Re: Now shown on Channel 5: 'THE McCANNS AND THE CONMAN'

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 19:27

Doug D wrote:Seems like a good time to revisit Henry Exton and see the redacted stuff forced on Joana Morais under a D notice (the red highlights towards the bottom of the article).

http://cryptome.org/0001/henri-exton.htm

The most frightening thing to me is the complete irrelevance of the redacted info. as far as ‘cause serious risks to National Security and to the individual concerned’, yet the PTB were obviously happy to go along with the original D notice request.

How much other nonsense gets 'D-noticed' that we never even get a sniff of?

In any event, I think I am right in saying that the notice has no effect outside of the UK and serving it on Joana in Portugal was actually pointless, even if she did agree to go along with it

Bindmans wrote in late September to all of us (The Madeleine Foundation got a letter) who had published Mark Hollingsworth's article in the Evening Standard on 24 August 2009.

I will publish the letter later if I can paste it up.

It enclosed a standard-worded 'Standard DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security and Intelligence Services and Special Services'.

I agree, it was pretty pointless trying to take any action against Joana Morais in Portugal.

by Cristobell 05.06.14 19:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
Doug D wrote:Seems like a good time to revisit Henry Exton and see the redacted stuff forced on Joana Morais under a D notice (the red highlights towards the bottom of the article).

http://cryptome.org/0001/henri-exton.htm

The most frightening thing to me is the complete irrelevance of the redacted info. as far as ‘cause serious risks to National Security and to the individual concerned’, yet the PTB were obviously happy to go along with the original D notice request.

How much other nonsense gets 'D-noticed' that we never even get a sniff of?

In any event, I think I am right in saying that the notice has no effect outside of the UK and serving it on Joana in Portugal was actually pointless, even if she did agree to go along with it.

Bindmans wrote in late September to all of us (The Madeleine Foundation got a letter) who had published Mark Hollingsworth's article in the Evening Standard on 24 August 2009.

I will publish the letter later if I can paste it up.

It enclosed a standard-worded 'Standard DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security and Intelligence Services and Special Services'.

I agree, it was pretty pointless trying to take any action against Joana Morais in Portugal.

Tony, doesn't the McCanns' legal gag on Operation Omega, Exton's report', convince you that the McCanns have always been intent on covering up Smithman?

by Beanie 05.06.14 20:02

I have watched the programme twice now and don't feel it did Jane Tanner any favours at all. I was also waiting to see Brian Kennedy mentioned and what his connections were to Kevin Halligen, nothing.

I am puzzled though as to why the McCanns spent so much of the fund money on corrupt private investigators, when they could, according to the fund rules have kept it for themselves.

In the case of Halligen, I can only assume they were made aware he had access to satellite images and they were desperate to know what they showed, also what information the PJ had on them, all IMO, otherwise I don't understand the point of wasting so much of the fund.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.14 20:07

Cristobell wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Doug D wrote:Seems like a good time to revisit Henry Exton and see the redacted stuff forced on Joana Morais under a D notice (the red highlights towards the bottom of the article).

http://cryptome.org/0001/henri-exton.htm

The most frightening thing to me is the complete irrelevance of the redacted info. as far as ‘cause serious risks to National Security and to the individual concerned’, yet the PTB were obviously happy to go along with the original D notice request.

How much other nonsense gets 'D-noticed' that we never even get a sniff of?

In any event, I think I am right in saying that the notice has no effect outside of the UK and serving it on Joana in Portugal was actually pointless, even if she did agree to go along with it.

===================

Bindmans wrote in late September to all of us (The Madeleine Foundation got a letter) who had published Mark Hollingsworth's article in the Evening Standard on 24 August 2009.

I will publish the letter later if I can paste it up.

It enclosed a standard-worded 'Standard DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security and Intelligence Services and Special
Services'.

I agree, it was pretty pointless trying to take any action against Joana Morais in Portugal.
Tony, doesn't the McCanns' legal gag on Operation Omega, Exton's report', convince you that the McCanns have always been intent on covering up Smithman?

Points:

1. What is the Operation Omega report? What do we really know about it? All we have seen on TV is a cover sheet and a wodge of papers underneath. Do we know if there is an actual report?

2. Exton has spoken to the Sunday Times. Exton has also spoken in the Halligen film shown last night. Exton was at one time in league wtih Halligen but appears on the evidence to have fallen out with him in big way. He appeared in shadow form on the programme. How much reliance can we really put on anything he says?

3. There could be a whole variety of reasons why the McCanns have put a legal ban on this report. Whose word do we have for all this? Only Extons's.

4. Assuming for one moment that Exton is telling the truth, it could well be that there is some other reason for the McCanns' legal ban, nothing to do with the Smiths.

5. There is major doubt about those 2 efits that Exton has apparently produced. Do we know that they were prodcued by the Smiths? No, there is huge doubt about that. Redwood didn't even specifically say that they were. Are the 2 efits even of the same person? It seems extremely unlikely.

by TheTruthWillOut 05.06.14 20:13

I don't get your last post Tony. Are you left speechless!? big grin

by Guest 05.06.14 20:45

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't get your last post Tony. Are you left speechless!?

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant, but it seems to me it is a question of "Trust noone - question everything".

by TheTruthWillOut 05.06.14 20:53

daffodil wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't get your last post Tony. Are you left speechless!?

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant, but it seems to me it is a question of "Trust noone - question everything".

It was just a joke daffodil! Tony's initial reply to Cristobel was blank for some reason. He has now edited in his reply.

by Guest 05.06.14 21:07

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
daffodil wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't get your last post Tony. Are you left speechless!?

I hope this doesn't come across as flippant, but it seems to me it is a question of "Trust noone - question everything".

It was just a joke daffodil! Tony's initial reply to Cristobel was blank for some reason. He has now edited in his reply.

Oh please don't misunderstand, my fault I'm sure. I was referring to the questions raised in Tony's post, not yours TTWO. It just seems to me that we

cannot be confident who to believe in this long running saga, no reference meant to posters on this forum, but the background (the 'back office if you like)raise so many suspicions. flag

by canada12 05.06.14 21:12

Beanie wrote:
I am puzzled though as to why the McCanns spent so much of the fund money on corrupt private investigators, when they could, according to the fund rules have kept it for themselves.
.

IMO, because they had to be seen to be doing something to search for Madeleine. IMO if they'd employed legitimate investigators, they'd have soon got their answer, and they wouldn't have been happy with it. Because the obvious would have been staring them in the face, and then what if the legit investigators went to the police with the results of their work?

IMO, the more corrupt the PI's, the greater the chance, also, of money being kicked back to the McCanns for their personal use. ie - pay the corrupt investigators out of The Fund, corrupt investigators do their thing, corrupt investigators give a percentage of their fee back to the McCanns, everyone is happy. All speculation on my part.

by Shhh 05.06.14 21:58

Poking around google trying to make sense of the yellow toast riddle I found this

http://kevinhalligen.blogspot.co.uk

by Beanie 05.06.14 22:28

canada12 wrote:
Beanie wrote:
I am puzzled though as to why the McCanns spent so much of the fund money on corrupt private investigators, when they could, according to the fund rules have kept it for themselves.
.

IMO, because they had to be seen to be doing something to search for Madeleine. IMO if they'd employed legitimate investigators, they'd have soon got their answer, and they wouldn't have been happy with it. Because the obvious would have been staring them in the face, and then what if the legit investigators went to the police with the results of their work?

IMO, the more corrupt the PI's, the greater the chance, also, of money being kicked back to the McCanns for their personal use. ie - pay the corrupt investigators out of The Fund, corrupt investigators do their thing, corrupt investigators give a percentage of their fee back to the McCanns, everyone is happy. All speculation on my part.

You have a very good point. It would also be interesting to know why the directors of the fund dropped like stones, disassociation perhaps from a future revelation.

by ShuBob 05.06.14 22:49

I got the distinct feeling the programme was questioning the fund directors' judgement. Are they going to release a statement explaining exactly what the situation with Halligen was?

PS: Apart from the couple, who remains on the fund board?

by Praia 06.06.14 0:22

Uncle Brian, Jon Corner, Ed Smethurst and the husband of one of England's richest women, Linnet. So 4 out of 6 family / close friend, Nah can't seen ethical issues there.
They have free reign to spend what they wish.

by Pershing36 06.06.14 0:24

Why have they never gone public about his apparent milking of the funds. They sue everyone, why not him? Or is it because he is broke anyway now?

by aiyoyo 06.06.14 2:21

figaro19 wrote:
aquila wrote:
figaro19 wrote:
tigger wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
russiandoll wrote: Soupçons Qué re PdL, Clay?

Que c'est le genre d'Endroit Qui vêtement Les indésirables. De Toutes Sortes.

Je Comprends Que l'Algarve intérêt Connu Comme «Little Britain» et il se could be Bien devenu juin destination préférée verser Ceux Qui Ont used à la tête de l'entreprise de mode de Costa del crime. Ailleurs Par, le Maroc intérêt non longe liaison simple aller, Belle espagnol Villes QUELQUES heures de route, terrains de golf à profusion, Semble Assez Bien idéal versez Ceux Qui peuvent se le permettre, désirables et Indésirables semblables. Je suis Sûr Que la majority des Expatriés et Portugais-il Mener Une Vie irréprochable (Vous also Praaia). Maïs sur may vivre à Côte de N'importe quel type de Criminel de / indésirable Jamais sans le savoir - et Qui se ressemble s'assemble, la rumeur se repand. Etait-ce ce Que Vous vouliez dire? Soudain, Je pense à nouveau de la connexion Rothley / maçonnique / Club de golf Avec PdL Et Vous Savez quoi, Quelqu'un une CONSTRUIT juin pyramide DANS son jardin juste en bas de la route de OC et il ya photo juin vacances de l'extraction des McCann Avec la pyramide au milieu friands. Le Fait d'Avoir juin connexion, polo Un moment de conspiration ici ...

vous avez raison, pyramide + maddie des yeux = serpent maçonnique
et nous sommes leur jouet ...
Juste pour que je puisse comprendre, pouvez-vous s'il vous plaît dites-moi pourquoi vous traduisez les messages sélectifs en français et en maintenant leur répondre en anglais?
I do not speak English so I use "google" translate. I translated the page of your website and I try to answer in English Still with google translation. I desoler this problem and forgive my ignorance. good day

Actually I rather enjoy reading the french translation. No need to apologise.

by aiyoyo 06.06.14 2:27

Pershing36 wrote:Why have they never gone public about his apparent milking of the funds. They sue everyone, why not him? Or is it because he is broke anyway now?

Of all their PIs, Halligen was the only one who did some real and decent job.
They can't sue him for doing his job just because they don't like his final report surely?
Would have been nice to get our hands on the final report to see what negative was written about the mccanns.

by Guest 06.06.14 22:30

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Doug D wrote:Seems like a good time to revisit Henry Exton and see the redacted stuff forced on Joana Morais under a D notice (the red highlights towards the bottom of the article).

http://cryptome.org/0001/henri-exton.htm

The most frightening thing to me is the complete irrelevance of the redacted info. as far as ‘cause serious risks to National Security and to the individual concerned’, yet the PTB were obviously happy to go along with the original D notice request.

How much other nonsense gets 'D-noticed' that we never even get a sniff of?

In any event, I think I am right in saying that the notice has no effect outside of the UK and serving it on Joana in Portugal was actually pointless, even if she did agree to go along with it.

===================

Bindmans wrote in late September to all of us (The Madeleine Foundation got a letter) who had published Mark Hollingsworth's article in the Evening Standard on 24 August 2009.

I will publish the letter later if I can paste it up.

It enclosed a standard-worded 'Standard DA-Notice 05: United Kingdom Security and Intelligence Services and Special
Services'.

I agree, it was pretty pointless trying to take any action against Joana Morais in Portugal.
Tony, doesn't the McCanns' legal gag on Operation Omega, Exton's report', convince you that the McCanns have always been intent on covering up Smithman?
Points:

1. What is the Operation Omega report? What do we really know about it? All we have seen on TV is a cover sheet and a wodge of papers underneath. Do we know if there is an actual report?

2. Exton has spoken to the Sunday Times. Exton has also spoken in the Halligen film shown last night. Exton was at one time in league wtih Halligen but appears on the evidence to have fallen out with him in big way. He appeared in shadow form on the programme. How much reliance can we really put on anything he says?

3. There could be a whole variety of reasons why the McCanns have put a legal ban on this report. Whose word do we have for all this? Only Extons's.

4. Assuming for one moment that Exton is telling the truth, it could well be that there is some other reason for the McCanns' legal ban, nothing to do with the Smiths.

5. There is major doubt about those 2 efits that Exton has apparently produced. Do we know that they were prodcued by the Smiths? No, there is huge doubt about that. Redwood didn't even specifically say that they were. Are the 2 efits even of the same person? It seems extremely unlikely.

For people that think Halligan's outfit was kosher and genuinely investigating the disappearance of Maddie, this is what I don't understand. I am assuming that Gerry and Kate Mccann know the fate of their child (there is nothing to make me think otherwise), so why would they hire a company of ace whatevers to investigate themselves? It doesn't make any sense. This leads me think that Oakley International were hired as just another pretence in the now infamous search.

I was never convinced by the Times report about the allegedly concealed e-fits, there was no secret about the Irishman Smith suggesting at some point that the man they saw on the night of Maddies disappearance might have been Gerry so why the need to hide away an artists impression of two different men, one of which could vaguely be said to look like Gerry? I think people are making too much of this in order to satisfy a lust for news that might take the case towards a conclusion . Not so in my opinion.

Didn't Henri Exton have some grief with Halligan because he wasn't paid for his work or is that only a rumour? If true it would certainly explain why Exton would turn quisling to avenge his employer. The Channel 5 programme did nothing to make me think otherwise, I truly believe that the whole outfit was a con, with the collaboration of the Mccanns and the fund administrators the same as Metodo3 etc. I'm convinced that their sole purpose, apart from perhaps moving money about, was to gather information to the advantage of the Mccanns, such as evidence the PJ or some other force might have against them.

by missbeetle 07.06.14 22:31

It's up on Youtube, but I can't do clips from it.

Tim Craig-Harvey from 2.47 t0 3 mins to me suggests a body will never be found.

I am also fascinated by the Secret Cardinal.

...and I loved the idea of the undercover disenfranchised priest!

Did anyone else think they saw Playground Man in the background at one stage?

by Doug D 11.06.14 20:10

Well bugger me!

Digging around on D notices & looked back for this one which has been out there for four years or so.

http://cryptome.org/0001/henri-exton.htm

Whooshhh and it was gone. (It was there on June 5^th!)

And people say we get paranoid!!

by **Tony Bennett** 14.10.16 22:57

Tony Bennett wrote:Being trailed now -

http://www.tvrage.com/shows/id-42673

To be shown on Channel 5 on Wednesday 4 June

The 'Con-Man' was, of course Kevin a.k.a Richard Halligen.

In Jill's recent letter to Theresa May and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, she emphasised the role of Brian Kennedy and suggested that Operation Grange should talk to some of the people he employed about their true role in the case - and she listed the 14 dodgy and controversial people he had appointed - allegedly to find Madeleine.

Halligen was just one of the 14:

Gary Hagland
Metodo 3
Francisco Marco
Antonio Gimenez Raso
Julian Peribanez
Marcos Aragao Correia
Oakley International
Kevin Halligen
Henri Exton
Tim Craig-Harvey
ALPHAIG
Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar
Former Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley
Melissa Little

Blacksmith's latest article, reproduced elsewhere, gives his honest opinion about Brian Kennedy, here are some extracts:

"I know very little, and care less, about Mr Kennedy: he is a figure of no importance in the crime at issue, but he happens to be rich and successful, which makes him a marked man for the various losers and Puritans in the anti camp...Kennedy, by the way, is not super-rich...

I see no evidence that Kennedy was anything more than a fervent believer in the McCanns’ innocence who used his money to get closer to it than others..."

Blacksmith denies Kennedy is 'super-rich'. On the contrary, if Blacksmith checked his facts he would find Kennedy high up on the national 'rich list', with personal wealth estimated at £250 million. He was assessed ass the 4th richest resident of Cheshire:

http://www.shopcheshire.co.uk/cheshire-blog/?aid=815

But Blacksmith did at least get one bit of his article right, when he wrote:

"Look, I am not an expert on the McCann Affair..."