Re: The emails from Michael Sangerte (off topic/split section)

by bunny 04.03.10 21:32

Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

by jmbd 04.03.10 21:32

I don't think you should have edited your post jkh to completely change what you said in the final sentence.

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:32

hedge wrote:
jkh wrote:
hedge wrote:
jkh wrote:
hedge wrote:
Kololi wrote:Apart from those of us who needed to change names when we all re-registered, why would a person feel a need to do all this "going under cover" sort of spy stuff?

Generally we are all pretty much well behaved on this forum and don't say truly awful things so why would anyone want to spy here? Seems a bit like mischief making really.

Take care

People on Tonys list might not want to come back under the same or similar name? I don't know, perhaps if it is Mike he simply wanted to not be harrassed? Who knows, I've never really crossed paths with the man other than feeling depserately sorry for him that he was treated so badly by stevo and debbie etc.

But it's ok for him to set Tony up for Carter Ruck using underhand methods?

Why the hell doesn't he just do what he's paid to do as a photojournalist and investigate Maddie's disappearance? Once he finds out what happened to her we can all go home.

It's not really a set up, Tony did was Tony does, no-one forced him, just as when undercover cops pose as druggies to catch dealers, no-one is setting up the dealers, they are breaking the law whether they are selling it to undercover cops or 15 year old addicts.

Perhaps Mike thinks the main story at the moment is the circus around Madeleine and her family, this is something he can easily investigate and is also of public interest, not every journalist can cover the cure for cancer, some have to do the day to day stuff too.

Tony wasn't selling drugs, he was selling a booklet about an alternative version of what happened to a three year old child presumed dead, based on police evidence.

Now, I think it's the duty of a photojournalist to investigate the truth rather than find stories to sell a bloody newspaper.

A three year old child is missing and no one is doing diddly squat to find her.

Take that up with Amaral if he hadn't got it into his head to try and convince his country that Madeleine was dead we might not be in this position, that has absolutely nothing to do with Mike Gunnill and everything to do with Amarals error strewn investigation and lie packed best seller.

It was the British police who brought in the dogs which changed opinions about what happened to Maddie. Amaral didn't bring in South Yorkshire dogs.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.03.10 21:32

The most relevant thing about Mike Gunnill at the moment, apart from the fact that he uses a great deal of subterfuge to disguise himself, is his open admission that in his recent activities he was (and I quote his recent post on JATYK) 'acting under instructions'.

Now, yes, of course I would like to know for the record whether 'JoMc' is Gunnill's 7th, 8th or 131st name/user name.

Though the repeated use of evasive riddles in the posts of both 'mgunnill' and 'JoMc' is a major clue.

The two questions I'd really like answering are:

1. Who gave Gunnill those instructions, and...

2. What were those instructions?

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:33

bunny wrote:Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

There's no evidence of an abduction either.

by bunny 04.03.10 21:35

It was also the head of Leicestershire police who said that there was no evidence, not one shred against the Mccanns.

He said this AFTER the dogs were bought in.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.03.10 21:35

jkh wrote:
bunny wrote:Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

There's no evidence of an abduction either.

Cue for Clarence Mitchell, 19.02.2010:

"It's a complete mystery".

by Ruby 04.03.10 21:37

jkh: It was the British police who brought in the dogs which changed opinions about what happened to Maddie. Amaral didn't bring in South Yorkshire dogs.

Well said Jill.

Mind you, you could repeat it till you're blue in the face on this forum and certain people will still do their damnedest to ignore it. None so blind, eh.

by bunny 04.03.10 21:37

jkh wrote:
bunny wrote:Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

There's no evidence of an abduction either.

At least with the abduction theory its not actually harming madeleine is it? if posters are wrong and there was an abduction then it harms madeleine to say that her parents were involved as it harms the search for her. To say or believe there was an abduction does not harm Madeleine do it?

The Portuguese Judge believed that Amarals book and those claims were harming the chances of Madeleine being found.

by jmbd 04.03.10 21:37

The we/me/Foundation are doing nothing to find what happened to Madeleine.

The only thing that the we/me/Foundation is doing is to try to find evidence that Madeleine was not abducted (60, 30,10 reasons).

If the we/me/Foundation could present one piece of coherent argument to suggest that to me then I would consider it and compare that information with what is in the files.

Calpol - for God's sake!

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:37

bunny wrote:It was also the head of Leicestershire police who said that there was no evidence, not one shred against the Mccanns.

He said this AFTER the dogs were bought in.

Then why can't Gunnill spend his valuable time investigating stuff like this? Why don't people in authority want to know what happened to this three year old girl?

What the heck is Mike Gunnill doing lurking in forums, snooping on people, when he could be out on the streets doing what he's paid to do?

by Cath 04.03.10 21:38

jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

by bunny 04.03.10 21:38

Ruby wrote:jkh: It was the British police who brought in the dogs which changed opinions about what happened to Maddie. Amaral didn't bring in South Yorkshire dogs.

Well said Jill.

Mind you, you could repeat it till you're blue in the face on this forum and certain people will still do their damnedest to ignore it. None so blind, eh.

Well according to pavia it was Kates dream and not the dogs. Just how did he come to that conclusion?

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:41

bunny wrote:
jkh wrote:
bunny wrote:Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

There's no evidence of an abduction either.

At least with the abduction theory its not actually harming madeleine is it? if posters are wrong and there was an abduction then it harms madeleine to say that her parents were involved as it harms the search for her. To say or believe there was an abduction does not harm Madeleine do it?

The Portuguese Judge believed that Amarals book and those claims were harming the chances of Madeleine being found.

And what have her parents done to help find her? They've been sooooo busy suing and silencing people that they haven't had TIME to look for their daughter who they left alone to her fate with her younger siblings.

by Cath 04.03.10 21:42

They've got PI's who are probably better equipped for doing that job.

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:43

Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

He's not doing anything to help the search either is he?

Who in the media is actually investigating this case? The lovely Donal McIntyre? Martin Brunt? No one is doing anything, not even Mike Gunnill. Why? Because they're busy protecting the McCanns. Why?

by jmbd 04.03.10 21:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
jkh wrote:
bunny wrote:Its not been about Madeleine for a long long time for some posters though Jill. Its been about attacking her parents when there is no evidence of their involvement.

There's no evidence of an abduction either.
Cue for Clarence Mitchell, 19.02.2010:

"It's a complete mystery".

isn't it a mystery for you?

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:44

Inyx wrote:They've got PI's who are probably better equipped for doing that job.

Oh please. Maddie is in a secret lair in a lawless village in PDL. Have they financed a search there yet after 3 years?

by bunny 04.03.10 21:45

They have been searching for her. you know they have gone through the files day in and day out. you know that they have regular meetings with the PIs. they lead the search.

A search is not just a physical one with your hands. that would never achieve what they have achieved by using the media. no one can deny that madeleines face is known worldwide. the more people who know what she looks like the more chance of her being found.

That is much more productive than two people searching themselves.

that is also why in missing people cases its important to get a description out there as soon as possible and to sustain that as long as possible. Its proven to be the best way to proceed.

by Cath 04.03.10 21:45

jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

He's not doing anything to help the search either is he?

Who in the media is actually investigating this case? The lovely Donal McIntyre? Martin Brunt? No one is doing anything, not even Mike Gunnill. Why? Because they're busy protecting the McCanns. Why?

I doubt they are protecting the McCanns. Remember all the ridiculous stories in the papers?
It's the Police's job to do the investigating. Not the journalists, though may be they could provide a little bit of help.

by jmbd 04.03.10 21:46

we/me/Foundation website:

"the mystery of why Madeleine McCann" and

"The fact is that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains a mystery"

by hedge 04.03.10 21:47

jkh wrote:

It was the British police who brought in the dogs which changed opinions about what happened to Maddie. Amaral didn't bring in South Yorkshire dogs.

However it was Amaral who decided to ignore all caution and guidance as regards any forensic evidence and decide to stuff the fact that it showed nothing untoward and instead decided to essentially 'make up' his own forensic results for his book designed to convince the world that Madeleine is dead and unfindable. How anyone can defend that is beyond me.

by bunny 04.03.10 21:47

jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

He's not doing anything to help the search either is he?

Who in the media is actually investigating this case? The lovely Donal McIntyre? Martin Brunt? No one is doing anything, not even Mike Gunnill. Why? Because they're busy protecting the McCanns. Why?

The sort of press coverage you have had in the press is not investigative journalism.....its tabloid rubbish.

its not down to Journalists to investigate this. It should have been the police and they arent. the next best thing is the PI's.

by **Jill Havern** 04.03.10 21:47

Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

He's not doing anything to help the search either is he?

Who in the media is actually investigating this case? The lovely Donal McIntyre? Martin Brunt? No one is doing anything, not even Mike Gunnill. Why? Because they're busy protecting the McCanns. Why?

I doubt they are protecting the McCanns. Remember all the ridiculous stories in the papers?
It's the Police's job to do the investigating. Not the journalists, though may be they could provide a little bit of help.

But the McCanns allowed the case to be shelved. They didn't demand that it remained open. Wonder why that was?

by jmbd 04.03.10 21:49

jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:
jkh wrote:
Inyx wrote:Tony signed an agreement not to sell that booklet and to destroy all copies.
And Tony is doing diddly squat to find Madeleine. He's declared her death.
ETA there's no police evidence she's dead.

Mike agreed with a third party to make no further comments here after he'd completed his mission, but he's still here. Not much difference really.

As I said this is about a missing three year old child. What matters in all this? Suing/silencing people or finding Maddie dead or alive?

I'm not saying Mike is right by re-registering to this site and continuing to post.
Yet, there's a difference, what he's doing isn't harming a search.
Declaring her dead (as eg Amaral, Tony and the MF do) is harming it.

He's not doing anything to help the search either is he?

Who in the media is actually investigating this case? The lovely Donal McIntyre? Martin Brunt? No one is doing anything, not even Mike Gunnill. Why? Because they're busy protecting the McCanns. Why?

I doubt they are protecting the McCanns. Remember all the ridiculous stories in the papers?
It's the Police's job to do the investigating. Not the journalists, though may be they could provide a little bit of help.

But the McCanns allowed the case to be shelved. They didn't demand that it remained open. Wonder why that was?

Allowed? Maybe they shouted long and hard for the investigation into them to be shelved. The case of missing Madeleine should never have been shelved by any Police force in the world.

Log in for more topics