.19 13:22

Hello Dannz

You said in another thread that you have watched Richard Halls video about statement analysis (Peter Hyatt)
May I recommend you to see his other films about Madeleine, they are very informative. Especially one called ’When Madeleine died’... I think you will find it very interesting!

by Guest 26.02.19 13:29

Verdi wrote:
HKP wrote:It may very well be 'old ground' but a new and different set of eyes could very well spot something that has not been noted before (they might come up with a theory, alternative or otherwise which turns out to be correct, we won't know unless we let them 'bring it to the table'). New 'blood' and new ideas are welcome in my book otherwise we'd be just as well shutting up shop saying we've solved the case (not that it is ours to solve).

I've seen this suggested over and over again. Of course new ideas are welcome but new ideas are worthless without evidence to support them - this is where the point dramatically falls. After nearly twelve years, you don't truly believe that missing piece of the proverbial jigsaw is to be found in baseless theorizing - do you?

With respect, you've been a member here for nigh on four years this time around, with a grand total of 159 posts. Not an issue in itself, there is no stipulation as to the number of posts made by any member, however your contribution is too frequently in support of poorly researched theorizing and if I might say, criticism about the forum and members.

This kind of approach is not helpful. OK if members have something positive to contribute but talk for talk sake leads nowhere.

Strikes me you don't value the forum very highly which makes me wonder why you are a member here.

Can I politely ask what evidence you expect a new member to produce for their 'theory' when most of the threads on here are full of non evidence based theorising. The actual evidence that we have available is within the released files any other 'evidence' is not evidence but a theory or interpretation. When someone (who was there at the time) says they saw for example Maddie unless you can go back and get them to admit they could be wrong then the evidence stands. To my knowledge we've not had any independent witness reversals although I may be (and quite often are) wrong (MSM articles are not evidence).

I didn't quite realise that being a member meant that you needed to post 246 posts a month, that is quite new to me and I don't support poorly researched theorizing I look to see if the theorizing can fit with what we have from the PJ Files (which leaves plenty scope).

I also responded to a statement basically saying we're going over the same old ground so there's no point, unless there are new developments in the case yes we will probably be going over old ground however you quite often get most value from a question or response from some someone who is not entrenched / absorbed in the case as the established members. At this rate you'll end up only discussing with a small pool of like minded people for example of the 205 respondents to the latest Smithman poll 101 think the Smiths saw Gerry McCann, yet (on another thread a member is almost mocked for suggesting it).

Strikes me that I value others opinions as well as the forum, it's here to debate / research / analyse etc. and come up with possible theories to what happened to Madeleine McCann, however with your over 11,800 posts it's not I who is here for 'talk for talk sake' as you politely put it.

by Verdi 26.02.19 14:40

The PJ files weren't released into the public domain until July 2008, considering the Portuguese secrecy laws in place at the time, Martin Smith nor his family would have had any knowledge of what the McCanns or their friends had said. The only availability of information was by way of the UK media which, as the majority know, is inaccurate and sometimes downright false.

Unless of course someone told them - in which case you need to wonder who and why!

That aside, when it comes down to a missing three year old child, there is no room for sentimentality. There is no excuse for witholding or delaying information you have that could be vital to the police investigation.

by Verdi 26.02.19 14:53

HKP wrote:Strikes me that I value others opinions as well as the forum, it's here to debate / research / analyse etc. and come up with possible theories to what happened to Madeleine McCann, however with your over 11,800 posts it's not I who is here for 'talk for talk sake' as you politely put it.

Agreed

it does appear rather excessive doesn't it.

Just goes to show how hard I strive to help keep the forum afloat, in good order and free of time wasters.

Onwards and upwards....

grouphug

by Dannz 26.02.19 15:01

Hi Rachel007

Thanks for that! I have watched Hall’s other McCann videos including ‘When Madeleine Died’. I do of course see it is possible that she might have died earlier. I certainly see reasons to suspect that given obfuscation, contradictions and lack of any clear independent sighting after 29 April. However that was not investigated so such evidence was not sought, hence absence of such evidence. This could also be evidence of MI5 creating disinformation and confusion to misdirect from what happened on 3 May.

Nothing I have seen conclusively shows Madeleine could not have died on the night of 3 May per Amaral’s theory. I don’t think this should be ruled out as an avenue to explore. Likewise I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that she died earlier.

IMO a hastily faked abduction on the night of M’s death is more plausible (with death approx 9pm). If they had any more time, they would surely have done a much much better job of it which wouldn’t have aroused as much suspicion.

Keep in mind that a key reason for starting to suppose an earlier date is the photographs supplied by the McCanns with assistance from Woolfall. This might have been to hide that M was not with them after 29 April. Alternatively it might have been to give a false impression that was so. Anyone suspecting and looking into this (as here) might then be sent chasing wild geese and red herrings. That is all part of a 360 degree cover up. Suspect crèche records, inconsistencies in stories given by Tapas 9 of events prior to 3 May etc. should be treated with caution. Likewise is there any independent evidence confirming that the McCanns had breakfast and lunch in their apartment? (Other than from the Tapas 9).

The evidence pointing to an earlier date is not conclusive because it is also consistent with 3 May and a 360 degree cover up. Hence one should examine death on 3 May as a possibility.

Some of the reasons arguing against the Amaral theory are flawed or unsound (as I have just posted - Resonate directors flying to PdL the week before; that twins would have to have been moved).

On top of that the principle of parsimony and Occam’s Razor favours death on 3 May and 360 degree cover up over death earlier and a much more elaborate and complex deception which was poorly planned.

So far the strongest evidence that M’s death couldn’t have been on night of 3 May is witness statements by Tapas 9 that Gerry was present when Kate raised the alarm. These are suspect and appear coached, probably with Woolfall’s assistance given when this troubleshooter arrived the next day to sort the mess out.

by Verdi 26.02.19 15:10

Better still, start by getting the basic facts right by reading the PJ files before embarking on speculative theorizing.

Serious flaws in this direction I've picked up in the past couple of days.

Then and only then, branch out slowly but surely by exploring the many avenues researched and anlalysed by CMoMM members and other dedicated observers, before diving straight in the deep end without a good thorough knowledge of the reasoning behind the conclusions reached. Otherwise all this jumbled extensive speculative commentary amounts to little or nothing.

And please be mindful of keeping on topic.

by Dannz 26.02.19 15:25

Verdi, would you kindly pin point what to you seems far-fetched. Is it

death of M at approx 9pm on 3 May?
That the abduction might have been very hastily faked?
That Smithman might have been GM with the very recently deceased body of MM?
That GM might have carried the body to the church?
That McCanns might have been blackmailing HMG?
That what was held to ransom by them may have been legitimate state secrets rather than e.g. paedophile VIPs?
That HMG caved in and assisted in cover up and protection of the McCanns?

The polls I have seen indicate 40-50% believe M died on 3 May. So far there is no conclusive evidence to rule that out. Good practice in intelligence analysis is to explore all scenarios taking into account possibilities for deception. I hope you won’t think I am seeking to derail or be unhelpful to the aims of the forum.

by Phoebe 26.02.19 16:45

Even as early May 4th 2007 the world and its wife knew the alleged circumstances re. Madeleine's disappearance ie. she was "abducted" from her bedroom while her parents were dining in the Tapas bar. Her mother allegedly discovered her missing when she went to check on the children around 10pm then rushed back to the table to alert all the others.
Alleging that Gerry McCann was seen elsewhere at around 10 p.m. was not a step to be lightly taken. The McCanns had the support of the U.K government, right up to the prime minister, they had been given Tony Blair's "media man" to speak on their behalf, the "great and good" of society were supporting them and promoting their plight, even the P.J. had to tread on eggshells when dealing with them. I see common sense and self-protection in the Smiths behaviour, not sentimentality.

by Dannz 26.02.19 18:23

*Verdi wrote:Better still, start by getting the basic facts right by reading the PJ files before embarking on speculative theorizing.

Serious flaws in this direction I've picked up in the past couple of days.

Then and only then, branch out slowly but surely by exploring the many avenues researched and anlalysed by CMoMM members and other dedicated observers, before diving straight in the deep end without a good thorough knowledge of the reasoning behind the conclusions reached. Otherwise all this jumbled extensive speculative commentary amounts to little or nothing.

And please be mindful of keeping on topic.

Verdi - although incomplete, I assume this is addressed to me. If so, could I ask you to clarify the serious flaws and basic errors of fact and what you mean by ‘speculative theorising’.

I wonder if perhaps my suggestion that ‘evidence’ that MM died on 29 April might be part of a 360 degree cover up is too much at odds with the pro 29 April position. As Head of Issues and Crisis Management for the Bell Pottinger Group, you can be sure that Woolfall is an extremely capable operator. It is simply naive to discount the possibility of a classic ‘poisoning the well’ tactic - one to lead the unwary doubter into grand conspiracy theories which even involve the participation of the crèche workers! It is easy to discredit such stuff as the wild imaginings of the tin foil hat brigade.

Or does the ‘speculative theorising’ perhaps concern my reference to the principle of parsimony?

Meanwhile there are many serious flaws in reaching the conclusion that M died on 29 April. e.g. misreading of the PR Week report of 9 May. A moderator may post that at 21:55 on 3 May there were sirens and helicopters overhead with a full scale search although, as shown in the PJ files, the police were not called until 22:41 -however that pro 29 April view does not seem to be treated as seriously flawed and they are not corrected by you on such very very basic errors of fact and told to read the PJ Files etc.

As far as I am aware, the only basic error of fact I have made was referring to Ms Aoife Smith as Mrs Smith - a basic error, but not in any way a material error. It seems a bit hairsplitting and biased to characterise that as a serious flaw while disregarding errors such as the time the police were called, the misreading of PR Week etc.

If you detect serious flaws or basic errors of fact in my posts on this topic, please specify them. That makes for productive and constructive discussion. If I have misunderstood and the purpose of this forum is promote the 29 April theory, please make that clear.

Meanwhile given the clear conviction you seem to hold on this 29 April theory, would you or someone - anyone - please answer the serious difficulty I have raised about this : why was the faked abduction so inept and blatantly suspicious if they had any time to plan it and this wasn’t done on the spur of the moment?

(Or is that ‘diving straight into the deep end’ and out of bounds until I understand the reasoning for this?)

by Dannz 26.02.19 18:43

In terms of this recognition, it may be relevant that studies show people can identify individuals from their gait. However this is not entirely reliable. Error rates where there is confidence in the identification can be 1 in 6 to 1 in 3.

It is very possible that Martin Smith might have felt misgivings through not being aware that he was recognising Gerry McCann’s gait while carrying a child like this.

For anyone interested, this paper reviews forensic gait analysis:
link

by skyrocket 26.02.19 20:34

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – let’s not forget that the ‘doctored’ crèche records were handed to the PJ on the 4 May (Woolfall et al started to arrive late afternoon 4 May).

by Dannz 26.02.19 20:42

What reason is there why the McCanns shouldn’t be prosecuted in the U.K. for gross negligence manslaughter?

A body isn’t needed, and there may be sufficient evidence already.

Madeleine McCann has been missing for over 12 years. Given cadaver dog results there is every reason to presume she is dead. Presumption of death may be made after 7 years.

There appears to have been gross negligence in leaving her unattended as she was - she might have had an accident or even been abducted (!)

The parents negligence may be alleged as causing the (yet to be declared) presumed death in the sense that it more than minimally, negligibly or trivially contributed to that death - whether by Madeleine having an accident which they or another concealed or else at the hands of the purported abductor(s) or other evil persons she was passed on to by the abductor(s). The McCanns exposed Madeleine to that danger. But for their negligence she would not have died.

If there was a declaration of death as now required under the 2013 Act (which came into force shortly before the 7 year common law period would have applied to Madeleine), then there would be grounds for prosecuting the McCanns for gross negligence manslaughter. This is an offence in English law even though this occurred overseas (the offence is extra territorial- it has overseas applicability).

The only obstacle is the 2013 Act. The Crown can of course make that application for the court declaration.

Perhaps rather than pushing for a rigged investigation, it might be more productive to press for prosecution of the McCanns for gross negligence manslaughter. It is harder for the government to wriggle out of and the degree of political protection would become more evident. It would hopefully result in getting justice for Madeleine.

In the meantime it might also raise awareness that the McCanns are not such wonderful people and draw attention to the duty of care owed to children.

by **Jill Havern** 26.02.19 20:54

Here's the link in full (so people can see what they're going to click on)

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

by **PeterMac** 26.02.19 20:57

Short answer - -
Because there is no evidence.
Lots of supposition, lots of deduction, lots of theories, but no evidence which would prove beyond a reasonable doubt what happened. And without evidence which would convict even in the teeth of the best defence money could buy, the Prosecution Service wouldn't touch it.

You imply that you accept the McCanns' time line, but want to bolt a Negligent manslaughter onto it.
The McCanns' timeline and version of events do not stand up even to cursory examination.
That has been the overriding problem from Friday 4th May 2007.
If there is no chance of prosecuting using their version, there is even less using anyone else's.

England has an (alleged) Fraud
Portugal has an (alleged) concealment of death, hiding body, fail to report, preventing lawful burial, conspiracy to Pervert the course of Justice and other ancillary stuff.

and that is about it.

by Dannz 26.02.19 20:58

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] – let’s not forget that the ‘doctored’ crèche records were handed to the PJ on the 4 May (Woolfall et al started to arrive late afternoon 4 May).

Under the 29 April theory these have to have been doctored - with Kate getting her signatures muddled on this fabrication. (Bit careless for a forger). What is the evidence she only used Kate Healy at this time? Her book!

I don’t think these were forged. Just normal messy imperfect record sheets. The photographs are the key ‘evidence’ alerting to something possibly suspicious.

by Dannz 26.02.19 21:26

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

No I don’t accept the McCanns timeline. That is irrelevant to this.

In terms of evidence, it is not necessary to prove exactly what happened.

What needs to be proved is duty of care and breach of that duty. Also have to prove gross negligence (leaving child unsupervised like this, especially when know to get out of bed etc.). Then have to prove that this negligence caused the death (More than minimally or trivially contributed to it).

Proof of death might be by virtue of declaration obtained under the 2013 Act - see s.3(2):

3 Effect of declaration

(1) A declaration under this Act is conclusive of—

(a) the missing person’s presumed death, and

(b) the date and time of the death.

(2) A declaration under this Act is effective against all persons and for all purposes

I find it surprising that it is effective for all purposes, but that is what the Act states.

by **sharonl** 26.02.19 21:27

Either Madeleine died in the apartment or she was abducted whilst the parents were out, we can't have it both ways.

Its suit the McCanns to claim that Madeleine was abducted, hence the necessity to also claim that they were out at the time.

With a member of the group being away from the table each night it quite possible that the investigators were quite right to ask whether all the children were being cared for in one apartment.

The neglect claim was most likely invented to add credibility to abduction claim, in other words, a great big red herring.

by Dannz 26.02.19 21:38

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] For GNM That is not the issue. There are two key questions here:

1) Was there gross negligence in the conduct of the McCanns in childcare?
2) Did that negligence contribute to Madeleine’s death?

We can’t necessarily prove exactly what happened to cause her death, but whatever it was, it wouldn’t have happened had the parents not been negligent in leaving her unattended. (I don’t think they would want to argue that Madeleine died when attended by them!). It isn’t necessary to show exactly what happened, just that her presumed death would not have happened but for their negligence.

Example: a small child is accidentally left behind in a rowing boat by her parents who also forget to secure the boat. The boat is carried away and the boat and child are never seen again. One can not prove if the child died of drowning, hypothermia, thirst, shark attack etc. What one can prove is that the parents negligence leaving the child caused the presumed death. That is sufficient.

by Verdi 26.02.19 22:49

First and foremost, Portugal hold primacy over this case. The UK police are in no position to prosecute aside from a possible case against the Madeleine fund.

Secondly, there is no proof nor even evidence to suggest a case of negligence, endangering life, manslaughter by abandonment.

The only 'evidence', for want of a better word, is the word of the McCanns and their group of friends, which quite frankly leaves a lot to be desired.

In short, there is nothing to suggest let alone prove, that any of the children from the group were left alone on any evening or night during the holiday week.

Neglect = Abduction. No Neglect = No Abduction. It really is that simple.

Enough of this diversionary tomfoolery!

by Verdi 26.02.19 22:59

In order to avoid confusion across the board and to maintain forum continuity, I am creating a special space for new member Dannz to continue theorizing ad-lib and unrestrained.

I will move all Dannz's posts and the replies here in due course. Please be patient and bear with me during the process - time is of the essence.