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

by Judge Mental 02.01.11 16:27

listener wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:

Who's the Daddy now?

Rupert?

Now where have we seen somebody reading about going on a bear hunt?

Was it Kate McCann's reading material, allegedly for Madeleine? A book which thankfully was not torn up for one of their timelines? thinking

by Sopheira_Charosi 20.01.11 13:51

Very interesting 50 facts.

Obrigada.

by Guest 20.01.11 13:53

Sopheira_Charosi wrote:Very interesting 50 facts.

Obrigada.

50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you - Page 3 145395

to the forum Sopheira. 50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you - Page 3 260239

by butterfly23 01.10.12 22:41

should be a way of getting this list of facts into media- but , as it seems anyone who says anything that upsets the mccanns story gets sued...i imagine no papers would dare try to publish it !!! however- i do think if the mccanns claim their version of events was true...they would be glad to have this published so they could explain each & every one of them...thus dispelling all us doubters...!!! surely they would appreciate this chance to have the story back on the front page...??? would they not like to explain away the issues that are causing more and more people to wonder what the true story is & what really happened to their daughter !!!!?

by ChuckieD 02.10.12 13:51

40. Asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted, Dr Gerald McCann said: ‘It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.

This actually made me feel physically sick. I did not know he'd said this. Vile human beings.

by Amber 03.03.17 17:15

A brilliant piece of research !

In an interview, when Gerry McCann was accused of killing his child he responded with "find the body and prove we killed her."

"WE ?" Surely it should be "I?"

by JohnyT 03.03.17 18:39

Any links to that interview please as I would like to read it.
Thanks
johnyT

by Guest 03.03.17 19:44

This is a transcript from the interview with Ian Woods at Sky News

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.

by JohnyT 03.03.17 20:16

Thanks but I meant the comment that Amber put. I would like to read that transcript/interview.
JohnyT

by sandancer 03.03.17 21:51

melisande wrote:This is a transcript from the interview with Ian Woods at Sky News

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.

"To put support mechanisms in place including our legal team "

Why at this early stage was a legal team required ??

"The response with the fund ......And once these were in place it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on ."

He fails to tell us what they really needed to focus on ?

Surely that focus should have been on one thing , finding their daughter ?

Are a legal team and a fund necessary to gain focus ?

by Alba1 19.05.17 19:58

In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?

by **Jill Havern** 19.05.17 21:31

Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?

Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-jim-gamble-sanitize-gerry-mccanns.html

by **Tony Bennett** 19.05.17 21:33

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?
Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-jim-gamble-sanitize-gerry-mccanns.html

A CATS (Registration of Child Abuse: Case Administration and Tracking System) file, numbered 19309, was found when background checks of the McCanns were made. It has never been made public on what precise date that file was opened, and why.

Operation Task was the operation set up by Leicestershire Police to deal with the UK arm of the Madeleine McCann investigation back in May 2007. It is said that to complement Operation Task, a Case Administration and Tracking System (CATS) file was set up, “in case any investigation by Childrens or Social Services was needed”.

It is said by some that the file on the McCanns, CATS 19309, once contained material which has since been removed.
AFAIK there is no evidence that this is the case, but then again there is no absolute proof that this didn’t happen.

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

by Guest 19.05.17 21:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

You would hope the Gasper statements triggered some kind of action since?

I'm sure they followed it up?

Surely?

by Verdi 19.05.17 23:50

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.
You would hope the Gasper statements triggered some kind of action since?

I'm sure they followed it up?

Surely?

Substitute followed with covered.

by Alba1 20.05.17 0:24

Thanks for the links Get'emGonçalo

by Loving Mom 29.05.17 14:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?
Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-jim-gamble-sanitize-gerry-mccanns.html

A CATS (Registration of Child Abuse: Case Administration and Tracking System) file, numbered 19309, was found when background checks of the McCanns were made. It has never been made public on what precise date that file was opened, and why.

Operation Task was the operation set up by Leicestershire Police to deal with the UK arm of the Madeleine McCann investigation back in May 2007. It is said that to complement Operation Task, a Case Administration and Tracking System (CATS) file was set up, “in case any investigation by Childrens or Social Services was needed”.

It is said by some that the file on the McCanns, CATS 19309, once contained material which has since been removed.
AFAIK there is no evidence that this is the case, but then again there is no absolute proof that this didn’t happen.

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

Wondering if CATS changed names, nothing is coming up when I google CATS. It has probably been checked but I was wanted to see if it is possible to get some idea of when other nearby CATS case numbers may have been reported (to help get an idea of when Gerry's was reported...

by **sharonl** 29.05.17 22:03

I just googled the CATS system and got this http://www.wpcsoft.com/business-areas/cats/?cookieOptIn=1

Then I went to the "about us/Partners" tab and got this http://www.wpcsoft.com/about-us/partners/

Scroll down too see why I gave up at that point aaagh

by **sharonl** 19.11.18 18:26

Bumping for new members

by Baffled 26.11.18 7:01

Could I intrude and ask some questions about these facts please?
The problem is that I have come across a site that thoroughly debunks them.
It claims:

How accurate is the 50 Facts Leaflet?
Following a thorough analysis of the 50 "facts", our fully sourced rebuttal proves the following:-

27 (54%) of the "Facts" are false.
11 (22%) of the "Facts" contain significant misquotations.
16 (32%) of the "Facts" are misleading or contain misrepresentations of the facts.
1 (2%) of the "Facts" is a rumour - even the source claims it to be so.
4 (8%) of the "Facts" are Irrelevant - unfortunately, three of these are the only claims which happen to be true!
2 (4%) of the "Facts" contain unsubstantiated claims.
3 (6%) of the "Facts" are based upon quotes which have been taken out of context. Many of these are also MISquotes.

It also claims:

Conclusion - Facts that the media aren't telling us?
We are told by the MMRG - which have "close links" with the Madeleine Foundation - that this leaflet contains "50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you". In fact, we have proven that the media (and mainly the British media) was the source for 68% of these "facts".

The home page lists your 50 facts and the text on each fact can be clicked to take you to a full rebuttal of these facts.

It's very convincing.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page

Your views please?

by Jonal 26.11.18 19:48

Baffled wrote:
It's very convincing.

Convincing only to the naive. When you have been around the case for a while you will become aware of what are known as 'antis' and 'pros'. Sometimes those pretending to be 'anti' turn out to be 'pro'.

Have you heard of a person called Clarence Mitchell? Kate was very taken with him. His job - full-time, for many years, paid by a benefactor to the McCanns - was to promote the McCanns to the media in the best light and try to debunk anything that threatened this promotion. Such as the 50 facts. It's not unimaginable that he (or others like him, family members perhaps) would set up a website that pretends to be impartial but those with experience of this sad case can see is not.

I would like to suggest you stick around CMoMM, there are members who will do their best to unbaffle you. Search threads related to whichever facts are giving you the problem. Did you read Dr Amaral's book?

by Baffled 26.11.18 20:38

Thanks for your reply, and I would certainly like to become unbaffled!
This is the only place on the net where someone who is neutral can ask questions without getting caned if they go against the grain.

The problem I'm having with this is that site doesn't seem to have anything to do with Clarence Mitchell, and seems to be very accurate.

It sources all it's rebuttals and shows the sources of the MMRG, which turn out to be dubious, so without anyone refuting it's content I'm stuck with facts over hearsay.

Will no one have a look and refute even one of it's rebuttals so that I can see a different reality?

I've read some of Amarals book and did watch his documentary a few years back, and I wasn't very convinced. He's certainly very genuine and believes his conclusions, but I feel these are more opinions than facts.

That rebuttals site also lists many, many inaccuracies in a book by Pat Brown, that was banned. That too is fully sourced and shows all the mistakes that Pat Brown made.

So on one hand I've got almost everyone believing Amarals version that Maddie died in the aprtment, but when I look at their sources of information, they turn out to be dubious, and on the other hand I've got a fully sourced website that actually makes a lot more sense.

The MMRG basically claim to have listed 50 facts but these facts have their sources in Media.

The way I see it is that BOTH the MSM AND the Alternative media have done a lot of harm to this case.

Could I perhaps get a comment on fact 1 of the MMRG:

The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open. The windtow had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

And the fully sourced rebuttal here:

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077415/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%201

I would appreciate it, thanks.

by Verdi 26.11.18 20:53

@Baffled

Are you, or are you representing, the venue you are so anxious for members of CMoMM to read - or are you here just for fun?

A serious question.

by Baffled 27.11.18 1:17

Serious answer: I'm trying to establish a balanced view on the Maddie case, but there is so much disinformation across the net.
One of the biggest sources of this disinformation seems to be those 50 'facts'.

And it becomes even more curious when nobody wants to address this.

Look at it this way...the MMRG have stated that these are 50 facts, but they haven't provided sources for those facts, and another site has refuted those facts AND provided sources, not only of their rebuttals but also of the most likely source that the MMRG got their information from.

So it can't be considered unreasonable of me to ask how the MMRG established their facts.

At the moment I have 50 'facts' that no one wants to provide sources for, and 50 rebuttals that no one wants to address.

Why not?

Does the MMRG wish people to accept their word despite evidence to the contrary?

It's not an unreasonable request.

Perhaps you might be prepared to answer?

ps: Regarding Anti McCann or Pro McCann, I am neither, but I am pro truth and I am pro Maddie.
If we are expected to accept information at face value, without question, then we can't have Maddies best interests at heart.
Also, if those 50 facts are indeed facts, then all I'm asking for is the proof. Why the relluctance to provide it?

by Baffled 27.11.18 2:36

Verdi wrote:@Baffled

Are you, or are you representing, the venue you are so anxious for members of CMoMM to read - or are you here just for fun?

A serious question.

Verdi, Further to my previous response:

I've had a think about this and I find your answer quite sinister and disturbing.

It seems you're happy to allow people to present data as facts, but when asked to substantiate those facts, you come out with a response like that.

Why is it so difficult, and why are you so reluctant to substantiate what you believe to be facts?

They are either facts or they aren't.

If they are facts, then you won't have any difficulty in substantiating them, but if you know that they cannot be substantiated, then you are willfully disseminating hatred.

Which one is it.....can you substantiate those 'facts' or not?

I thought this was a fair forum, but that response of yours has just shown it up in a different light.

Is this an honest forum or not? Is it's purpose to spread lies and hatred or not?

I am not anxious for people to look at that other site, but it would take up too much space to present their facts here, so it's far easier to have you look at what they have already written elsewhere.

By giving a response like you did, it seems that you do not want other members to have even an inclination that those facts may be wrong.

I feel that you are being dishonest.