New Heights of Insanity

by RIPM 05.11.13 13:56

SixMillionQuid wrote:
RIPM wrote:Keeping it simple, we know for certain Rachel Oldfield and Fiona Payne made statements to the Police that Murat was outside 5a that night.

It was not and could not be mistaken identity as both state RM came up to me shook me by the hand and said "I am Robert Murat". Unequivocal, no translation errors.

So Redwood instead of dead black tractor men, smithman etc; you could ask why people very very close to the "onion centre" chose to implicate a man they did not know, in child abduction acusations and you could ask Murat, why he has never sought redress from these people. As Murat has been cleared it must be a simpler task, to find a Robert Murat doppelganger walking around Luz that night in the company of the Police and stating "hi I'm Robert Murat" instead of looking for swarthy Roma, blacks, dodgy whites, etc; etc;
Those two don't know when p.m. ends and when a.m. begins. Murat was not outside apartment 5a on the night of 3 May 2007.

Are you unable to read or is it deliberate distraction?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 13:59

columbostogeys wrote:
And why would Murat do that, shake a lady's hand and say:"Hi, I am Robert Murat"...sounds totally made up to me...

Just to be clear.

Are you suggesting that a member of the Tapas 7, awarded £375,000 in libel damages, could have 'made something up'?

We are in need of 'Straight Thinking' on this issue.

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 14:05

notlongnow wrote:That either makes;
Mccs the best criminals that ever lived
Had lots of help
Not guilty
Very lucky

Yes I would think all four of those are possible and that is a perfect summary of where we are, notlongnow

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 14:09

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Those two don't know when p.m. ends and when a.m. begins. Murat was not outside apartment 5a on the night of 3 May 2007.

The simple point here is this.

On 13 May, Jane Tanner, from a police van, saw Robert Murat walking past her and said: 'That's him. That's the man I saw 10 days ago outside G5A'.

On 14 May, Murat was declared a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance.

On 15 & 16 May, three other members of the Tapas 7: Rachael Oldfield/Mamphilly, Russell O'Brien and Fiona Payne, made it their business to pop down to the PJ office and say: 'That's him! He was hanging around outside the Ocean Club the night of 3 May! I saw him! Definitely!'.

THEN:

On 13 November 2007, Murat plus his lawyer met Brian Kennedy plus his lawyer (high-ranking East Lancashire Freemason Edward Smethurst) in Portugal.

In January, all four of the Tapas 7, bit by bit, here and there, now and then, and via people such as 'a friend of the McCanns' or 'a source close to the McCanns' legal team' etc. etc., gradually changed their minds.

And said...

...it wasn't Robert Murat after all.

AND THEN:

Robert Murat got a total of £700,000 libel compensation - without even having to begin legal proceedings!

by Joss 05.11.13 14:10

columbostogeys wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
sallypelt wrote:It's not simple. Just one example, why were these people given such VIP treatment on leaving Portugal? What made them so important that they went through the VIP lounge?
Because by Sept 2007 it had become one of the major news stories of the year and it would have caused mayhem had they gone through the normal gate. VIP is a misleading name

While I'm on, let's look at some of the other probable red herrings spread across the web which have overcomplicated this case
1) There has been government interference - NO, the media initially reported M's disappearance because it was a good story - child snatched from holiday home. It became such a massive story that the government felt obliged to show its compassion, then they were caught up in it
2) The media are hiding the truth - NO, the modern media are only interested in selling papers and attracting viewers. Defamation law prevents them saying certain things, even speculation, but they are determined to cash in on the story, so they print nonsense
3) Certain people in this case are "protected" - NO, in the UK you are considered to be innocent until you are found guilty. The media can't make nudge nudge comments about people in such a serious case without evidence to back it up (I mean evidence, not circumstancial irregularities)
4) Rich people donated money because of secret links - NO, they either did it because they have a genuinely caring nature, or probably in some cases because they thought it would make them look good (ie positive publicity for them)
5) SY is involved in a cover up - NO, they are trying to establish evidence of a crime, whatever it is, that is strong enough to take to court and secure a conviction. As with many crimes, that's difficult, which is why so many go unsolved. Many criminals are good at covering their tracks
6) K knew M was going to be missing when she entered 5a - NO, there's no reason to believe that at all
7) The T9 were all involved in a pre-arranged and elaborate scheme to hide what had already happened when they went to the Tapas - NO, there's nothing to suggest that. And the idea that they would all go to dinner knowing M was dead is frankly grotesque
8) Smithman was one of the T9 carrying a live decoy child - HA HA HA
And so it goes on

There are very simple scenarios described by posters on other threads which probably come very close to explaining what happened. Not all the jigsaw pieces quite fit, but that's mainly because of confusion over timelines

The UK media criticism of the PJ has been insulting and unfair, but if they had rounded up everybody in the area and taken them down to the station for a thorough interrogation in the first 24 hours, it would have been solved within a few days. Yes I'm sure it really is that simple

And if there's a simple solution, why look for one of crime thriller proportions?
Jimmy saville would also probably disagree with some of the above.
Very odd because a child a boy went missing in greece just like Maddy Ben Needham but no one cared a fig, the poor mother had to do it all her self even by remortgating her home.

So why the difference with these two cases?

I found the attention of the Maddy case almost like some sort of mass hysteria, like we had all been drugged in our water, and had to simply know more and more about the case...it was bizarre....and still is.

Nothing seems to happen about finding her abductor if there was one, and the ones they look at are just LUDICROUS. Patsys....Its like they have applied for the job as creepy abductor and they fit the bill....drifter, black, gypsy, dead etc......

So are we to assume its only black, gypsy, drifters etc who take children...WRONG. A large amount of men on the sex register or even in prison for pedophile activities come from good backgrounds, doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers etc....

Not pervy looking men.....

Something is so OFF about this case, I agree far fetched maybe but something is so off about it.

I agree, it is very sad when a child is missing as in Ben's case and the parents don't receive the help they so desperately need in locating their child. It should be the same for every missing child that they are all treated the same with the same resources to find them, but as we know this is not always the case.
Then i suppose not everyone is as connected as the McCann's it would seem. That must be the difference, because i can't think of any other reason right now.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 14:13

StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:That either makes;
Mccs the best criminals that ever lived
Had lots of help
Not guilty
Very lucky
Yes I would think all four of those are possible and that is a perfect summary of where we are, notlongnow

StraightThinking wrote:

"Yes I would think all four of those are possible..."

StraightThinking - even by your standards of 'Straight Thinking' - that is a brilliant analysis.

Thank you so much.

Another quote sprang to mind.

DCI Redwood, after a year and £2.5 million on the case:

"We have evidence that Madeleine may be alive or, sadly, dead".

That was also the product of another razor-sharp mind.

by Joss 05.11.13 14:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:That either makes;
Mccs the best criminals that ever lived
Had lots of help
Not guilty
Very lucky
Yes I would think all four of those are possible and that is a perfect summary of where we are, notlongnow
StraightThinking wrote:

"Yes I would think all four of those are possible..."

StraightThinking - even by your standards of 'Straight Thinking' - that is a brilliant analysis.

Thank you so much.

Another quote sprang to mind.

DCI Redwood, after a year and £2.5 million on the case:

"We have evidence that Madeleine may be alive or, sadly, dead".

That was also the product of another razor-sharp mind.

Must be some kind of double speak, LOL.

by noddy100 05.11.13 14:19

It is insanity and farce gone mad
After a few years and £millions SY produce a 750k show on the BBC telling us
to forget all other e fits and concentrate on this new one even though it was from a previous
teams investigation and the McCanns had it all along (so their £ uncovered nothing)
ANd now a week later a black man bearing no relation to the SY investigation is prime suspect

by Mirage 05.11.13 14:19

Joss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:
notlongnow wrote:That either makes;
Mccs the best criminals that ever lived
Had lots of help
Not guilty
Very lucky
Yes I would think all four of those are possible and that is a perfect summary of where we are, notlongnow
StraightThinking wrote:

"Yes I would think all four of those are possible..."

StraightThinking - even by your standards of 'Straight Thinking' - that is a brilliant analysis.

Thank you so much.

Another quote sprang to mind.

DCI Redwood, after a year and £2.5 million on the case:

"We have evidence that Madeleine may be alive or, sadly, dead".

That was also the product of another razor-sharp mind.
Must be some kind of double speak, LOL.

Ouch !

That Occam's razor thingummy can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

by chillyheat 05.11.13 14:21

StraightThinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:This is your golden opportunity to share with us your 'straight thinking'.
Please concentrate just on the simple 'basics' (which we've all been unnecessarily complicating) and tell us in a few words:
1. What probably happened to Madeleine McCann and
2. Why the case is not yet solved.
I am not going to fall into the trap of libelling anybody by accusing them of something I can't prove (unlike some people)
However I have a clear idea of what happened which is close to what some others on this forum appear to believe
Why is the case not solved?
Because not all criminals leave a clear trail behind them, some are very good at covering their tracks, others tell fibs, and the police need a solid case before they can take it to court
No government or media conspiracies

Monday 17 September 2007
Clarence Mitchell resigns as director of the Central Office of Information's media monitoring unit to become the McCann's media spokesperson.

On 24 August 2007, Dr Gerald McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, said: “In fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not”.

Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted, and replied: “It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.

Father Pacheco in Portugal was very supportive of the McCanns in the early days, but then had a crisis of conscience and explained that he could not reveal all that the McCanns had said to him. He also was quoted as saying ‘The McCanns have destroyed me’.

Dr McCann said recently in a TV interview: “I don’t see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We’ve been very clear all along the way that we’ll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet.

On 11 December 2009, Dr Gerald McCann said: “There is no evidence that we were involved in Madeleine’s death”. The previous year, their chief public relations officer Clarence Mitchell said: “Can I suggest you actually quote me accurately. I said: ‘I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death’.” Do these statements indicate that the McCanns and their chief public relations officer accept that Madeleine is probably dead, and was probably dead in 2008?

etc etc etc.......

Still think its a simple case ?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 14:25

noddy100 wrote:It is insanity and farce gone mad...
After a few years and £millions SY produce a 750k show on the BBC telling us
to forget all other e fits and concentrate on this new one even though it was from a previous
team's investigation and the McCanns had it all along (so their £££ uncovered nothing).
And now a week later a black man bearing no relation to the SY investigation is prime suspect

A good summary.

If only 'StraightThinking' had been on the case from Day One.

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 14:28

Obviously none of you do irony

If anybody wanted proof that the internet is full of barmy theories about all kinds of things, one look at most of this thread will confirm it

Yes it's simple - it's the conspiracy theories that make it complicated

New Labour was full of touchy feely stuff designed to make them look caring, that's how they got involved

by Sockpuppet 05.11.13 14:29

StraightThinking wrote:Obviously none of you do irony

If anybody wanted proof that the internet is full of barmy theories about all kinds of things, one look at most of this thread will confirm it

Yes it's simple - it's the conspiracy theories that make it complicated

New Labour was full of touchy feely stuff designed to make them look caring, that's how they got involved

Surely not, not with all those 'razor-sharp' minds out there? sarcastic

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 14:33

Tony Bennett wrote:If only 'StraightThinking' had been on the case from Day One.

Actually I was on the Mirror forum from the very early days so I know as much about it as you do

by Joss 05.11.13 14:35

The Irony is rich indeed.

by thetruthbeknown 05.11.13 14:43

Its a case you cant help but think of many many theories..intentionally confusing....as GM said himself 'confusion is good' for people involved. I researched Haut de la Garenne (why im a late arriver on this case) I thought that was confusing enough nah

by Daisy 05.11.13 14:44

StraightThinking wrote:Obviously none of you do irony

If anybody wanted proof that the internet is full of barmy theories about all kinds of things, one look at most of this thread will confirm it

Yes it's simple - it's the conspiracy theories that make it complicated

New Labour was full of touchy feely stuff designed to make them look caring, that's how they got involved

You keep repeating over & over how simple this case is to solve. How come you haven't offered your expert knowledge to SY/PJ? There's a reward you know. bored

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 14:51

Daisy wrote: You keep repeating over & over how simple this case is to solve. How come you haven't offered your expert knowledge to SY/PJ?

How do you know who I am or what I've done?

by jeanmonroe 05.11.13 14:57

StraightThinking wrote:Obviously none of you do irony

I do ALL the ironying in my house!

Creases in jeans and everything!

by ProfessorPPlum 05.11.13 14:58

Straightthinking you're being led like a lamb to the slaughter. The only way out is to do what the McCanns can't seem to do - stop now :-)

by Joss 05.11.13 15:01

jeanmonroe wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Obviously none of you do irony
I do ALL the ironying in my house!

by StraightThinking 05.11.13 15:02

Grateful for the advice Professor but I'll look after myself thanks very much

This thread has brought out the worst in some posters and made the forum look like a madhouse

by Daisy 05.11.13 15:15

StraightThinking wrote:
Daisy wrote: You keep repeating over & over how simple this case is to solve. How come you haven't offered your expert knowledge to SY/PJ?
How do you know who I am or what I've done?

I don't. I do know this case remains unsolved though despite your constant ranting about how simple it is. So do us all a favour and show us mere conspiracy theorists your expertise Sherlock.

by Daisy 05.11.13 15:16

jeanmonroe wrote:
StraightThinking wrote:Obviously none of you do irony
I do ALL the ironying in my house!

Creases in jeans and everything!

Nice one.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.13 15:17

thetruthbeknown wrote:Its a case you can't help but think of many many theories..intentionally confusing...as GM said himself 'confusion is good' for people involved. I researched Haut de la Garenne (why I'm a late arriver on this case) I thought that was confusing enough

Funnily enough, although straight-thinker 'StraightThinking' favours the 'simple' and 'basic' solution, evidently that was not favoured by Gerry McCann and the McCann Team themselves.

Why, look at how many 'conspiracy theories' they have promoted themselves!

* paedophile network

* wealthy North Africans wanting white infants

* stolen to order by gypsies

* local burglars

* Victoria Beckham-lookalike buying a new daughter

* 'prison lair' near Praia da Luz

* 'Maddie in U.S.A.'

and so on.

I think, however, that it's important always to get things 100% right if one can.

Gerry McCann never said 'Confusion is good'.

Let's make it clear once again exactly what he did say (Scottish TV, 24.08.2007):

“In fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn’t happen, it’s actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what is true and what's not

On this point (i.e. the bit highlighted in red), I agree with him.