Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by Sockpuppet 04.11.13 23:48

ChillyHeat wrote:Reports in the Portuguese press suggested that Murat had met Gerry whilst the latter was campaigning for the Labour Party. Murat denied this on 13 September, describing the reports as “absolutely ridiculous” and saying “I’ve never met the man before”.

Any truth to this ? Anyone seen any press reports on this claim ?

Murat is a Tory isn't he?

by Okeydokey 05.11.13 0:23

Cristobell wrote:
Jackie Regan wrote:
Cristobell wrote:When Gerry gave the 'no comment' reply to whether he knew Murat, I think he was just being cocky.
Fair enough..but being Cocky is not something that you would feel follows the "Terrible hurt & Pain of not knowing what has happened to your own daughter"

This case infuriates me..but still intrigues!!
I agree, often feel as though I am playing the longest ever game of Cluedo! I think the terrible hurt and pain was part of the act, the real story was the success of the Fund and the daily photoshoots, the narcissistic duo were loving it.

Enjoyment of celebrity status is not of itself an indication of guilt. Suzy Lamplugh's mother seemed to relish the light of publicity. However, it is GMcC's body language which is really damning...

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 0:24

ShuBob wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...
That makes two of us Châtelaine :)
Three.
Four.

Five.

I find it hard to reasonably discredit the Smith's sighting..... but IF it was GM and he was carrying a deceased MM, I wonder why the dogs didn't alert to any of his clothes? [unless he got rid of them?]...

by canada12 05.11.13 0:37

"I find it hard to reasonably discredit the Smith's sighting..... but IF it was GM and he was carrying a deceased MM, I wonder why the dogs didn't alert to any of his clothes? [unless he got rid of them?]..."

Well, that is one answer... he got rid of them...

My own opinion is that if this was GM carrying M, then it was to the beach, where he buried her body in the sand, somewhere out of the way, under cover of darkness, in a place which could easily be seen from the top of the cliff that GM and KM jogged to every day.

It's been pointed out by others that this is one effective way to mummify a body, rendering it dry, lighter, more transportable after a number of days.

If it was GM and it was M then and that's what happened, GM would have needed an accomplice - someone to provide a digging implement and a change of clothes.

It's also possible, if it was GM, that he wore the clothes back to the flat and they were thoroughly washed. Would this take the scent of cadaver out of them so that the dogs couldn't smell it? I don't know.

My other opinion, if this wasn't GM carrying M, is that it was a decoy. That it may have been GM carrying one of the other children, asleep, while someone else transported M in a bag.

All just opinions and theories, I know.

Oh, and just one more thing. My opinion of the Crimewatch show is that, because it was live, part of its purpose might have been to expose GM and KM to observation. Perhaps there were some unexpected surprises thrown at them during the broadcast. We saw them at the end, live. Kate couldn't take her eyes off GM. To me, her intense scrutiny of him, while he was talking, spoke volumes. She was watching him for clues as to what to say next. It was off-script. They were practically sitting on top of each other. They weren't relaxed at all.

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 0:46

@canada12

all very feasible. although I cant see GM faffing about in the sand in a panic, I think he could have placed her under an overturned boat or taken her to the Church....

I don't know why, but I feel strongly it could have been RO who the Smith's saw, and he was carrying his child [bares a striking resemblance to MM] who had been sick, he could have been heading to Luzdoc.... I think she was sedated with the same as MM and he was panicking and inducing sickness and trying to bring her round in the 'fresh air'.

by Cristobell 05.11.13 0:48

MoonGoddess wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...
That makes two of us Châtelaine :)
Three.
Four.
Five.

I find it hard to reasonably discredit the Smith's sighting..... but IF it was GM and he was carrying a deceased MM, I wonder why the dogs didn't alert to any of his clothes? [unless he got rid of them?]...

I don't think he was carrying Madeleine. She had been dead for some time if we trust the dogs' alerts, and without wishing to sound morbid, wouldn't her skin have been mottled? Gerry must have been carrying one of the other children, perhaps to leave a false trail of some sort who knows? Were all the other kids safe and sound in their beds? Did anyone outside of the tapas group check on the other children?

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 0:53

Cristobell wrote:
MoonGoddess wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...
***
I beg to differ, Tony. I have not, so far ...
That makes two of us Châtelaine :)
Three.
Four.
Five.

I find it hard to reasonably discredit the Smith's sighting..... but IF it was GM and he was carrying a deceased MM, I wonder why the dogs didn't alert to any of his clothes? [unless he got rid of them?]...
I don't think he was carrying Madeleine. She had been dead for some time if we trust the dogs' alerts, and without wishing to sound morbid, wouldn't her skin have been mottled? Gerry must have been carrying one of the other children, perhaps to leave a false trail of some sort who knows? Were all the other kids safe and sound in their beds? Did anyone outside of the tapas group check on the other children?

I only know that the twins remained 'dead to the world' in their cots, and that the RO and JT's daughter had been sick earlier in the evening, I don't think it is written anywhere about the other's children.

by Cristobell 05.11.13 0:54

MoonGoddess wrote:@canada12

all very feasible. although I cant see GM faffing about in the sand in a panic, I think he could have placed her under an overturned boat or taken her to the Church....

I don't know why, but I feel strongly it could have been RO who the Smith's saw, and he was carrying his child [bares a striking resemblance to MM] who had been sick, he could have been heading to Luzdoc.... I think she was sedated with the same as MM and he was panicking and inducing sickness and trying to bring her round in the 'fresh air'.

What a clever theory! Something I had not thought about before, but an explanation that would end this confusion. Much to ponder. Night, night.

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 0:58

ETA @ Cristobel

not quite sure that GM would need a 'decoy' when he had JT's 'bundleman', and if he wanted to create a 'decoy', why supress it for 5 years?..... it all gets a bit complicated lol.... yes, time for bed night night

by Joss 05.11.13 2:10

Tony Bennett wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Honestly, what value do the Smiths' statements have?
The value they have is not so much in the identification of the man (though there was some clothing detail that may be relevant) but in the fact that he was carrying a child that some of the Smiths believe could have been M

Since nobody has come forward to say he was the man, there is a good chance that it was M

Even if there is no reliable witness description of him, the sighting itself potentially places M at that place at that time

And that is crucial information when integrated with the rest of the timeline
We have all the deep suspicions about the reliability of the Smiths' evidence...

PLUS the fact that anyone who was abducting Madeleine would be mad to walk around the streets of a holiday village...

PLUS the remarkable fact that no-one else in 6.5 years has come forward to say that they remember seeing a man carrying a barefoot child in pink pyjamas at 10.00pm on a cold early May night.

It's not much to go on.

Is it?

I agree, and don't think Witness testimony is ever 100% reliable in criminal cases. The police have to have more than that to go by in insuring a solid conviction in a case, IMO.

by lj 05.11.13 4:17

Châtelaine wrote:
bellum wrote:there are a lot of new people here. where are the usual ones?
***
Because the usual ones, me for instance, are getting a bit weary with the discussion ... ?

I'm with you, Châtelaine, it's getting a bit arduous, and really no new insights. All the same old, we are haters and don't care for Madeleine. That coming from people who think it is OK to leave her alone, even after she cried her heart out, and asked "why didn't you come when we were crying".

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 7:55

ultimaThule wrote:On a point of information:

"The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

As I understand it, this 'investigative review' came about at the instigation of the PM and the Home Secretary following representations made by the McCanns and, some say, Rebekah Brooks.

There is no evidence to suggest Operation Grange is engaged in investigating crimes committed in the UK nor, since it has not been closed at any time, has it been re-opened.

This is all press release stuff
If SY were to investigate the disappearance of M for that reason alone, they would have to do it for all other crimes committed abroad on UK residents
They are investigating M's disappearance but with respect to any possible crimes relevant to the UK
That's what they do

by **PeterMac** 05.11.13 8:14

by AndyB 05.11.13 8:18

StraightThinking wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:On a point of information:

"The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

As I understand it, this 'investigative review' came about at the instigation of the PM and the Home Secretary following representations made by the McCanns and, some say, Rebekah Brooks.

There is no evidence to suggest Operation Grange is engaged in investigating crimes committed in the UK nor, since it has not been closed at any time, has it been re-opened.
This is all press release stuff
If SY were to investigate the disappearance of M for that reason alone, they would have to do it for all other crimes committed abroad on UK residents
They are investigating M's disappearance but with respect to any possible crimes relevant to the UK
That's what they do

Something caused SY to move from review to investigation. If that something wasn't the prospect of charges being brought where SY have jurisdiction - England - then what is it?

by Lance De Boils 05.11.13 9:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.

Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony. smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 9:28

Lance De Boils wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.
Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony.

I will send you the document later today.

Things have become more than a tad more interesting now that we know that Martin Smith is a former Unilever exective.

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 9:29

If the Smiths had seen ROB, then surely the first word they would have all used to describe him is 'tall'.

by Guest 05.11.13 9:38

A mixture of Cluedo and Monopoly because money has always seemed to be the priority here.

P.S. Cristobell's earlier quote about this being like a lengthy game of Cluedo has disappeared from my post.

by bellum 05.11.13 9:43

Sockpuppet wrote:If the Smiths had seen ROB, then surely the first word they would have all used to describe him is 'tall'.

...thin and blond.

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 9:49

Sockpuppet wrote:If the Smiths had seen ROB, then surely the first word they would have all used to describe him is 'tall'.

Yes, I do agree; I just wonder how the gradient of the hill might have affected their accuracy?

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 16 Smith3

Had R O'B been pictured at all since 2007? I know he wasn't there when the Tapas crew were photographed after their damages award...

by MoonGoddess 05.11.13 9:50

bellum wrote:
Sockpuppet wrote:If the Smiths had seen ROB, then surely the first word they would have all used to describe him is 'tall'.
...thin and blond.

wonder why he went for a darker look less than a year later...

New Heights of insanity - Express - Page 16 Rogsrussellobrien

by bellum 05.11.13 9:55

short after the disappearance, Gerry left to the UK. He could hae brought those clothes back.
Or perhaps one of the Tapas brought them back. There was always the risk of stains.

There is also the possibility that the police did not tell everything because somehow they could have known that Kate was involved in the death and they needed to concentrate themselves on her.

by Nereid 05.11.13 10:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
ChillyHeat, thank you for that article and your observations.

I'm sure you will have noticed, as perhaps a few others have done, that there is a mountain of vagueness and fog surrounding:

1. Who drew the e-fits?

2. When?, and

3. By speaking to whom? (I presume two different Smiths produced two different efits).

I for one am not prepared to take as gospel the words of Henri Exton to the Sunday Times on the efits.

What is odd about the efits is that they look as if they have been made with different software.

The small chin one (1b) looks as if it's made with E-fit-V software (used by many police forces including Scotland Yard), but the big chin one (1a) is far more pixelated and has a different style imo. Now this is very peculiar if they were both made by one and the same organisation. This organisation would have used the same software for both surely.

I am just speculating here, but I wonder if the pixelated 1a efit was the original one made by Private Investigators, and 1b was made later by Scotland Yard using E-fit-V and some more ~~influencing~~ talking to a witness.

by Guest 05.11.13 10:05

AndyB wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:On a point of information:

"The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

As I understand it, this 'investigative review' came about at the instigation of the PM and the Home Secretary following representations made by the McCanns and, some say, Rebekah Brooks.

There is no evidence to suggest Operation Grange is engaged in investigating crimes committed in the UK nor, since it has not been closed at any time, has it been re-opened.
This is all press release stuff
If SY were to investigate the disappearance of M for that reason alone, they would have to do it for all other crimes committed abroad on UK residents
They are investigating M's disappearance but with respect to any possible crimes relevant to the UK
That's what they do
Something caused SY to move from review to investigation. If that something wasn't the prospect of charges being brought where SY have jurisdiction - England - then what is it?

Possibly following after the CPS visit to Portugal.

Taken from CPS; Prosecution Policy and Guidance.

Resolving jurisdictional conflicts
Where the offence occurred on a single territory
Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction:

sexual offences against children (section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14 July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the offences they cover are not identical;
murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial jurisdiction in respect od offences in subsection. 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common law and the statutory offences of corruption for offences committed wholly on or after 1 July 2011. For those offences the Bribery Act imposes extra-territorial jurisdiction. Section 109 of the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act 2001 still applies to provide extre-territorial jurisdiction in respect of offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011.

by Daisy 05.11.13 10:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.
Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony.
I will send you the document later today.

Things have become more than a tad more interesting now that we know that Martin Smith is a former Unilever exective.

Indeed. Could I request a copy too please Tony