Re: WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

by haroldd 28.10.13 20:28

candyfloss wrote:
haroldd wrote:My longer post today on this story got removed, without even a PM telling me why. Just a short question: why take anything Henri Exton says at face value? He's the guy who ran the 'investigation' that Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times refers to, together with Kevin Halligen. He's not ex-MI5. He's a former senior police officer from Manchester, who ran undercover operations, including with MI5 involvement. (More info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].) He was born in Belgium. Halligen told various lies about his own spook connections, but nonetheless he has got spook connections. He was the head of (computer) defence at the Atomic Energy Authority. He was born in Dublin. He was hired by Dutch company Trafigura in connection with toxic waste. That kind of work overlaps spookily with Edward Smethurst's job at British Nuclear Fuels Limited, where he was involved in combating protestors against nuclear waste shipments. The spook agency whose colloquial name ends with a digit a bit higher than '5' is well involved here - as, so it appears, is the underworld. The nuclear connections are piling up.

BTW Manchester has for decades been a global hub in the illegal trade in small arms.
Which post?? If it is on this subject it is still there @ 4.27pm

My apologies, candyfloss! There were so many pages in the thread that I decided to search on my handle and also on "Exton", but couldn't find it. I guess administrators have much better search facilities! (Have you got a page number for it, though?) Once again - apologies.

by chillyheat 28.10.13 20:28

pulch wrote:True they could of just told the police that the efits existed and wanted to chase them up or even just gone to the papers with the e fit but not included the sleep parts and differences with the statements. That other forum is strange, they just slag us off!!

Theres a lot more in that report than is being told so far. I said earlier, it was strange to even mention any sleep occurances on CW. I also noted that IVF was mentioned on there also.....So maybe something from that area will be aired soon. It just feels like CW was shown to weather a big storm in the making....Cant make out if it was for the McCanns or against. Time will tell

by pulch 28.10.13 20:29

Harold I think the main point is that the Sunday times even printed something negative about the McCann's. A lot of this is down to freedom of speech in many peoples minds. How can the media be so afraid to print facts that are in the PJ files? It is only theories at the end of the day. Never mind who said what when. Besides the ST wouldn't be so quick to print just anything, if this had just been In the daily star, well then it would be different.

by sonic72 28.10.13 20:32

StraightThinking wrote:
irishdub wrote:Why hasn't the national broadcaster in Britain not even reported this, afterall wasn't it the British national broadcaster, the BBC that aired the recent McCann Crimewatch programme?
I explained this yesterday, irishdub, the BBC don't repeat sensitive stories from other media sources unless they have been checked out and confirmed. There's no conspiracy.

The BBC have been reporting all the same McCann stories as the other mainstream media have recently, and there was no delay in publishing their stories on all those occasions, and no delay in checking out and confirming those stories

But in this instance, the BBC for some reason are taking longer to 'check out & confirm' why the e-fits were held back by the McCanns, and are taking longer to publish there findings. Surely they will eventually publish the story too? Why would their be a delay in the BBC publishing this story?

I personally think the BBC wont publish anything about it, just selective publishing, which you can draw your own conclusions to...

by ProfMoriarty 28.10.13 20:35

Other media have already been sued and lost or settled out of court regarding the McCs. With the ST, on this occasion, there are quotable named sources. None of the facts they detail have been denied; in fact, they are 'explained'. The ST Insight team are taking the lead and others will sit and watch where it goes. Right from day one, the perplexity in this affair regarding the McCs could have been dispelled by a simple detailing of where they were and when on May 3rd. Up to and including today, neither they nor their friends nor the British police have offered any information on that matter. They ran away from Portugal rather than answer those questions.

by StraightThinking 28.10.13 20:42

sonic72 wrote:But in this instance, the BBC for some reason are taking longer to 'check out & confirm' why the e-fits were held back by the McCanns, and are taking longer to publish there findings. Surely they will eventually publish the story too? Why would their be a delay in the BBC publishing this story?
I personally think the BBC wont publish anything about it, just selective publishing, which you can draw your own conclusions to...

No, that is absolutely not true
How would you propose that a BBC journalist check out a story that was an exclusive to the Sunday Times and obtained through secret contacts?
You can't just pick up a phone and dial Scotland Yard press office
The Beeb was crucified last year for sloppy journalism in broadcasting a story on Newsnight that was untrue, and enhanced internal production standards since then aim to ensure that won't happen again
It means some stories won't be broadcast straight away, but that's just tough
The BBC intends to maintain the highest standards of accuracy, and that can't include repeating stuff from the papers that hasn't been confirmed

by Guest 28.10.13 20:45

haroldd wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
haroldd wrote:My longer post today on this story got removed, without even a PM telling me why. Just a short question: why take anything Henri Exton says at face value? He's the guy who ran the 'investigation' that Rupert Murdoch's Sunday Times refers to, together with Kevin Halligen. He's not ex-MI5. He's a former senior police officer from Manchester, who ran undercover operations, including with MI5 involvement. (More info [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].) He was born in Belgium. Halligen told various lies about his own spook connections, but nonetheless he has got spook connections. He was the head of (computer) defence at the Atomic Energy Authority. He was born in Dublin. He was hired by Dutch company Trafigura in connection with toxic waste. That kind of work overlaps spookily with Edward Smethurst's job at British Nuclear Fuels Limited, where he was involved in combating protestors against nuclear waste shipments. The spook agency whose colloquial name ends with a digit a bit higher than '5' is well involved here - as, so it appears, is the underworld. The nuclear connections are piling up.

BTW Manchester has for decades been a global hub in the illegal trade in small arms.
Which post?? If it is on this subject it is still there @ 4.27pm
My apologies, candyfloss! There were so many pages in the thread that I decided to search on my handle and also on "Exton", but couldn't find it. I guess administrators have much better search facilities! (Have you got a page number for it, though?) Once again - apologies.

Page 82

by KellyLennon 28.10.13 20:46

So the report which advised that the E.Fits should be publicised without delay was ignored by the Fund.

'

They were clearly not happy that the report was hypercritical of the McCanns, their companions, that the stories and statements they had given police were in fact full of holes, inconsistencies. So they buried it.

This is exactly what the Portuguese Investigation also discovered. And there is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Andy Redwood and the Metropolitan Police, like all other bodies discovered this too. How could they not have?

So who exactly was the 'Fund' in November 2008, that is, who exactly made up the Board of Directors, those who would have made the decision to BURY VITAL INFORMATION that could have helped find Madeleine, bring her home?

Esther McVey, Kate McCanns friend announced her departure from her post on the Board of Directors in January 2008.

The Madeleine Fund, No Stone Unturned Accounts Year Ended March 2009 show the following persons to have been on the Board of Directors in November 2008.

A reminder at this point that it was November 2008 that the McCanns their Fund Directors were presented with the report, the damning report, with the E. Fits from their private detectives.

Madeleine Fund Directors November 2008

JA Corner (Friend of McCanns)
MJ Linnett (Retired account- friend of McCanns?)
E.G. Smethurst (solicitor)
D. Skehan (Colleague Gerry McCann)
John McCann (Gerry McCanns brother)
Brian Kennedy (Kate McCanns uncle)
PJB Hubner (Colleague of Gerry McCann?)
Kate McCann (appointed 12th November 2008)
Gerry McCann (appointed 12th November 2008)

one big happy family together, brothers, uncles, buddies, colleagues, together with Kate and Gerry McCann, Madeleine's parents and decided (as the Fund un-named spokesperson/source told the Sunday Times) to NOT ISSUE the E.Fits to help find Madeleine, against the advice of their private detectives.
So while they were counting the money donated to help find Madeleine - unknown to those very generous members of the public who so kindly gave to this Fund, the Board of Directors were making plans - not to find the child - but to bury the E.Fits.

And bury them they did for FIVE YEARS.

It must be further noted, and from the Sunday Times article:

'The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns!

But an artist's impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 20:47

plebgate wrote:@Sally J. From memory of your last post re. the police believing that there would have been no point in getting them back for reconstruction.

If the PI file had been passed to them (and we know there is more info. in there other than the efit pics), such as Maddie's sleeping patterns the case could have been re-opened. The sleeping pattern info could well have contributed towards new evidence as Mrs. claimed right from the beginning that she knew Maddie could not have woken and wandered and pushed the abduction theory straight away.

The re-opening of the case did not depend on whether they agreed to do a reconstruction or not imo. That may be part of the new investigation but not all. There are definitely other things in the PI file.

The point is that although it was not an issue to SY apparently it was imo to the Portugese police who had only shelved the case not closed it, so if the parents had written that letter especially with the file enclosed the case could have been re-opened.

Nothing more to add. Thanks for replies.

Hi, plebgate, do you mean me? Suzy j? only there are a couple of sallys and it could get confusing.

Well the McCanns have not given the PJ the opportunity to reopen the investigation by sending them the Exton report, so I wonder what the PJ make of that?

by Searcgforthetruth 28.10.13 20:57

The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?

by plebgate 28.10.13 21:10

suzyjohnson wrote:
plebgate wrote:@Sally J. From memory of your last post re. the police believing that there would have been no point in getting them back for reconstruction.

If the PI file had been passed to them (and we know there is more info. in there other than the efit pics), such as Maddie's sleeping patterns the case could have been re-opened. The sleeping pattern info could well have contributed towards new evidence as Mrs. claimed right from the beginning that she knew Maddie could not have woken and wandered and pushed the abduction theory straight away.

The re-opening of the case did not depend on whether they agreed to do a reconstruction or not imo. That may be part of the new investigation but not all. There are definitely other things in the PI file.

The point is that although it was not an issue to SY apparently it was imo to the Portugese police who had only shelved the case not closed it, so if the parents had written that letter especially with the file enclosed the case could have been re-opened.

Nothing more to add. Thanks for replies.
Hi, plebgate, do you mean me? Suzy j? only there are a couple of sallys and it could get confusing.

Well the McCanns have not given the PJ the opportunity to reopen the investigation by sending them the Exton report, so I wonder what the PJ make of that?

My head has gone SuzyJ, big grin

sorry calling you Sally.

Yes, surely the PJ must think it odd as most of us here seem to do?

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 21:12

Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

by possumsall 28.10.13 21:13

sonic72 wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
irishdub wrote:Why hasn't the national broadcaster in Britain not even reported this, afterall wasn't it the British national broadcaster, the BBC that aired the recent McCann Crimewatch programme?
I explained this yesterday, irishdub, the BBC don't repeat sensitive stories from other media sources unless they have been checked out and confirmed. There's no conspiracy.
The BBC have been reporting all the same McCann stories as the other mainstream media have recently, and there was no delay in publishing their stories on all those occasions, and no delay in checking out and confirming those stories

But in this instance, the BBC for some reason are taking longer to 'check out & confirm' why the e-fits were held back by the McCanns, and are taking longer to publish there findings. Surely they will eventually publish the story too? Why would their be a delay in the BBC publishing this story?

I personally think the BBC wont publish anything about it, just selective publishing, which you can draw your own conclusions to...

Oh, leave auntie alone - all their time and the licence fee cash is spent financing their "pin-up-boy" Mr Attenborough (and his famous magnifying glass) travel the globe (and the sun) looking for things which don't really exist. Besides - the move to Salford narked most Kensington-set luvvies something howwible.

by suzyjohnson 28.10.13 21:16

plebgate wrote:
My head has gone SuzyJ, sorry calling you Sally.

Yes, surely the PJ must think it odd as most of us here seem to do?

It's fine plebgate :)

I'm sure the PJ think it's very suspicious

by Okeydokey 28.10.13 21:19

suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

Yes - that could be very significant - well done KellyLennon.

by KellyLennon 28.10.13 21:27

suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.

by Saturdaygirl 28.10.13 21:37

Praiaaa wrote:Saturdaygirl, I am also on that mumsnet thread, and have also been banned without notice or reason a few years ago for simply posting on a McCann thread that ' I hope the perpetrators will be brought to justice'. No mention of who they might be, but apparently the use of the plural was in itself deemed to be libellous...????('someone' had complained and reported my post...) Had to promise not to post on any more McC threads to be let back onto mumset!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - unprecedented as I have been a regular poster on hundreds of other unrelated threads over the years before and since without trouble.. What I have noticed is that the threads are typically derailed when posters come on blaming the McCs for neglecting their children, have often wondered if these are agents provocateurs to get the threads deleted...

Hi, you rebel! tongue

My sudden banning a few years ago was annoying because I had actually been pming someone and it was very interesting when "whoosh" banned just like that, thought it was very odd as I had obviously speculated (but lets face it so had lots of people!) and had never accused the McCanns or harming Madeleine or covering anything up! I simply re-registered with another email address and it worked but it still annoyed me, I posted on the thread a few weeks ago and got a post deleted so quickly name changed, just in case! But yes it makes you wonder doesnt it!!

by Okeydokey 28.10.13 21:55

KellyLennon wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.
maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.

Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told. Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

by dragonfly 28.10.13 22:02

Saturdaygirl wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:Saturdaygirl, I am also on that mumsnet thread, and have also been banned without notice or reason a few years ago for simply posting on a McCann thread that ' I hope the perpetrators will be brought to justice'. No mention of who they might be, but apparently the use of the plural was in itself deemed to be libellous...????('someone' had complained and reported my post...) Had to promise not to post on any more McC threads to be let back onto mumset!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - unprecedented as I have been a regular poster on hundreds of other unrelated threads over the years before and since without trouble.. What I have noticed is that the threads are typically derailed when posters come on blaming the McCs for neglecting their children, have often wondered if these are agents provocateurs to get the threads deleted...
Hi, you rebel!

My sudden banning a few years ago was annoying because I had actually been pming someone and it was very interesting when "whoosh" banned just like that, thought it was very odd as I had obviously speculated (but lets face it so had lots of people!) and had never accused the McCanns or harming Madeleine or covering anything up! I simply re-registered with another email address and it worked but it still annoyed me, I posted on the thread a few weeks ago and got a post deleted so quickly name changed, just in case! But yes it makes you wonder doesnt it!!

It was reported that kate had said 'they have taken her' use of plural

by petunia 28.10.13 22:06

Okeydokey wrote:
KellyLennon wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.
maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.
Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told. Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

wonder how much she paid herself per hour..poor poor maddie..poor poor twins

by KellyLennon 28.10.13 22:07

Okeydokey wrote:
KellyLennon wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.
maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.
Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told. Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed
Fund organisers refused to say how much had been spent but confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.

n the weeks after Madeleine's disappearance it paid for her parents' campaign trips to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC and the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

It was revealed last month that about £300,000 had been spent, and a further £80,000 was paid out this month for a new publicity campaign in Portugal, Spain and Morocco.

more on your mortgage than your missing child...really???

by chillyheat 28.10.13 22:13

KellyLennon wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
KellyLennon wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.
maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.
Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told. Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.
Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed
Fund organisers refused to say how much had been spent but confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.

n the weeks after Madeleine's disappearance it paid for her parents' campaign trips to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC and the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

It was revealed last month that about £300,000 had been spent, and a further £80,000 was paid out this month for a new publicity campaign in Portugal, Spain and Morocco.

more on your mortgage than your missing child...really???

Tweet all this to Katie Hopkins.... big grin

by chillyheat 28.10.13 22:14

KellyLennon wrote:
Okeydokey wrote:
KellyLennon wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?
Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.
maybe this has something to do with it ...

Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY
.
Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told. Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.
Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed
Fund organisers refused to say how much had been spent but confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.

n the weeks after Madeleine's disappearance it paid for her parents' campaign trips to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC and the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

It was revealed last month that about £300,000 had been spent, and a further £80,000 was paid out this month for a new publicity campaign in Portugal, Spain and Morocco.

more on your mortgage than your missing child...really???

Excuse my language for once, they are a pair of evil f*****

by Guest 28.10.13 22:19

Kelly, can I ask when you post from articles you could include links please.

by Liz Eagles 28.10.13 22:21

I believe the McCanns paid a couple of mortgage payments with donated money. They did not pay off their mortgage as is possibly being suggested in the previous posts.

It's important stick to facts. There are threads on the Fund.

ETA: Sorry Candyfloss my post crossed with yours.

WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1