50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Are these the same people who steal your posts Tony so that they can poke proverbial sticks at you?

Jayelles wrote: I'm not as knowledgeable about the forums

kangdang wrote:Jaycelles needs to read up on intellectual property and the internet...

Phantasia wrote:Please forgive me (I am a lowly n00b, and haven't yet been able to read everything in here...lol) if this has been posted before:

A couple of the strangest things in the 'abduction', in my opinion, were right at the beginning.

1) Why did Kate say "They've taken Madeleine" ??? Surely anyone would say 'Madeline's gone'....or 'I can't find Madeline'. What did she mean by they?
Rather as though they had hatched this plan earlier...

Phantasia, to get back on topic after the interruption by Jayelles, this quote of Kate McCann's is unsubstantiated. There is no clear evidence that she actually said this - and many of us think she did not. If you have time to look at all the contradictions between the statements made by various members of the 'Tapas 9' group (some in the '50 Facts' leaflet and others discussed elsewhere here), you'll rapidly see that whole chunks of what this group say about what happened on the day Madeleine disappeared simply cannot be regarded as true.

2) Why did we hear no more about the woman in the next villa, who said that she heard Madeeline crying for her 'Mummy' and that Madeline had wandered off and hidden at other bed-times, and Kate had screamed and shouted at the child.

I'll be brief.

The woman was Mrs Pamela Fenn, aged I think 82 at the time, who occupied a flat above the McCanns' apartment, G5A. She said she heard a girl crying 'Daddy, Daddy' (not 'Mummy') for 75 minutes continually between 10.30pm and 11.45pm. She said that the crying stopped when she heard a door open and close. She recalls this happening on the evening of Tuesday 1 May, twOdays before the day Madeleine was reported missing. The disappearance of Madeleine is a massive subject. All I will say here is that it is not by any means certain that the child heard crying was Madeleine, nor is it certain that the child was crying 'Daddy, Daddy', I don't want to open up too many conundrums at once so will leave that there.

I am not sure if it was Mrs Fenn or another witness who said that Madeleine had been seen wandering off from her parents one evening and hiding in the bushes. Indeed, I am not absolutely sure whether that story was ever confirmed. Perhaps someone esle on this forum can help?

Nor am I sure, I'm afraid, if it was Mrs Fenn who heard Madeleine (or another child) screaming on another occasion.

As you may know, the McCanns themselves said that on the morning of the day she was later reported missing, Madeleine is supposed to have said that she and Sean were crying the previous night when her parents were not there. Dr Kate McCann later claimed that it was merely 'a passing remark' and said Madeleine laughed it off and went off happily and playing after making that remark. There is doubt about this account too.

3) There were road-works a few yards from the villas...were they ever uncovered?

I think there is a note on the police files to say that all these road works were checked the morning after Madeleine was reported misisng. The McCanns themselves have repeatedly insisted most adamantly that they knew 'instantly' that Madeleine had been abducted - and they totally ruled out Madeleine wandering off, as they said she would not have had the strength to open either door to the apartment.

Please, if you, or anyone else here has some basic questions about this very complex case, do not hesitate to ask, we'll do our best to help answer them

Phantasia wrote:Thank you for the reply. I know that there were many discrepancies in what people were reported as having said, at the time I avidly read Gerry's online diary...and copied a load from it, and from other sources (like statements from the mother of Kate for example), to keep, as I had a feeling it would all be taken away at some point...I then bought a new pc and neglected to copy lots of my 'saved' files over, so I have lost all the strange things I noted back at the time. I was very pleased to find this site, although it was Jo Yeates I was searching google for, so the Madeline discussion is a bonus!

theolivebranch wrote:Is it the intention that this excellent collation of facts is to be printed in hard copy and distributed. If it is I would like to contribute to the printing costs.

Tony Bennett wrote:

theolivebranch wrote:Is it the intention that this excellent collation of facts is to be printed in hard copy and distributed. If it is I would like to contribute to the printing costs.

The Madeleine McCann Research Group has taken soundings and overall there is strong support for publishing this document as an A4 leaflet.

Although I understand no final decisions have been taken, a 4-page A4 leaflet could be produced for around 3p. a copy (£3 per 100), depending on the quantity.

One of the group will make an announcement about this in the next 4 weeks at the most.

It is felt that, unlike e.g. Goncalo Amaral's thesis 'The Truth About A Lie' and our '60 Reasons', there is zero risk of any libel action or injunction or other action etc. to try to halt publication of 'Fifty Facts' - as they are self-evidently a series of facts, rather than comment. People can form their own judgments about these 50 facts.

In passing, it is interesting to note that the best that the McCann-believer side of the debate can offer in answer to 'Fifty Facts' is to claim that they are 'tired old speculative newspaper stories'.

Classic wishful thinking on their part!

In fact, the quotes are directly from the mouths of the McCanns, their 'Tapas 9' mates, and their highly-paid professional advisers.

Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

listener wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absence of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.

listener wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absense of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.
I pushed a friend of mine on the subject and got 'stone-walled'. He has now retired but was the Editor of a quite well circulated paper and also chaired the PCC (Press Complaints Commision).
Most odd indeed

Judge Mental wrote:

listener wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Strange that no journalist has put them all together before?

I find the total absense of any kind of investgative journalism by the UK press in this case most odd.
I suspect they are heavily gagged.
I pushed a friend of mine on the subject and got 'stone-walled'. He has now retired but was the Editor of a quite well circulated paper and also chaired the PCC (Press Complaints Commision).
Most odd indeed

It rather looks as if 'the press' will be out of a job much sooner than they currently anticipate, should they not pull up their socks and withdraw their labour from the unscrupulous newspaper owners and start their own newspapers. (Only to become as power hungry as their forebears, no doubt.)

The fact is, that we do not have a free press, and the handful of propaganda merchants who currently own the media are too busy using the money they make off the backs of a gullible public, to feather their nests and fund new Government legislation with which to make their nests yet more feathery. This money further lines their pockets in all other areas of their '''business'' lives, and it is the public who help to pay for all this. The Murdochs of the world must have noticed that the smart people read the news directly from the internet these days. This is because the smart people know that the quickest way to find out any details concerning current news stories, is to visit social net-working sites. This is where we find the citizens, families, friends and neighbours who are close to a story. People who are already on the spot, and with their ear to the ground.

So, what do we do when we find out that we have not been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? What does it matter if lives are ruined because of conjecture, lies and fabrications? The press have never told the truth in its entirety and nor can the veracity of their sources always be accounted for. So what is the difference between internet investigative journalism and the sort of ''investigative journalism'' we have seen in the McCann case? Very little from one's own observations. Very little indeed.

Not one journalist has taken Assange's lead, or come out of the closet with their own blog to say that they have read the police files, and wish to defend Amaral and the millions of people on the continent who are outraged that the UK authorities are allowing this case to drag on day after day and year after year. A three years old child is alleged to have been stolen from her bed and not been found. The parents and their friends will not answer questions. British police officers have stated far more hurtful and unhelpful things than have ever been stated by any posters on the internet, and yet the parents have said nothing about this, yet proceed to hound Amaral.

Simon Hare had some of the most perfect opportunities to speak to people who have studied the case since Madeleine disappeared and could have shown him the most important areas of the case, which motivates them to campaign for justice for Madeleine. Yet he went on to make a quite disgraceful programme, which was about as informative to the public as Carter Ruck's Trafigura injunction!

listener wrote:I bow to your literary abilities m-lud.

As we are now posting about Murdoch, Press and general ‘sheparding’ – may I post this video? Please remove/move if inappropriate.

His last four words seem most relevent/appropriate in this case!