Re: Sunday Express - ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS IS WRONG and DAILYSTAR - WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH

by Searcher 13.10.13 12:10

If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this. pursefight

by Pyewacket 13.10.13 12:11

sallypelt wrote:This is copied and pasted from another blog. This was at the time that Kate launched her book, and is the first time I've heard Clarry telling the truth.

Kate McCann launches new book to raise funAccording to a report from D & B - a company that does financial analysis - the Madeleine's Fund, Leaving No Stone Unturned, now has a net worth of only 125,000 pounds. The fund grew to more than one million, but is less money coming in every year that passes, and general expenses in 2011 reached almost 27 thousand pounds.

Mitchell assures that "donations from individuals are becoming less' and that the fund now lives off the money the couple and friends received by way of damages in libel suits filed against newspapers.

Hi Sallypelt

I've seen elsewhere on this Forum about the 125k that's left in the MadeleineFund. IMO; if they do lose the Libel Trial against GA and the other defendants, and it's not looking good ! I would assume that their costs will be awarded against the McCanns, and maybe even damages. It would therefore appear likely that this could completely wipe them out. Where Legal cases like this are concerned; £125 000 doesn't go a long way.

by MRNOODLES 13.10.13 12:11

Imo going by the last segment on SkyNews. It seems to me. This mystery German is wanted more as a witness than an actual suspect.

by MoonGoddess 13.10.13 12:12

Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.

there will most likely be a D Notice banning them from doing so, probably citing 'operational reasons'

by MRNOODLES 13.10.13 12:14

Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.

I wonder how many callers will clog up the CrimeWatch switchboard. Saying, 'yeah but, according to St.Kate's bewk it says....'

by Guest 13.10.13 12:16

From the Mail May 2011........

The doctor said certain images of Madeleine were forever etched in her mind, including a memory of the three-year-old in a pink smock top and shorts.

Her final photo of her daughter before she disappeared shows her wearing the new outfit and sitting with father Gerry and younger sister Amelie by the pool just hours before she vanished.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385707/Kate-McCann-says-Madeleine-McCanns-outfit-tempted-kidnapper.html#ixzz2hbEgGB7m

by MoonGoddess 13.10.13 12:17

MRNOODLES wrote:
Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.
I wonder how many callers will clog up the CrimeWatch switchboard. Saying, 'yeah but, according to St.Kate's bewk it says....'

and then spun into 'we have had an unprecedented number of calls to the incident room....'

by susible 13.10.13 12:21

MoonGoddess wrote:
Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.
there will most likely be a D Notice banning them from doing so, probably citing 'operational reasons'

A D notice bans reporting of everything, which clearly is not the case, every media outlet is running with the story, and after tomorrow's crimewatch, there will be even more media reporting, to ban all reporting would be counter-productive to SY's aims of the programme.

I also agree with Angelique, not only does this new information contradict ALL of the tapas 9 statements, it also contradicts the rogatory interviews for which they cannot claim any translation issues as they were all conducted in English, by the Leicestershire police and signed by the tapas group as true accounts. They're all in it up to their necks.

by ProfessorPPlum 13.10.13 12:23

Monty Heck and others are right - if this is an attempted SY whitewash then we are living in momentous times. My gut reaction is that I will no more accept that than I have accepted this miscarriage of justice so far. I, I suspect like many of you, will just become more active in our attempts to reveal the truth in this case.

The depressing thought for me is just how little most people want to question or to be more precise 'to concentrate long enough' on the facts and contradictions that are present here for the reality of the situation to begin to form in their minds. We on this forum whether we like to admit it or not are here because we represent a critical (in the proper sense of the word) minority.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.10.13 12:24

Reading the comments on Yahoo, of which there are over 800 now, no-one is buying the McCrap anymore, and this latest about face on the last photo issue is the death knell for them IMO. All those who bought and read the book will see the bull even if they were previously believers in the McConns.

I eagerly await the reaction to tomorrow's programme if the reconstruction is contrary to the money making mantra. Bet Clarrie is a busy boy today.

by jeanmonroe 13.10.13 12:26

So a spin on Boyle's 'joke'

KM to GM: "well me, you and Madeleine are here playing tennis"

KM to GM: "Who did you say was baby-sitting the twins"?

by MoonGoddess 13.10.13 12:30

susible wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.
there will most likely be a D Notice banning them from doing so, probably citing 'operational reasons'
A D notice bans reporting of everything, which clearly is not the case, every media outlet is running with the story, and after tomorrow's crimewatch, there will be even more media reporting, to ban all reporting would be counter-productive to SY's aims of the programme.

I also agree with Angelique, not only does this new information contradict ALL of the tapas 9 statements, it also contradicts the rogatory interviews for which they cannot claim any translation issues as they were all conducted in English, by the Leicestershire police and signed by the tapas group as true accounts. They're all in it up to their necks.

sorry that's my mistake, I didn't realise a D Notice was a total black out on reporting....

I am starting to veer away from a 'whitewash' - why put them up to their necks regarding 'false statements' to offer them a 'window of opportunity' for an "abduction" to take place? it maybe the lesser of two evils, but still damning consequences nonetheless.

by Hicks 13.10.13 12:34

Lets just remind ourselves about the last day heard from the horses mouth -so to speak.-

Should get interesting if we now have a new timeline.

Gerry at 2.10..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCzHoNPQYsg.

by Monty Heck 13.10.13 12:38

Angelique wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:The u turn regarding the coloboma went unquestioned in the mainstream media. The PJ could be blamed for misinterpreting what was said to them, as easily as they were smeared over the interpretation of the forensics results. If SY are backing the McCs version of events despite the unanswered questions raised by the PJ investigation, then that will be the end of the matter for the vast majority of people. Even those fed up with the McCs PR bandwagon, or who think they were wrong leaving the children alone, or that too much time and money has been invested in the search for one child will fall into line with the establishment view. A few might be motivated to search further but on the whole the job will have been done so far as the UK is concerned.
"The PJ could be blamed for misinterpreting what was said to them, as easily as they were smeared over the interpretation of the forensics results.'

But didn't the Tapas 9 all read their statements and confirmed they were correct and signed them. They can't all have had a "senior moment" can they?

Absolutely, but if SY are indeed presenting as fact that the only time they are interested in, for example, is 8.30 to 10.00pm on 3 May, then they have already ignored elements of sworn, signed statements and even what KM has written about that evening in her published book. In narrowing the timescale they would give the McCs a get out of jail free card as they were demonstrably "not there" at the salient time. That this would ignore the period from 5.30pm when they were alone with the children as indicated in the signed statements appears to be of no significance as far as SY are concerned. If this is the way they are going they seem prepared to ignore areas of the statements which mitigate against the abduction theory without any rational explanation. Perhaps the reasoning behind that will be made clear on Monday night, or perhaps there is no need since most viewers won't know fact from fiction in any case.

by susible 13.10.13 12:38

MoonGoddess wrote:
susible wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
Searcher wrote:If the timelines do not add up logically, if they clearly contradict formal witness statements from T9, and what is written in KM's book, then someone high profile in the media HAS TO raise this.
there will most likely be a D Notice banning them from doing so, probably citing 'operational reasons'
A D notice bans reporting of everything, which clearly is not the case, every media outlet is running with the story, and after tomorrow's crimewatch, there will be even more media reporting, to ban all reporting would be counter-productive to SY's aims of the programme.

I also agree with Angelique, not only does this new information contradict ALL of the tapas 9 statements, it also contradicts the rogatory interviews for which they cannot claim any translation issues as they were all conducted in English, by the Leicestershire police and signed by the tapas group as true accounts. They're all in it up to their necks.
sorry that's my mistake, I didn't realise a D Notice was a total black out on reporting....

I am starting to veer away from a 'whitewash' - why put them up to their necks regarding 'false statements' to offer them a 'window of opportunity' for an "abduction" to take place? it maybe the lesser of two evils, but still damning consequences nonetheless.

Yes, it shows them all to be complete liars, which is a good starting point for further investigation. And what about the checking? Is that all lies as well? The timeframe between the Mc's leaving for the tapas and the discovery of Madeleine gone, hasn't actually lengthened at all, so the checking stories all still have to fit into that timeframe, if not, then it's more lies...

Leading ultimately to the question "So why did you all lie?" Cue a lot of Umms, err, well, you know, err umm, don't know...

I think it is not looking good for the Mc's right now, nor their tapas chums, who may well decide that enough is enough

by Monty Heck 13.10.13 12:50

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Monty Heck and others are right - if this is an attempted SY whitewash then we are living in momentous times. My gut reaction is that I will no more accept that than I have accepted this miscarriage of justice so far. I, I suspect like many of you, will just become more active in our attempts to reveal the truth in this case.

The depressing thought for me is just how little most people want to question or to be more precise 'to concentrate long enough' on the facts and contradictions that are present here for the reality of the situation to begin to form in their minds. We on this forum whether we like to admit it or not are here because we represent a critical (in the proper sense of the word) minority.

If has indeed come to this then that is depressing but the reality is that there is no need to fear what is said by a critical minority, particularly one so artfully discredited. To paraphrae that arch propagandist, Goebbells, if you say something convicingly enough often enough, then gradually people will start to believe it. What chance does truth have against the onslaught of such a media campaign and an official UK investigation seemingly prepared to ignore evidence?

by Searcher 13.10.13 12:53

Yes, the checking stories have to fit; anything less would be enough to re-open the investigation, surely. I also understand that witness statements in open court, then reported in the media, cannot be subject to accusations of libel. I may not have that right but if so what more might come out if the current libel case continues.

The BBC lunchtime news interview with the Met detective had him saying on camera: "We know when Mr. and Mrs. McCann went to dinner .." But how do they know? We also have to see exactly how Crimewatch present the 'tennis ball picture' and timeline for the tennis match that Madeleine attended, when the picture was taken. It seems KM says in her book it was 1 May. If Crimewatch change this then there will surely be a major response (outrage) from somewhere?

Why do I have the image of a group of people walking into the unexpected? I am quietly hopeful. I would be most interested as well to know how carefully this forum is being read. spin

by galena 13.10.13 12:53

My feeling is that someone - either one of the staff at the resort or one of the Tapas 7 has been so disgusted by the greed of the McCanns in suing GA, that they have approached SY with the real version of what went on. It may be that both police forces have been assuming all along that there was no abduction because the original timeline made it virtually impossible but the new timeline now means that suspects, previously ruled out, are now back in the frame. I've have always wondered if the rest of the Tapas crew originally went along with the changed versions of events - because they were worried about their negligent childcare arrangements being exposed and didn't think it important at first because they were sure Madeleine would be found. Then they found themselves stuck with those stories, even if later they might have suspected that the McCanns weren't being totally honest with them either.

Unfortunately for the McCanns Kate's books repeats the 'official' version of events so that allows them very little plausible deniability - Yet again their greed has proved their downfall!

by susible 13.10.13 12:54

Monty Heck wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:Monty Heck and others are right - if this is an attempted SY whitewash then we are living in momentous times. My gut reaction is that I will no more accept that than I have accepted this miscarriage of justice so far. I, I suspect like many of you, will just become more active in our attempts to reveal the truth in this case.

The depressing thought for me is just how little most people want to question or to be more precise 'to concentrate long enough' on the facts and contradictions that are present here for the reality of the situation to begin to form in their minds. We on this forum whether we like to admit it or not are here because we represent a critical (in the proper sense of the word) minority.
If has indeed come to this then that is depressing but the reality is that there is no need to fear what is said by a critical minority, particularly one so artfully discredited. To paraphrae that arch propagandist, Goebbells, if you say something convicingly enough often enough, then gradually people will start to believe it. What chance does truth have against the onslaught of such a media campaign and an official UK investigation seemingly prepared to ignore evidence?

Yes, but it looks like the Big Lie is about to be blown to smithereens...all these people who believed the McCanns version of events that have been touted for the last 6 years are suddenly being told...No, that's not how it happened...Ooops

by Searcher 13.10.13 12:55

.. however, I still say that, looking at the tennis balls picture, it seems to me to be a child of older age, longer limbs, than Madeleine. nah

by Guest 13.10.13 12:55

jeanmonroe wrote:
Searcher wrote:The Mirror says of timeline: "focusing on a crucial 45 minutes before GM's check", as though it is key to the whole mystery. But that would be a separate 'timeline' issue to the 'last photo' and the tennis match?
15 MINUTES of that CRUCIAL 45 minutes the McCanns were IN the apartment!

GM 'check' 9:04pm

Wonder what THEY were up to IN the apartment?

AR/SY says on camera the McCs left the apartment at 8.30

Does he mean: what did they do with the child, from 8.19 until 8.30?

Good thinking. But whoa again, sorry: weren't the McCs 'relaxing' in the apartment together, downing their first bottle of wine for the evening from 6.30 onwards? That's what they themselves told their audiences all over the world.

So what fate befell the little child between 6.30 and 8.19, in apartment 5A, in the presence of her relaxing and wine drinking parents, for it to become so important for SY to check what happened in the ten minutes before these parents left the appartment, from 8.19 till 8.30, that is?

What do SY suspect the parents of having done in the Apartment 5a, before exiting at 8.30, and particularly from 8.19-8.30?

by Cheshire Cat 13.10.13 12:57

Lee Rainbow would have seen original, un-translated statements wouldn't he? Little risk of the UK's 'Cracker' making an error, no 'lost in translation' issues here. And we know what Lee Rainbow suggested based on inconsistencies in the statements!

by MRNOODLES 13.10.13 12:58

Searcher wrote:Yes, the checking stories have to fit; anything less would be enough to re-open the investigation, surely. I also understand that witness statements in open court, then reported in the media, cannot be subject to accusations of libel. I may not have that right but if so what more might come out if the current libel case continues.

The BBC lunchtime news interview with the Met detective had him saying on camera: "We know when Mr. and Mrs. McCann went to dinner .." But how do they know? We also have to see exactly how Crimewatch present the 'tennis ball picture' and timeline for the tennis match that Madeleine attended, when the picture was taken. It seems KM says in her book it was 1 May. If Crimewatch change this then there will surely be a major response (outrage) from somewhere?

Why do I have the image of a group of people walking into the unexpected? I am quietly hopeful. I would be most interested as well to know how carefully this forum is being read.

I guess it can be confirmed from the waiters etc at the Tapas bar?

by susible 13.10.13 12:59

It may be that both police forces have been assuming all along that there was no abduction because the original timeline made it virtually impossible but the new timeline now means that suspects, previously ruled out, are now back in the frame.

But the length of time between the Mc's going to the tapas and Madeleine being found missing has not changed, and we don't know yet if any of the tapas have changed their checking statements, if not, then they still have an impossible abduction time frame with all the to-ing and fro-ing of the tapas group.

by Searcher 13.10.13 13:00

Yes, but waiters were probably very busy, and there are I think already different versions from within T9?

Sunday Express - ACCEPTED VERSION OF EVENTS IS WRONG and DAILYSTAR - WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH