Kate McCann launches New Campaign

jeanmonroe wrote:

"The Home Secretary meets Theresa May and Coral Jones at launch of HER 'child rescue alerts' campaign"

And of course, we were told that she was 'playing outside with a friend', which under many circumstances is quite acceptable.

But then we have a series of 'buts'.

But she was only 5 years old.

But she sufferd from left-side cerebral palsy.

But she was playing 200 yards and several streets away from her parents' home.

But if she was playing at a friend's house (as claimed), then the parents of that friend were not exercising adequate supervision.

But - supremely - when April was snatched, it was past 7.00pm and already dark.


I wonder if either the McCanns or the Joneses would be willing to sign up to a campaign whose slogan was:

"Don't take the risk; never leave young children alone"

Totally agree with this , sounds like they are well suited in their campaign, then throw in May and  you have the dream team . Personally I would like to be supervising my five year old daughter a bit more then they did . And she was only a couple of years older than Madeline . Odd that this should come about now , I really cant see this search going anywhere , wonder who approached Mrs Jones to get involved, do we know.
Its like final in your face to Mcann accusers, you wont get us.

Andrew77R wrote:Slightly off topic.

A work associate of mine has recently shown a non MSM view on this case after discussing it over a few beers a while back. He follows this forum and has done for a while after i told him about it, although he has told me he has not joined. Yet.

Anyway, was on the phone to him earlier about something else and we got briefly chatting again about this case and his question was...

'Why is that Tony Bennett on a one man mission to convince everyone that this will be a whitewash?'.

I couldn't really answer that.

Hoping you could Tony... 

Hope you don't take this post as offensive or anything as certainly not meant to be.

Was just a genuine question which i could not answer.

I'm just catching up with this thread so don't know if Tony has answered or not.

As someone who has also been gripped by this case for the past 7 years, it must be said that we have seen things that have left us absolutely flabbergasted! Every time we have thought they can't possibly get away with it now, they have indeed, and some might even say, the evil pair grew even stronger!  However, time has shown that this case continues to be filled with 'good grief' moments, its probably one of the hooks that keeps us all here.   

From Tony's perspective, the shock of a British court finding in favour of two such obvious crooks, would destroy anyone's faith in British justice, which is understandable.

For my own part, I am a great believer in 'a week is a long time in politics' - and 7 years has passed.  The government in situ, has no reason whatsoever to protect those who were closely involved in covering up what happened in PDL, indeed the highest among them are their political enemies.  The tories are clean on this one and Theresa May is dead set on rooting out past and present corruption in the police.  How can she purge the police of corruption whilst at the same time covering up the most controversial child abduction in history?  Might not a few disgruntled police officers have something to say if she is cleaning with one hand and burying muck with the other?  Can anyone guarantee there will never be a single whistleblower in Operation Grange?

In organising digs in Portugal (whether they go ahead or not), this case has gone past the point of no return.  Imo, digging in PDL puts the McCanns firmly in the frame.  There was no time for an abductor to dig a grave on the night and returning to the area that was being searched after the alarm had been raised would have been ludicrous.  

My biggest fear is that  SY will shelve the case as unsolveable, but that is unlikely as it would not have moved from Review to investigation if that were the case. If Scotland Yard had anything that genuinely cleared the McCanns, not only would the McCanns be shouting it from the rooftops, but they would have used it in their libel trial in Portugal - as Blacksmith pointed out.  

For a whitewash to work, the McCanns would have to go away and keep their heads down - and knowing their love of the cameras, that is never going to happen.

Probably going way off the wall here. But looking at the Burghau stuff and the DNA from Jane Tanner. If Madeleine, as some have suggested, was in Burghau, then why would there be no DNA from Madeleine, if, as some have suggested, those horrible photos of Madeleine were taken there?

To my mind, in the Madeleine was Here series, during the reconstruction of the Tannerman sighting and where Jane Tanner sees Gerry talking to Jez, there is evidence of a close relationship between Jane Tanner and Gerry McCann. There is real warmth between them and Jane is comfortable enough to make an 'in joke' to Gerry about Kate having moaned about him taking too long watching footie. While others have said that Gerry's disagreeing with her over which side of the road he was standing made her cry, I do not believe that her tears are genuine. I think she fakes it. If you slow the film right down you can see her eyes darting around during the apparent crying. I think the crying was fake to confuse people.

 Also, if everyone is singing too much from the same hymn sheet, it would look too suspicious. Although Jez' role is curious, I must admit I cannot quite fathom his role in all this. 

Also, Jane Tanner in police interviews says that she is least comfortable with Gerry McCann. Again, I think this is a decoy. Given that the McCanns and McTapas are not especially known for the gospel truth, I suspect this was designed to confuse.

Why was DNA matching Tanner found at that apartment (and Murat too, I  think?)

Cristobell wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Watching wrote:http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/kate-mccann-launches-new-campaign-to-get-one-million-people-signed-up-to-missing-chil.1400603074

The National Crime Agency - a national policing body above the Metropolitan Police, and which incorporates the former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Agency (CEOP) - has joined with the mother of murdered April Jones and mother of abducted Madeleine McCann in a nationwide, high profile campaign.

To promote an enhanced Child Rescue Alert system.

With the respected Missing People charity. 

With a target of one million signatures.

To all those who still think that Operation Grange will end up with any conclusion other than: 'Madeleine was taken by a wicked abductor'...

Do you still think so?

I am sorry that Coral Jones has been dragged into this mire, bless her.

As for Operation Grange ending with a declaration that it was an abductor wot dunnit - that is looking less and less likely.  In 7 years dozens, if not hundreds, of detectives have been unable to come up with a single believable abduction scenario or a patsy dead or alive to fit up.  Indeed, the standard of the abductors put forward has reached an all time low with this week's one, a 77 year old who holidays in Thailand.   

It appears to me that nobody is looking for an abductor anymore, they are looking for a body.

Mean't to add that the speech by Theresa May is heartening, I have a feeling that any police corruption will be flushed out on her watch.

Realistically  if Madeleine had been abducted by the kind of predatory male abductor who has been postulated as a suspect she would have probably been dead 48 hrs after she disappeared.  Even when I gave the McCanns the benefit of the doubt I never believed for one minute that she would turn up alive. Why has it taken them so long to start looking for a body?


I don't believe that the McCanns have ever wanted to find one viable suspect - just a range of unsavoury characters who can divert attention away from themselves, knowing that if they did try to pin it on anyone the case would speedily unravel.   Depressingly SY seem to have continued in this trend, adding the likes of Tractorman to the long list of undesirables who apparently roam PDL look for children to abduct ...

IMO evidence of a whitewash started on 4/5th May 2007, the instant response to Kate and Gerry Mccann's desired campaign direction was staggering, I think I can say without fear of contradiction no similar case has ever hit the headlines with such pre-planned precision. Whichever way you wish to view the reason behind that response changes nothing, still that outstanding instant response can't be denied. This is not normal. The Mccann's direction was not akin to any amber alert system or child rescue alert system subsequently studied with great alacrity, it was IMO to build an impenetrable defence wall around their very existence.



I have no faith in Operation Grunge, Andy Redwood is far from convincing. If they've got something positive to go on then why don't they get on with it. This is a missing child we are talking about not a lost packet of fags. It's not only Operation Grunge that makes me think whitewash, it's everything that's gone on over the past 7 years. Odd how all this latest information coincides with the anniversary of Maddie's disappearance and what would have been her birthday. There is always something at this time of year that hits the press nothing of which has so far helped the investigation.

Personally I think that the reason Kate and Gerry were able to be so manipulative and so successful in this "campaign" is precisely because it had never been done before, on that scale. If anyone else were to try something similar now, I suspect they'd fail miserably. People were bowled over by the juggernaut that was the Find Madeleine cause. And I agree with those who have suggested that the ultimate aim of the entire campaign was to try and make themselves so "big" that they'd be untouchable.

I remain hopeful that the police in both countries are not "blinded by the light" and that they'll be able to navigate around the persistent "me me me" that pervades the entire McCann campaign, and bring justice to Madeleine.

I was sitting on the fence regarding Operation Grange but I am strangely feeling more hopeful that there is going to be action. I think Andy is pretty clued up about the McCanns and is watching them very closely. Kate and her awful husband Gerry can't keep away from the limelight nor keep their big mouths shut. I'm going to Portugal in July and will be going to see 5A to where poor Madeleine met her fate. New here so hope I haven't made any mistakes. AR has the eyes of the world on him so he has to get results and also everyone will be watching the Portuguese police too. Feel sorry for the twins with the news of digging for their sister's body must be awful as well as having evil, narcissistic parents too Imo.

http://guardianlv.com/2013/10/truth-about-jonbenet-ramsey/

The entire truth about the JonBenet Ramsey case will be made public when the courts unseal documents over objections by the family. A Colorado judged ordered that 18 pages be unsealed to the public after no charges were brought forth in the earlier case. The grand jury, at the time of the murder, failed to indict a single individual in the murder of JonBenet.

Critics believe the release of records will not have a major impact and the truth about the JonBenet Ramey case will never be known. Reports indicate that JonBenet was six at the time of her death and 17 years later no one has been caught or description given of a perpetrator as it relates to the case. Police initially focused on the occupants of the Ramey’s household, but later it shifted as the evidence failed to establish them as viable suspects. It is unclear why law enforcment remains at a loss for leads. The release of JonBenet’s case documents in today’s media may seek to revitalize law enforcement investigators.


Hope you are all not on here in another ten years time ,like this case    


The entire truth about the JonBenet Ramsey case will be made public when the courts unseal documents over objections by the family, maybe this is what will happen eventually in the Macann case.
On the plus side doubt Redwood would want that to happen and he was put on the spot several years down the line.

It seems the article about this and all those comments on the Wales Online Facebook page has been whooshed!!!!

canada12 wrote:Personally I think that the reason Kate and Gerry were able to be so manipulative and so successful in this "campaign" is precisely because it had never been done before, on that scale. If anyone else were to try something similar now, I suspect they'd fail miserably. People were bowled over by the juggernaut that was the Find Madeleine cause. And I agree with those who have suggested that the ultimate aim of the entire campaign was to try and make themselves so "big" that they'd be untouchable.

I remain hopeful that the police in both countries are not "blinded by the light" and that they'll be able to navigate around the persistent "me me me" that pervades the entire McCann campaign, and bring justice to Madeleine.

To a certain extent I agree with you, my point though is not only the extent of their support network in the initial stages but who was offering that support, that is where it starts to become suspicious IMO.

I don't think the Portuguese are labouring under any delusions about Kate and Gerry McCann. IMO they knew the state of play from the beginning. The problem is the UK. Kate and Gerry literally ran away when they realised the perilous situation they were in back in August/September 2007, in reality it was then that the investigation was interrupted. How could the PJ possibly continue the investigation with any success when the key witnesses and number one suspects were in another country? I have faith in Portugal but not the team allocated in the UK to review and investigate the case.

Andrew77R wrote:It seems the article about this and all those comments on the Wales Online Facebook page has been whooshed!!!!

Oh it does seem to be gone :/ And I left a lovely comment about Eddie and Keela too.

Strange that they wooshed the whole article, rather than just the comments.

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
1. Take sweeping world-wide powers to remove all child sexual abuse images from the internet and from TV and videos etc. Bridger might not have killed April if he had not seen that video that afternoon

Sounds good, but would require a global authority with powers to prosecute in every country of the world.  Ain't gonna happen.

People said much the same thing about abolishing slavery.

Then William Wilberforce came along...

and slavery is still rampant in certain countries

The Rooster wrote:Whitewash whitewash whitewash... Fed up of hearing it.  What a negative stance to take.  If you want to whitewash you don't air the dirty laundry in public. When people get positive things change!

Wow, we are not allowed an opinion anymore?

As you well know... Of course you are allowed an opinion. That's the attraction of posting on this well run and well informed forum. There are many excellent contributors here all of whom have opinions. Keep voicing!

The grand jury did indict john and patsy ramsey for the murder of their daughter.

The DA of the time though refused to sign off the case leading to them being prosecuted.

I don't know if they could still be arrested and charged today based on the original grand jury indictment or of they would have to convene a new grand jury.
My American friends don't seem to know either


[url=http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2013/1025/20131025_092257_John & Patsy Ramsey indictment.pdf]indictment[/url]


Released indictment names John and Patsy Ramsey on two charges in JonBenet death
By Mitchell Byars, Camera Staff Writer
Posted:   10/25/2013 06:19:57 AM MDT | Updated:   7 months ago

1/5

17840.jpg 17840.JPG John Ramsey looks on as his wife, Patsy, holds an advertisement promising a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the murderer of their 6-year-old daughter, JonBenet, during an interview Thursday, May 1, 1997, in Boulder, Colo. It was the Ramsey's first ...
‹›


JonBenet Ramsey (Camera file photo)
Related Stories

• Fleet and Priscilla White exonerated in death of JonBenet Ramsey — for third time
  
• Judge to release indictment in JonBenet Ramsey case
  
• Camera reporter sues Boulder DA seeking release of Ramsey indictment
  
• JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999, but DA refused to prosecute
  

In 1998, 12 grand jurors convened to look into the unsolved death of 6-year-old JonBenet Ramsey. After more than a year of poring over evidence, they left the Boulder County Courthouse without a word.
On Friday, 14 years later, an unprosecuted grand jury indictment revealed the grand jury prepared charges of child abuse resulting in death and accessory to a crime for both John and Patsy Ramsey in the death of their daughter.
The four pages released indicated the jury felt that both the Ramseys permitted a child to be "unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenet Ramsey" and rendered assistance to a person "knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."
[url=http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site21/2013/1025/20131025_092257_John & Patsy Ramsey indictment.pdf][/url]
Indictment of John and Patsy Ramsey
Alex Hunter, the Boulder County district attorney at the time, never signed the true bill, apparently believing he could not successfully prosecute due to a lack of evidence.
The criteria for a grand jury indictment is probable cause, and the decision does not have to be unanimous among the grand jurors. Hunter would have had to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt to win at trial.
Both of the charges in the indictment carry a statute of limitation of three years.
The documents -- which had been sealed since the jury concluded its work in late 1999 -- were released by retired Weld County Judge Robert Lowenbach in response to a lawsuit brought by Daily Camera reporter Charlie Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.
After Lowenbach ruled last week that the release of the documents would not violate grand jury secrecy rules, DA Stan Garnett turned over the documents for the judge to review. On Wednesday, Lowenbach ruled that the indictment would be released.
According to the court order, the documents submitted to the court by Garnett consisted of 18 pages, nine relating to each of JonBenet's parents. Lowenbach ruled that only pages signed by the foreman of the grand jury would be considered "official actions" of the grand jury and would thus be releasable. In the end, a total of four pages -- two pages for each parent -- were released.
Lin Wood, an attorney for John Ramsey, said the released indictment means "absolutely zero" in terms of the investigation into JonBenet's death.
"The documents today are a mere historical footnote, a small glimpse into the grand jury proceedings," Wood said. "It's four pages of what would have likely been hundreds of volumes of testimony and exhibit."
John Ramsey, in a letter to Garnett on Sunday, objected to the release of the indictment without the entire grand jury record also being unsealed.
"What you have is nothing more than confusing accusations without any evidence to support the accusations," Wood said Friday. "It's fundamentally unfair to the Ramsey family and the system of justice. If you're going to make public what amounts to an accusation, let's see the evidence."
In response to the request, Lowenbach said grand jury transcripts and other evidence did not constitute "official action" and would not be released. But Wood said the Ramseys deserved an exception.
"This case is unprecedented; there will never be another case like it," Wood said. "What this family has endured now for 17 years merits an exception to the rule. John Ramsey's request should have been honored, not only because it's fair but because it's the right thing to do."
'Don't have the evidence'
JonBenet Ramsey was found dead Dec. 26, 1996, in the basement of her family's Boulder home, 755 15th St. -- which is now 749 15th St. -- several hours after Patsy Ramsey called 911 to say her daughter was missing and that a ransom note had been left behind.
On Oct. 13, 1999, more than a year after the case went to the grand jury, then-DA Hunter announced that the grand jury investigation had come to an end and that no charges would be filed due to a lack of evidence.
Hunter declined to comment when reached by phone Friday.
But Bill Wise, Hunter's former top assistant, said he backs up Hunter's choice.
"I think it was the correct decision," Wise said. "You just don't have the evidence. The totality of everything that was presented by the Boulder Police Department was just insignificant to prosecute."
Jim Kolar, now chief of the Telluride Marshal's Department, was a DA investigator assigned to the case in 2004 by former Boulder DA Mary Lacy. Kolar published a book in 2012 titled "Foreign Faction: Who Really Kidnapped JonBenet?" in which he said evidence pointed toward a family member being involved in the murder as opposed to an intruder.
Kolar said the portion of the indictment that was released indicates that the grand jury came to the same conclusion.
"It seems to me that the grand jury thought there was some merit to the theory that the parents, to one extent or another, knew what happened," Kolar said.
But in 2008, it was determined that DNA evidence found on JonBenet did not match any of the Ramseys. Then-DA Lacy subsequently exonerated John and Patsy Ramsey and their son, Burke. Patsy Ramsey died after a battle with cancer in 2006.
"I think a lot of people think (Lacy) stepped over the line by exonerating the family," Kolar said. "She was relying heavily on the DNA, and I don't know that it was appropriate."
Added Wise, "I never would have done it. I'm not in the business of exonerating people until you have a conviction of somebody, and they don't have a conviction."
Wise did say that future prosecutors are not bound by the exoneration.
"When one DA exonerates, the next DA may say, 'No dice,'" he said.
But Bob Grant, who at that time was the district attorney for neighboring Adams County and was among a small group of prosecutors with whom Hunter met monthly, said the exoneration could still "torpedo" any future trial.
"Mary Lacy would become a witness for the defense, and that's a position a prosecutor never wants to be in," he said.
Lacy could not be reached for comment Friday.
Wood said the exoneration and the DNA made what was revealed Friday irrelevant.
"You didn't have DNA testing then, and that fact alone renders these findings by a grand jury in 1999 to be 100 percent wrong," Wood said.
Opportunity for speculation?
In his argument in early October for the release of the documents, Thomas Kelley -- who represented Brennan and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press pro bono -- said the release of the documents would serve to make the process more transparent.
"This indictment should have been tendered to the court, to whom the grand jury's work belongs, in 1999, not secretly pocketed by the DA while giving the public impression the grand jury did nothing," Kelley said.
Garnett -- who took office 10 years after the jury was disbanded -- had previously rejected two requests by the Camera and Brennan seeking the release of the indictment under the Colorado Open Records Act.
Garnett has written a guest opinion that will be published in Sunday's edition of the Daily Camera, and he declined to comment Friday on the release before the opinion was published.
Grant said at this point, the release of the indictment served no practical purpose.
"What this is doing is providing more opportunity for people to speculate without any basis and drag that little girl out as public spectacle," Grant said. "As a human being, I find that abhorrent."
Wise said because the statute of limitations has passed, the matter is "kind of academic anyhow, other than letting the public know."
But Kolar said that in itself was the reason he agreed with the release.
"I'm happy in some regards that more of the public record has been released," he said. "It's just unfortunate that it's taken so long for the information to reach the public.


article

Patsy Ramsey died a few years ago. I don't want this topic to venture into the Ramsey case, there are threads on that on this forum.

http://www.missingpeople.org.uk/latest-news/375-home-secretary-meets-families-to-mark-international-missing-children-s-day.html

I don't think that Missing People's report on their star supporter has been posted before.

Markus 2 wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

"The Home Secretary meets Theresa May and Coral Jones at launch of HER 'child rescue alerts' campaign"

And of course, we were told that she was 'playing outside with a friend', which under many circumstances is quite acceptable.

But then we have a series of 'buts'.

But she was only 5 years old.

But she sufferd from left-side cerebral palsy.

But she was playing 200 yards and several streets away from her parents' home.

But if she was playing at a friend's house (as claimed), then the parents of that friend were not exercising adequate supervision.

But - supremely - when April was snatched, it was past 7.00pm and already dark.


I wonder if either the McCanns or the Joneses would be willing to sign up to a campaign whose slogan was:

"Don't take the risk; never leave young children alone"

Totally agree with this , sounds like they are well suited in their campaign, then throw in May and  you have the dream team . Personally I would like to be supervising my five year old daughter a bit more then they did . And she was only a couple of years older than Madeline . Odd that this should come about now , I really cant see this search going anywhere , wonder who approached Mrs Jones to get involved, do we know.
Its like final in your face to Mcann accusers, you wont get us.

I think Kate  is totally cooking her goose with this. She has badly misjudged. People are bound to look at the April Jones case (if they had not already done so) and consider whether there are any parallels between that case and the case of missing Madeleine. The fact that April's abductor was known to her (presumably, as he is a non-biological 'Uncle' to April) casts a different light on the case. It was not the 'atypical' random abduction that Kate and Gerry would have us believe is what happened to Madeleine. By sharing a spot-light with the mother of April Jones, Kate is inviting people to make comparisons between these cases. Once it becomes apparent that there is a complex family tree linking April and her murderer, you can see that April's  case falls into the statistical 'norm' for missing and abducted children. 

Furthermore, the April Jones case highlights the failure of adults and professionals to adequately protect children from abusive, violent and sexual predators. Bridger had an appalling history of sadistic violence towards one of his sons who was scarred for life by him. Yet he was able to father six children by four different women. Given that this son received extensive medical treatment for his injuries, one imagines that social services would have had some involvement as the circumstances were definitely suspicious.

Yet Bridger was the father to six children by four different women. You could argue that if more robust 'child protection' steps had been taken following his appalling abuse of his son as a baby/toddler (first reported incidence when he was 18 months old) it might have been possible to prevent the tragedy that eventually unfolded for April.

What steps were taken by any of the bodies that are supposed to exist to 'protect children' to prevent this father of six from causing harm to either his own children (which definitely happened as reported in the press) or other people's children?

HOW will Coral Jones 'feel' IF the McCanns are found to have been 'involved' in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

jeanmonroe wrote:HOW will Coral Jones 'feel' IF the McCanns are found to have been 'involved' in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

They already are involved, by their own admission. They failed to provide adequate child-care arrangements which put their children at risk of harm.

It seems April knew her murderer well and had even been on holiday with him. Two of Bridger's children lived in April's street and April was best friends with their step-sister. 

http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/uk-child-abusers-named-and-shamed/infamous-uk-cases/profile-of-mark-bridger/

I agree j.rob BUT:

HOW will Coral Jones 'FEEL' if the McCanns are found to have been involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

Duped? Conned? Furious? Fuming? Disgusted? etc.,

Very early on in the April Jones case, police turned it into a murder enquiry. So it is quite deceptive, imo, to flag this up as a 'Missing' person case. Likewise, there is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger from her bedroom. So, again, why is this being highlighted as a 'missing person' case?

HOW will Coral Jones 'FEEL' if the McCanns are found to have been involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

Duped? Conned? Furious? Fuming? Disgusted? etc.,

Maybe none of those things. Maybe relieved.

j.rob

Maybe relieved.?

In my best Dalek 'voice':

DOES-NOT-COMPUTE!  DOES-NOT-COMPUTE!

Once it becomes apparent that there is a complex family tree linking April and her murderer, you can see that April's  case falls into the statistical 'norm' for missing and abducted children.

Agree, well put, would like to know who or what prompted Coral Jones to get involved with the Mcanns, which of the spin team was involved.



Just seen this

 people try to compare the behaviour of the Mccanns with Coral and Paul Jones!

Is this where they feel united .hmm