Re: The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder'

by Justformaddie Tue May 20, 2014 12:24 pm

Only time will tell IMO but what about the cadaver scent? G was the last to see maddie alive IMO.

by Guest Tue May 20, 2014 12:25 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

Sean O'Neill doesn't seem to have a very good relationship with the met:
"I have always found the Metropolitan Police (the "Met") a difficult organisation to deal with.
Its institutional instinct is to be closed, defensive and secretive and that attitude is reflected
in a tense relationship with the media"

Taken from his statement to the Levenson Inquiry

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122145147/http:/www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Witness-Statement-of-Sean-ONeill.pdf

by bobbin Tue May 20, 2014 12:33 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.

by **Tony Bennett** Tue May 20, 2014 12:37 pm

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

What evidence Tony, they have no evidence.

I am only raising a possibilty.

Let us remember (see thread on Hamish Campbell) that Barry Bulsara = Barry George was wrongly convicted of murdering Jill Dando on no evidence at all except a speck of firearms residue which exactly matched the firearm known to have been used in killing her.

The Investigating Officer in that case was Hamish Campbell. There was a very strong suspicion that the firearms residue had been planted.

Of still more interest is that the investigation co-ordinator of the failed Bulsara prosecution was Brian Moore, who was all but proven to have done the same thing - planted firearms residue in a man's coat packet - in order to secure a false conviction (again, see the Hamish Campbell thread) in 1999 in Stoke Newington.

The man appointed as the investigation co-ordinator for Operation Grange was, again, Hamish Campbell.

All I would wish to add to my previous comment is that no-one should estimate the ability of some of Britain's most senior police officers to be corrupt to their very cores.

by **Tony Bennett** Tue May 20, 2014 12:40 pm

bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.

bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

by Guest Tue May 20, 2014 12:45 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:
Let us remember (see thread on Hamish Campbell) that Barry Bulsara = Barry George was wrongly convicted of murdering Jill Dando on no evidence at all except a speck of firearms residue which exactly matched the firearm known to have been used in killing her.

It's interesting to contrast the Lawrence case and the McCann case. In the Lawrence murder, heaven and earth was moved to finally secure a conviction based on the tiniest possible amount of forensic evidence. In the case of McCann, heaven and earth appears to have been moved to diminish the relevance of a compelling amount of forensic evidence.

by stillsloppingout Tue May 20, 2014 12:46 pm

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

You would have to have lived on mars not to know which words are off bounds re this case. The question was it intentional sloppy journalism ? .

Actually have they searched Mars yet ?

by Guest Tue May 20, 2014 12:47 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?

by Bishop Brennan Tue May 20, 2014 12:53 pm

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

It could well be just bad journalism. The reaction to it from Team McCann will however be interesting. A few years ago it would have brought an injunction from CR within minutes. But 'murder' rather than 'died' does play more to Tony's view that it may be a setup for a SY exit strategy, rather than homing in on the McCanns. Not even here is there any suggestion of murder by the parents. Some suggest an accident; others a blow that caused a fall and perhaps death; and others a medication error causing death. But never murder. And quite rightly so.

So whilst it certainly confirms that everyone now knows she is dead, it in no way takes them closer to pointing the finger at the McCanns. Yet. Hopefully, if the McCanns are indeed guilty, that day will come.

by stillsloppingout Tue May 20, 2014 12:54 pm

admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?

They can explain anything away , if SY say anything backed up by high powered officials then the masses will take it as gospel . We can shout all we want but our voices will be muted by there powerful legal machine . [ Gerry and the Government have covered all bases ] Depressing as it is .
I have said it time and time again the only person who can bring all the none reported information to the masses in the UK [ TV media etc ] is Murat and he choses not to . he no fault of his own dragged into this . He should have took them down .

by whatliesbehindthesofa Tue May 20, 2014 12:55 pm

Tony Bennett wrote:

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942705.stm

'Police remarks 'hearten' McCanns'

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

by bristow Tue May 20, 2014 12:56 pm

admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?

This is my main thought. If it does end in a whitewash they have just GOT to explain the dogs etc ….. or have they?

by Rasputin Tue May 20, 2014 1:08 pm

Dont forget the PJ people ! , there is another police force working on this besides SY .

by Newintown Tue May 20, 2014 1:15 pm

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942705.stm

'Police remarks 'hearten' McCanns'

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

WLBTS, that was an article from August 2007.

GA mentioned some time ago that "things didn't look good for the McCanns". No doubt "things" have moved on from August 2007.

Wasn't it mentioned by someone in the PJ or their hierarchy that the McCanns can't be seen as totally innocent as they failed to co-operate with the police and therefore failed to influence the PJ that they were not involved. I can't remember the exact words but they've been printed on this forum many times.

by whatliesbehindthesofa Tue May 20, 2014 1:20 pm

Newintown wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942705.stm

'Police remarks 'hearten' McCanns'

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

WLBTS, that was an article from August 2007.

GA mentioned some time ago that "things didn't look good for the McCanns". No doubt "things" have moved on from August 2007.

Wasn't it mentioned by someone in the PJ or their hierarchy that the McCanns can't be seen as totally innocent as they failed to co-operate with the police and therefore failed to influence the PJ that they were not involved. I can't remember the exact words but they've been printed on this forum many times.

I know. My post was to point out that police forces may well say that people are not suspects, when the reverse is actually true. When Tony points out that Redwood has declared the McCanns not suspects, we should remember that the PJ also declared the McCanns not suspects at a time when they had already carried out the cadaver dog searches.

by Newintown Tue May 20, 2014 1:23 pm

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Newintown wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6942705.stm

'Police remarks 'hearten' McCanns'

The parents of missing Madeleine McCann have said they are "heartened" that the Portuguese police do not consider them suspects in the case.
Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

WLBTS, that was an article from August 2007.

GA mentioned some time ago that "things didn't look good for the McCanns". No doubt "things" have moved on from August 2007.

Wasn't it mentioned by someone in the PJ or their hierarchy that the McCanns can't be seen as totally innocent as they failed to co-operate with the police and therefore failed to influence the PJ that they were not involved. I can't remember the exact words but they've been printed on this forum many times.

I know. My post was to point out that police forces may well say that people are not suspects, when the reverse is actually true. When Tony points out that Redwood has declared the McCanns not suspects, we should remember that the PJ also declared the McCanns not suspects at a time when they had already carried out the cadaver dog searches.

Oh, okey dokey. I obviously got the wrong end of your post. smilie

Phew, there was me thinking that you were believing in an article from 2007. Many apologies. big grin

by bobbin Tue May 20, 2014 1:26 pm

bristow wrote:
admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?
This is my main thought. If it does end in a whitewash they have just GOT to explain the dogs etc ….. or have they?

Also we should not forget that it was a British police force (Leics ?) that called for the dogs in the first place to check the McCs' apartment, clothes, car etc. and this was a time when the two forces were co-operating to get the searches done.
True, the John Lowe changes of FFS reporting were an unexplained about face, but the damage was already done and the McCs were made arguidos and have not been cleared just not charged.

by tasprin Tue May 20, 2014 1:49 pm

Sean O’Neill has been The Times Crime Editor since 2007 and has written several articles on the case. He’s a Twitter buddy of fellow countryman Jim Gamble and as such he’s well aware how controversial the subject is. I can’t see him mistakenly using the word “murder”.

The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder' - Page 3 FireShotScreenCapture021-Twitter_Jgineqe_pdrporterthemadbadandsad___-twitter_com_Jgineqe_status_255637580513673218_zps5c53eed7

The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder' - Page 3 FireShotScreenCapture021-Twitter_Jgineqe_pdrporterthemadbadandsad___-twitter_com_Jgineqe_status_255637580513673218_zps5c53eed7

Regarding Robert Murat: Maybe he was got at by someone. IIRC he was visited by Brian Kennedy and offered a job - very odd (surprised he didn't report him to the police). He once said (2008) there was a lot more to come out but nothing ever did. His mother was writing a book to put the record straight but that didn't materialise either.

by **PeterMac** Tue May 20, 2014 1:57 pm

aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.

Also no need for helicopters and sardines on the beach. Just boring old statements and some idea about finding the facts.
I suppose Yewtree might have got as far as Scarborough, but that's about it in terms of jollies.

by Newintown Tue May 20, 2014 2:01 pm

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.

Also no need for helicopters and sardines on the beach. Just boring old statements and some idea about finding the facts.
I suppose Yewtree might have got as far as Scarborough, but that's about it in terms of jollies.

Yewtree didn't involve a multi-million £ fraud though, which may make a difference. Look at all the people who have benefitted from the "fund"; a spider's web which stretches far and wide.

Yewtree may be limited to a list of names from the hotel's records, but the "fund" is another thing. IMO.

by Guest Tue May 20, 2014 2:05 pm

https://mobile.twitter.com/TimesCrime

Maybe someone with twitter would like to ask Sean O'Neill why he is calling the disappearance of Madeleine mccann a murder.

by Mirage Tue May 20, 2014 2:11 pm

There are three possible scenarios so far identified by previous posters, viz:

1.There is a significant development and the term "murder" may be preparatory to news of McCann involvement.
2.There is a significant development and the term "murder" may be preparatory to an exit strategy.
3.The use of the term "murder" is a result of sloppy journalism.

Looking at the activity/or lack of activity over recent days for clues/mood:

Cessation of internecine fights by both police forces in the press.
The announcement of specified digging sites in PdL.
The announcement of use of better sniffer dogs.
The helicopter flight.
The return of SY officers.
The plea by the Mcs for speeding the process.
The plea by the Mcs for slowing the process (birthday)
The ad hoc gathering at the Rothley war memorial for the seventh anniversary.
The scruffy appearance of KH.
The Fiona Bruce interview.
The video appeal and interview of 2nd May by KH, on the Mirror website (not widely broadcast AFAIK) to promote the MP alert system.
The sighting of a MBM un-look-alike in the footie match and subsequent statement by the Mcs that people are still looking for Madeleine.
The Clapham 'Miles for MP 10k run' with what passes for smiles while on the hoof.
The appearance of both Oldfields alongside the Mcs. (Remember MO doesn't like running)
The participation of all 3 children of the above in the 3k race accompanied by fathers.
The non appearance of any other known T7 runners , notably FP and JT.
The Irish radio live phone-in on the McCs
The Three Counties local BBC radio broadcast of the Sarah interview complaining about the Mcs followed by live phone-in

Please feel free to add to the list.

Just one small point, there was a distinct mark under KH's right eye on the day of the 10k.

ETA. I don't know what to make of it all. Thinking out loud, I suppose.

by **Tony Bennett** Tue May 20, 2014 2:19 pm

tasprin wrote:
Regarding Robert Murat: IIRC he was visited by Brian Kennedy and offered a job - very odd (surprised he didn't report him to the police). He once said (2008) there was a lot more to come out but nothing ever did. His mother was writing a book to put the record straight but that didn't materialise either.

The meeting at which Brian Kennedy claims he offered Murat a job - helping to find Madeleine...

1. Took place on 13 November 2007

2. At the house of Robert Murat's aunt and uncle Sally & Ralph Eveleigh

3. Who ran an 'adluts only' guesthouse - children aged under 14 were banned

4. At this meeting Robert Murat and his mother were present, as was Murat's lawyer

5. With Kennedy was his lawyer and the McCanns' lawyer, top - Rochdale-based - Freemason, Edward Smethurst

6. The meeting was held in secret, but leaked out later

7. The meeting was in effect a meeting of the lawyers for ALL THREE SUSPECTS in the case.

8. Against that background, Kennedy's claim that he flew 2,000 miles to offer Murat a job, shall we say, lacks credibility.

At the Cambridge Students Union in March 2009, Robert Murat spoke to a tumultuous reception at a debate on the morals of the tabloid press. Portraying himself as the 'victim' in all this - but obviously not mentioning his 17 lies about a missing girl when first questioned by the PJ on 15 May 2007 - he said that 'this will be the first and last time I speak about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann'.

In fact, he said nothing at all about it - except how important it was to continue the search for her by all possible means.

In the weeks following this historic meeting between Kennedy and Murat, all the following happened:

* Jane Tanner said she was no longer sure the person she'd seen on 3 May was Murat, and later even tried to claim that she'd ever positively ID'd him

* Fiona Payne said she was no longer sure she'd seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May, and might have been wrong

* Rachael Oldfield said she was no longer sure she'd seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May, and might have been wrong

* Russell O'Brien said he was no longer sure she'd seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May, and might have been wrong

Oh, and both the McCanns and Murat received healthy six-figure sums of agreed libel damages

by ChippyM Tue May 20, 2014 2:28 pm

I think it may be significant that this story is 'pay per view'. Maybe journalists are just itching to print the word 'murder' in relation to this case based on what sources have told them. They might be testing the waters by putting it behind a paywall.

Of course the alternative view is that with recent news of digging, someone has presumed this case is a murder.

by russiandoll Tue May 20, 2014 2:44 pm

Bellisa wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/TimesCrime

Maybe someone with twitter would like to ask Sean O'Neill why he is calling the disappearance of Madeleine mccann a murder.

someone has according to his timeline....watch this space for an answer.