FALSE NAMES ON THE MCCANNS' PETITION

by **Tony Bennett** 01.03.11 17:41

Thanks to members on the 'Writing the Wrongs' thread, I have discovered that my name has been added as Signature No. 27 on the McCanns' petition (on the iPetitions site) calling for a re-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

Whilst looking through the lost of signatures, I saw many other false signatures - and I think there could be hundreds of them.

This is how my purported signature reads on the petition:

"Name: Anthony Bennett on Nov 2, 2010
Comments: I wish these sad bloggers would stop unfairly hounding the McCanns".

Very funny - not, when this is supposed to be a serious campaign about a missing child. But then the McCanns are happy to have conmen and fraudsters like Francisco Marco, Kevin Halligen and Marcos Correia as their friends and helpers, so perhaps they actually approve of their friends trying to con our Prime Minister by adding false names.

I think the McCanns' target is 100,000 signatures, which they say, under new laws, will force a debate on their petition in Parliament.

In the highly unlikely event that their petition reaches this target - it is well short at the moment - there would be good cause to write to Parliament and advise them that the McCanns' signature total may include hundreds of bogus signatures.

For the record, I've sent this to iPetitions, and look forward to an early reply:

Please remove my name from the Madeleine McCann petition calling for a re-investigation of the case. This is signature No. 27:

"Name: Anthony Bennett on Nov 2, 2010
Comments: I wish these sad bloggers would stop unfairly hounding the McCanns".

This is not my signature and it has been placed there by someone who clearly opposes our own campaign for a full public enquiry into the Madeleine McCann case, which is something very different from what the McCanns want.

I would expect my signature to be removed without delay and for me to be informed please. There are many other false signatures on this petition.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is another Madeleine petition, this time on the CarePetitions site, which calls for something very different.

It calls for a full public enquiry into Madeleine's disappearance, which would mean a Judge summoning the McCanns, their friends, and other witnesses, to a public hearing where witnesses could be cross-examined. That would now be the best way to get to the truth.

It has 509 signatures so far, to sign, please click on the CarePetitions icon, top right on the home page at www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

ETA: I am told that Martin Brunt is signatory No. 60. It's very unusual for journalists to sign public petitions. But then he does work for SKY NEWS

by **sharonl** 01.03.11 20:38

Tony

My name is on the petition too.

I have not yet requested it`s removal but I will do eventually

I thought that we may collect as many bogus signatures as possible and oppose the petition when the McCanns are ready to act on it.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.03.11 20:44

sharonl wrote:Tony

My name is on the petition too.

I have not yet requested it`s removal but I will do eventually

I thought that we may collect as many bogus signatures as possible and oppose the petition when the McCanns are ready to act on it.

But that would leave the McCanns having to guess as to how many more signatures than 100,000 they would need?

by **sharonl** 01.03.11 21:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Tony

My name is on the petition too.

I have not yet requested it`s removal but I will do eventually

I thought that we may collect as many bogus signatures as possible and oppose the petition when the McCanns are ready to act on it.
But that would leave the McCanns having to guess as to how many more signatures than 100,000 they would need?

If it should ever get to 100,000 signatures they will want get it into parliament.

If we had proof that there were a number of fake signatures on the petition would that not invalidate it?

by YNG 01.03.11 21:39

.... I agree Sharonl , surely adding names of people who have not signed the petition would invalidate it ?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.03.11 21:57

sharonl wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Tony

My name is on the petition too. I have not yet requested its removal but I will do eventually.

I thought that we may collect as many bogus signatures as possible and oppose the petition when the McCanns are ready to act on it.
But that would leave the McCanns having to guess as to how many more signatures than 100,000 they would need?
If it should ever get to 100,000 signatures they will want get it into Parliament. If we had proof that there were a number of fake signatures on the petition would that not invalidate it?

I'm not sure it would invalidate it. Ot would depend on what the rules are for verification. With paper petitions presented to Parliament, there used to be quite a rigorous checking system to ensure that people were not trying to bump up the numbers with bogus signatures, as the McCanns seem content to do.

I imagine that if the McCanns submit, say, 100,500 names on their electronic petition to Parliament, and there was credible evidence that, say, 600 names were bogus, the McCanns might well receive a letter along these lines from the Speaker:

"Dear Dr and Dr McCann,

Thank you for submitting your petition to Parliament with 100,500 names on it.

Unfortunately, we have received evidence that at least 600 of these signatures are bogus.

We will be prepared to entertain your petition once you have provided a further 100 genuine signatures.

Yours sincerely,

John Bercow
Speaker of the House of Commons".

However, it is going to be quite a long time, at the present rate of striking, before the McCanns are able to submit their petition to Parliament.

These are the statistics for the past few days:

25 Feb - 53 signatures added
26 Feb - 41 signatures added
27 Feb - 96 signatures added
28 Feb - 74 signatures added
1 Mar (today) so far: 38 signatures added, current total no. of signatures: 45,590.

If we take the current rate of signing (and the numbers signing each day is diminishing as time goes on) as, say, 50 a day, then it would take 1,089 days before the petition (bogus signatures and all) reaches 100,000.
That figurer would then be reached on 22 February 2014, by which time there will have been several eclipses of the sun, and dozens of eclipses of the moon, and may well have been another General Election.

Madeleine, if alive, will be nearly eleven years old by then.

And by then the McCanns' 'very truthful' book will have been selling for nearly 3 years.

The recent 'Save the Forests' petition, run by the '38 Degrees' site, to stop the Coalition government from privatising Britain's forests, has up to tonight attracted 535,850 signatures.

Nearly 12 times as many.

by **sharonl** 01.03.11 22:31

Tony

I see your point

But, if there were 100,500 signatures and we had evidence to say that 200 were bogus, they make take the view that since a large number of signatures have been proven to be bogus they cannot rely upon the validity of the other 100,300 signatures and therefore the petition should be invalidated.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.03.11 22:44

sharonl wrote:Tony, I see your point. But, if there were 100,500 signatures and we had evidence to say that 200 were bogus, they make take the view that since a large number of signatures have been proven to be bogus they cannot rely upon the validity of the other 100,300 signatures and therefore the petition should be invalidated.

Mmmm, yes I see your point also.

I think may be a Society to Check on the Real Accuracy of Petitions on the InterneT (SCRAP-IT for short) ought to be set up, to ensure that our democracy is not threatened by bogus Anthony Bennetts, Martin Brunts, sharonls, or anyone else.

As soon as possible.

Or, to put it another way, SCRAP-IT straightaway.

Say NO to Parliamentary time being taken up by petitions with lots of bogus signatures on them.

by aiyoyo 02.03.11 9:11

The thing about this petition signatories is no authority (not even team mccanns) authenticate them so effectively the petition attracts imposters from the mccanns camp who can claim whoever they want to be or sign as many times as they like with throwaway addies.

It's turning this bogus petition into a farcical which goes to show how much Mccanns want Madeleine's case reviewed (not).

by Guest 02.03.11 10:33

How can I check to see if my name has been put on that list please?

ETA I found the site and started to check to see if I was there, but gave up, there are far to many pages to check.

I did find the close proximity of Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien around Lorraine Kelly's entry quite interesting, as was this post;

Name: Belinda Carlisle on Nov 3, 2010
Comments: Why is there no email confimation for the email address given? All those people on here could be the same person. Very strange.

by kangdang 02.03.11 14:25

I find the notion of attempting to get the McCanns petition nullified in the ways suggested here spiteful. Moreover, such moves would do The Madeleine Foundation no favours whatsoever. The sensible and adult way to deal with the issue at hand is to contact the petition creator and request that your name is removed. If there are other obvious spoof names, bring these to their attention also.

ETA
I signed the McCanns petition as I want the case resolved, and any move towards that resolution is worth supporting.

by Autumn 02.03.11 16:49

I read somewhere, it may have been on their Facebook site, that they will not be handing the petition in until 'the last person has signed' - so, how long is a piece of string? roll

Their pretendy petition is worthless anyway, as well they know.

by **PeterMac** 02.03.11 17:12

Do they, or indeed does anyone, really think that Government is influenced or spurred into action by a list of unverifiable e-signatures on an internet petition ?
Anyone, really ? That is not how democracy works.
It may help the people concerned to feel good about themselves, but anything else is surely delusional. But then again, where have we come across that ...

by **sharonl** 03.03.11 8:25

At first glance of Kandangs post here I was inclined to agree with him, maybe it would appear spiteful to get the McCanns petition nullified in the way that we have suggested.

But, when you stand back and consider what has gone on over the past 3, almost 4 years, and why they are even promoting this petition in the first place, you begin to realise the importance of getting this petition removed.

First we have 3 small children, left alone in a dark foreign apartment for 6 nights in a row whilst their parents were out wining and dining with their mates. On one night in particular, a child was reported to have been sobbing for over 75 minutes. This selfish act of leaving these little ones alone in this way, with no adult supervision and no-one to offer comfort or security is a very spiteful act of its own.

Then we have the treatment in the UK Media of Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese Police who were branded as incompetent or bungling cops, and the false reports that the case was not properly investigated by the Portuguese, constantly undermining their these guys and the work that they had done. There were false accusations of the PJ planting DNA, trying to force a confession out of Kate by doing a deal. All this manipulation in the UK press was to discredit the Portuguese police and portray them as incompetent, giving them a bad name. Another very spiteful act in my opinion.

What about Mr Amaral? no credit has ever been given to him for the work that he has done on this case. On the contrary, he has been wrongly labelled as a drunk, a liar, an incompetent cop not to mention being wrongly accused of aiding the torture of child murderess Leonor Cipriano.

Mr Amaral was wrongly removed from the case just as he was about to get to the bottom of it. He was most likely removed following interference from Gordon Brown. Later, he left his job, forfeiting any pension rights to write a book on the case “The Truth about the Lie”, a book that after thousands of copies had been sold, the McCanns tried to ban whilst attempting to sue him for the profits.

Mr Amaral has forfeited his career and his pension. His good name has been dragged through the mud in the UK gutter press, and all because he was doing a good job.

Mr Amaral has a wife and 3 children; they have all had their lives turned upside down over the last few years.

The family of Marie Luz cortez was upset when the McCanns jumped on the bandwagon and put up a picture of Maddie with Marie. The Cortez family had to deal with their little girl being abducted and later found dead, isn`t that enough for anyone to deal with without having to play the McCann game?

There are hundreds if not thousands of others who have also been hurt by the actions of the McCann’s. The McCanns, via the media have issued photo fits of a number of suspects, or to your children boogey men. Many children have been worried about what the McCanns have put out in the press, obviously without a second thought to the effect it may have on these other children.

Then we have those who have paid into their fund, pensioners and children handing over their pocket money.

What about ourselves, we have all been criticized or put down in one way or another by the McCanns agents on the internet. Tony has suffered more than any of us and all because, just like many others he seeks the truth of what happened to a little girl.

These are just a few of the many who have been hurt in some way following the actions of team McCann and the UK press.

We now know that Metodo 3 have little if any credibility, we are aware of their association with criminals involved in drug trafficking and wire tapping not to mention their famous lie “We know who took Maddie and we`ll have her home by Christmas”.

The Portuguese police followed up many leads and checked out the majority of sex offenders in the area. They also had to deal with Metodo 3 who we now know dealt aggressively with some witnesses, some of which we believe were influenced by Metodo 3. There were also many, many curious sightings of Madeleine, many of which were reported to or by Metodo 3 or their witnesses. Given the very low credibility of Metodo and their antics throughout their contract with the McCanns , it is possible that much of the information put the Portuguese police was false and engineered by Metodo 3. The PJ were on a wild goose chase not knowing what information was genuine and what was not. So there would have been some false leads, sightings and witness statements that were not followed up, and with good reason. Are these the leads often referred to in the press as those that were not followed up?

So what would happen if they got the 100,000 signatures?

They could get the review of the case as they wish, this may sound like a good thing on the face of it.

But;

They would get to see the rest of the evidence and the information, including any evidence against them. Not such a good thing since they were suspects in the case.

Somewhere in the files will be the reports on the leads that may not have been followed up.

A few of these leads will be very carefully selected.

The British Press will have the headlines “Bungling cops missed vital clues” or “Dozens of Madeleine sightings were ignored”.

All the selected new information will hit the press, portraying the PJ, once again as incompetent whilst gaining widespread publicity, sympathy and revenue for the McCanns whilst discrediting Goncalo Amaral, the Madeleine Foundation and all the truth seekers.

Once again manipulating public perception, collecting cash from pensioners and children and making us look like the bad guys. Then we will have abductors no. 19 and beyond on the front pages of the press to worry other children.

All of those who have been hurt during the past 4 years will go through it again and again, as each missed lead is publicised.

It is therefore, in my opinion, important that this review does not take place but the investigation is either re-opened or there is a public enquiry into it.

Add to this that there are a number of bogus signatures on that petition.

We do not wish to spite the McCanns by removing the petition, but it is clear that this whole exercise is impractical and would prove nothing. It may serve only to hurt other people, and not find Madeleine.

If the McCanns want help in this way, we should assist them by pulling together to get the case re-opened.

by kangdang 03.03.11 17:22

They would get to see the rest of the evidence and the information, including any evidence against them. Not such a good thing since they were suspects in the case.

It is not a forgone conclusion that McCanns would gain full access to the files. In fact, IIRC, UK court ruled that they should not get free access to the investigative details - I suspect that securing a review would not override this, the McCanns would have to go through the court process again surely? And there is nothing to indicate that the existing ruling would be quashed. Further, they may well not be any evidence against the McCanns in the 'yet to be seen' files, even if there is it obviously isn't strong enough to warrant arrest.

Regardless of what we think of the McCanns, surely any official review of the case would be positive - as this case is about Madeleine...not the McCanns. None of us know for certain..without a shadow of a doubt, that the McCanns were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance; there exists strength of argument either side.

by **PeterMac** 03.03.11 17:38

kangdang wrote:
Regardless of what we think of the McCanns, surely any official review of the case would be positive - as this case is about Madeleine...not the McCanns. EDIT

Hear, hear. The case is about Madeleine, and discovering what happened to her. IF she were found alive and well and unharmed, then there would be undoubtedly be rejoicing everywhere. I, and I suspect others, would apologise unreservedly for having doubted Kates' uncorroborated word that she had been abducted and had then looked after by caring and loving pe****, ( sorry, I meant to type "people",) and for having doubted for an instant that any of the money donated to the "fund" had been used for lawyers' fees, or for the parents' benefit. We would further, no doubt, want to apologise for having had any doubts at all about the competence and omniscience of Clarence Mitchell ...
Those who try to separate the different points of view, or of approach, tend to do so in a very crude way, labelling us all as either Pro- or Anti- McCann.
This is completely wrong.
The two points of view can be more accurately labelled - pro-McCann parents, or pro-Madeleine.
The question remains - What happened to Madeleine McCann ?

by kangdang 03.03.11 17:44

The two points of view can be more accurately labelled - pro-McCann parents, or pro-Madeleine.
The question remains - What happened to Madeleine McCann ?

Indeed.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.03.11 18:17

PeterMac wrote:Those who try to separate the different points of view, or of approach, tend to do so in a very crude way, labelling us all as either Pro- or Anti- McCann. This is completely wrong. The two points of view can be more accurately labelled - pro-McCann parents, or pro-Madeleine.

Here I venture to disagree with you, PeterMac.

What separates the two differing views on this case is whether or not people tend to believe the McCanns' and Tapas 7 version of events, or tend to disbelieve or doubt it.

To put it another way, there are those who believe that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - and those who do not.

Thus the distinction is between...

McCann-believers

and

McCann-doubters.

'Pro-Madeleine' is not a term that IMO assists us.

ON THE SUBJECT OF THE MCCANNS' PETITION...

...here's why I don't support it.

The McCanns petition reads:

"We call on the UK and Portuguese authorities to conduct an independent and transparent review of all information in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".

It does not, for example, call for a re-investigation of all the crimes which may have been committed in relation to Madeleine's disappearance. It merely calls for a 'review'.

It does not specify that any review should be carried out by police force, just a nebulous reference to 'the authorities'.

It is well known that the real reason why the McCanns want this so-called 'review' is so that they can get access to the thousands of pages of documents in this case which have been withheld by the Portuguese authorities and which are widely believed to contain evidence which could implicate the McCanns and their friends. They have begged two Home Secretaries for such a 'review' and very understandably, both have refused - hence the McCanns trying to 'bounce' the UK government into ordering such a review. That is why they started their petition. This came days after Home Secretary Theresa May made it clear to the McCanns that she did not support their request for a 'review'.

Still less does the McCann petiiton call for an enquiry into all the circumstances surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, including e.g. the establishment of the Find Madeleine Fund, the conduct of the McCanns' so-called 'private investigation', and the role of various government agencies following the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance.

Even less does it call for a full public enquiry into all the circumstances with the power to summons witnesses.

That is why The Madeleine Foundation supports the petition of Alan-Marc Logoa, which is a...

Petition for a full public enquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance

...and explains:

There has been no court case of any kind which might help to establish the truth about what happened to her. A public enquiry with the power to summon witnesses is the most likely to be able to get to the truth. All those with eye-witness or relevant expert evidence to bring to bear on the subject should be summoned to give evidence, and be open to being cross-examined.

If you support this petition, you will be helping to press the government to hold a public enquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine, probably the only way we can establish what might have happened to her.

Support the petition for a FULL PUBLIC ENQUIRY WITH THE POWER TO SUMMON WITNESSES by visitng our home page (www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk) and clicking on the 'Care Petitions' icon.

by YNG 03.03.11 21:20

Persons classified as Missing - Police Guidance

Long-term cases should be reviewed by a senior detective of at least the rank of chief inspector, who has been trained as an SIO. Reviews should take place every 28 days for the first 3 months, then at 6 months and 12 months intervals, then annually thereafter.

Review the level of risk;

• Check for any outstanding and incomplete actions;

• Quality assure actions already taken;

• Set new actions and enquiries in order to bring the investigation to a successful conclusion;

• Make recommendations about the management and ownership of the investigation;

• Set future review date(s) as appropriate.

All the above should be recorded as policy decisions within the report.

It is not appropriate to have ongoing arguments about who should own the investigation.

by **PeterMac** 04.03.11 7:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
What separates the two differing views on this case is whether or not people tend to believe the McCanns' and Tapas 7 version of events, or tend to disbelieve or doubt it.
To put it another way, there are those who believe that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - and those who do not.
Thus the distinction is between...
McCann-believers
and
McCann-doubters.
'Pro-Madeleine' is not a term that IMO assists us.

You have put it much better than I.

by aiyoyo 04.03.11 11:15

Yes, I support that : mccanns-doubters is way better than pro-Madeleine!

Hopefully the mccanns believers will turn doubters when their book is out.
An account of the Truth is not exactly total truth is it?

by Autumn 04.03.11 19:39

kangdang wrote:
They would get to see the rest of the evidence and the information, including any evidence against them. Not such a good thing since they were suspects in the case.

It is not a forgone conclusion that McCanns would gain full access to the files. In fact, IIRC, UK court ruled that they should not get free access to the investigative details - I suspect that securing a review would not override this, the McCanns would have to go through the court process again surely? And there is nothing to indicate that the existing ruling would be quashed. Further, they may well not be any evidence against the McCanns in the 'yet to be seen' files, even if there is it obviously isn't strong enough to warrant arrest.

Regardless of what we think of the McCanns, surely any official review of the case would be positive - as this case is about Madeleine...not the McCanns. None of us know for certain..without a shadow of a doubt, that the McCanns were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance; there exists strength of argument either side.

Kangdang you say there exists strength of argument either side as to whether or not the McCanns were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance. I am a bit surprised that anyone who has read the files could come to this conclusion as everything I'v seen or read about this case strongly indicates to me that the McCanns were complicit in Madeleine's disappearance and, to date so far, absolutely nothing to suggest that they weren't.

Kangdang posted
I signed the McCanns petition as I want the case resolved, and any move towards that resolution is worth supporting.

My jaw hit the floor when I read this. Do you seriously believe the McCanns want the case resolved? rotfl

by kangdang 04.03.11 21:54

Autumn,

There is nothing of strength in the files, not even circumstantial, if there were the McCann’s would have been charged. There is however, a lot of information that begs more than a question or two. An independent review may just provide some answers to these; this is why I signed the petition. Regarding whether the McCann’s really want a review - I do not know. Just as I do not know with certainty that they were involved in Madeleine’s disappearance - I believe they were; this is very different from knowing something to be true What I do know is that, a review of the case would be far more beneficial than it would be detrimental.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.03.11 0:23

Tony Bennett wrote:However, it is going to be quite a long time, at the present rate of striking, before the McCanns are able to submit their petition to Parliament.
These are the statistics for the past few days:

25 Feb - 53 signatures added
26 Feb - 41 signatures added
27 Feb - 96 signatures added
28 Feb - 74 signatures added
1 Mar (today) so far: 38 signatures added, current total no. of signatures: 45,590.

If we take the current rate of signing (and the numbers signing each day is diminishing as time goes on) as, say, 50 a day, then it would take 1,089 days before the petition (bogus signatures and all) reaches 100,000.
That figurer would then be reached on 22 February 2014, by which time there will have been several eclipses of the sun, and dozens of eclipses of the moon, and may well have been another General Election.

Madeleine, if alive, will be nearly eleven years old by then.

And by then the McCanns' 'very truthful' book will have been selling for nearly 3 years.

The recent 'Save the Forests' petition, run by the '38 Degrees' site, to stop the Coalition government from privatising Britain's forests, has up to tonight attracted 535,850 signatures.

Nearly 12 times as many.

The last 4 days statistics on the McCanns' petition are as follows:

28 Feb, total 45,338

1 Mar, total 45,585: 47 signatures added
2 Mar, total 45,634: 49 signatures added
3 Mar, total 45,672: 38 signatures added
4 Mar, total 45,713: 41 signatures added.

That makes an average of 43.75 signatures added per day, taking the last four days.

There are still 54,287 signatures for the McCanns to get to reach 100,000.

If we take the current rate of striking of 43.75 signatures per day, which is below the 50-a-day estimate I used previously, this means that it would now take the McCanns another 1,241 days to reach their target.

The date I gave previously was 22 February 2014.

That must now be extended by another 152 days, making the 100,000 total achievable by 23 July 2014, at the current signature rate of 43.75 a day.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.03.11 0:30

kangdang wrote:What I do know is that, a review of the case would be far more beneficial than it would be detrimental.

No, we cannot say that.

All depends on (1) exactly who carries out such a 'review' and (2) exactly what the remit of the review is.

A full public enquiry, by contrast, especially one with the power to summon witnesses, including the McCanns and their friends, would enable a judge to get much much closer to what has really happened to Madeleine McCann.