Re: Cracked Mirror: Reflections on the McCann affair - The Policemen's Tales

by Monty Heck 13.08.14 19:57

Dr What wrote:Quite.

It just seems to many people that the ridiculous and contradictory statements given by some of this group of people are simply lies.One does not have to be trained as an investigator to come to that conclusion.
Why is it then that the very best of SY brains continue to tip-toe around what is so apparent?

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened? Some might say, that it has happened and we simply don't know.But it does not take years and years to determine that some people should be charged with a variety of offences, including perverting justice, abandonment of minors and neglect.

We don't know what happened to Maddie, but we do know certain facts surrounding the case.Let's start with them.

Your words in bold (mine) sum the situation up succinctlly. The statements are indeed crying out for a robust examination, but they and the already known facts surrounding the case are being ignored by SY and have been from the outset. Imagine what would have happened if, turning this around, foreigners had holidayed in the UK, lost a child who had been left alone in unsecured premises and claimed it was an abduction with no evidence and without considering any other possibility. Then behaved the way the T9 did and gave statements along similar lines to theirs, would SY be saying, several years down the line "we are beginning from zero as if the previous joint UK/Portuguese investigation had never happened" (or words to that effect)? Throw in other odd behaviours such as starting a fund for questionable purposes, refusing to answer police questions, dismissing sniffer dog evidence, the PJ and LP, insisting without a shred of evidence their child is alive and findable, and suing anyone says otherwise. The clamour to have such people rigorously investigated would have been deafening.

by espeland 13.08.14 20:40

I suppose it depends if the term '(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)' in the Operation Grange remit means that OG are to investigate only an abduction or whether the remit has changed now that they haven't identified an abductor. I'm not going to ask, but you can if you wish yes

One must assume if a whitewash is planned it is to protect a very senior person, presumably from what we know of the case a Prime Minister. Somehow I don't see a Conservative government being too concerned to protect a Labour person however - particularly as the General Election is so close.

There are many instances of malpractice, as you note. But they are surfacing now, albeit years late. I would hope that current SY officers realise the importance of not creating another.

by j.rob 13.08.14 21:19

jeanmonroe wrote:
Dr What wrote:Quite.

It just seems to many people that the ridiculous and contradictory statements given by some of this group of people are simply lies.One does not have to be trained as an investigator to come to that conclusion.
Why is it then that the very best of SY brains continue to tip-toe around what is so apparent?

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened? Some might say, that it has happened and we simply don't know.But it does not take years and years to determine that some people should be charged with a variety of offences, including perverting justice, abandonment of minors and neglect.

We don't know what happened to Maddie, but we do know certain facts surrounding the case.Let's start with them.

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
---------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS!

17th JULY 2014.

Interviewer "What's your sense?"

DCI Driscoll: "My sense was i couldn't work certain things out, there were certain incidents, there were certain inquiries, which didn't appear to be progressed, there were certain, um, PARTS of 'the investigation' THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AT ALL, but i never investigated whether that was corruption or is it incompetent"

Interviewer: "But what does corruption look like?"

DCI Driscoll: "Question i've asked myself many times, what is corruption, i mean is corruption going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope full of 50 quid notes and thats corruption, or is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SO,
In answer to your:
Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
-------------------------

I think DCI Driscoll has 'probably' given you possible 'answers' to your 'questions'.

"You don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you."

Yes - I think that probably answers quite a few questions. At least as far as I am concerned. Thanks, JM.

by missmar1 13.08.14 21:54

As another poster stated recently - sorry cant remember their name, the oddities in this case are so obvious imo.

One of these "oddities" is the Mccann's expect to be believed when they claimed they felt it was safe when they left their children in the unlocked apartment at night ( If they did ) while they were having drinks and eating with friends - yet they did not feel "safe" to leave the same apartment unlocked during the daytime hours when they were all out ?

So, they felt it was safe at night but not during the day ? No valuables were taken that night they say. So they claim they left their valuables in the unlocked apartment at night along with their 3 children - but, during the day, they locked the apartment when they were all out ? Is that because they didn't feel safe leaving the valuables alone without the children being there ? It certainly doesn't make any sense to me - all my opinion only.

by j.rob 26.10.14 10:09

jeanmonroe wrote:
Dr What wrote:Quite.

It just seems to many people that the ridiculous and contradictory statements given by some of this group of people are simply lies.One does not have to be trained as an investigator to come to that conclusion.
Why is it then that the very best of SY brains continue to tip-toe around what is so apparent?

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened? Some might say, that it has happened and we simply don't know.But it does not take years and years to determine that some people should be charged with a variety of offences, including perverting justice, abandonment of minors and neglect.

We don't know what happened to Maddie, but we do know certain facts surrounding the case.Let's start with them.

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
---------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS!

17th JULY 2014.

Interviewer "What's your sense?"

DCI Driscoll: "My sense was i couldn't work certain things out, there were certain incidents, there were certain inquiries, which didn't appear to be progressed, there were certain, um, PARTS of 'the investigation' THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AT ALL, but i never investigated whether that was corruption or is it incompetent"

Interviewer: "But what does corruption look like?"

DCI Driscoll: "Question i've asked myself many times, what is corruption, i mean is corruption going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope full of 50 quid notes and thats corruption, or is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SO,
In answer to your:
Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
-------------------------

I think DCI Driscoll has 'probably' given you possible 'answers' to your 'questions'.

by j.rob 26.10.14 11:02

Research_Reader wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." Gerry McCann

Surely that must be a freudian slip!

The children were asleep when the supposed abduction took place, that is their official version.
What other circumstances he knew it happened under that he did not tell the Police?

That is a very odd pair of sentences isn't it?

Why did Kate get so agitated in that early TV interview about the incident where Madeleine allegedly woke up on Wednesday night along with Sean and cried? And so asked her parents: "Why didn't you come when Sean and I woke up?" As outlined in Kate's book on page 62.

Why has Kate made such a big deal out of this? I know it is allegedly to plant the seed that the random mystery abductor may have tried to carry out the abduction the night before.....but......what is the real story here I wonder?

Kate often comes up with something that is not that far from what really happened that week. But spins it. So Madeleine waking up and Madeleine crying are significant, imo.

In the interview (the clip is on the forum somewhere, I will try to find it) Kate becomes visibly very agitated over the subject of Madeleine waking up. Her facial expressions and body language are very revealing. Kate repeats I think three times, with increasing agitation: 'What do you mean you woke up?'

Of note Gerry looks on at Kate's agitation with a most perplexing expression. Not contrite or upset or 'sharing her pain'. More an expression which appears to signify a kind of : 'Oh well. What can you do?' attitude. With possibly a touch of a suppressed schoolboy smirk, imo.

In subsequent interviews (even one the very next day), Kate very noticeably tones down any emotional reaction to this. (Even to the extent of the curled lip and the shrug of the shoulders as demonstrated in a later TV interview. This tells me that this indent is highly important - and that she must control her body language to the extent of completely misrepresenting it's importance, imo.)

Then Kate in that early interview castigates herself for not having got the full story out of Madeleine - to find out why she woke up and what Madeleine meant. Even to the extent of simulating holding Madeleine by the shoulders and shaking her. The suggestion being that shaking Madeleine quite firmly by the shoulders might have revealed the information about what had happened to wake Madeleine up.

(Somewhat alarming, imo, that Kate should consider that garnering information about what had woken up and upset Madeleine to the extent that Madeleine would remembered it the next day would be achieved by fairly forceably shaking Madeleine by the shoulders. Is this how a caring parent approaches a potentially very sensitive and emotive situation? An incident whereby a child might have become highly distressed - despite the parents' claims - and where a very softly-softly approach would most definitely be needed to find out what had happened.)

Both Kate and Gerry noticeably play down the impact that this 'waking up and crying' incident had on Madeleine. It is interesting that they allege Sean woke up too and cried. Which may or may not be true. But I wonder why this was included? Is it to be deceptive? Was Sean not even in the apartment when Madeleine woke up and cried? But they wanted to make it appear that he was? Or was Sean in the apartment but sedated, perhaps? So he couldn't have woken up? Hence the spin.

Both Kate and Gerry allege that Madeleine's crying incident was no more than a passing remark. "She didn't seem to be at all anxious or upset. .....If something had happened to make her cry, it is pretty unlikely that she wouldn't tell us about it, assuming she remembered what it was."

Well, given the approach that you think might have been effective in terms of finding out what happened, Kate, I would suggest that Madeleine was either unable, unwilling or too scared to tell you what had upset her so much. Or you didn't want to hear.

In later media interviews Kate shrugged off this crying incident with a contemptuous curl of the lip and a shrug of the shoulders saying something like 'she just moved on'. What a dramatically different reaction from that early TV interview!

Amazing what a little coaching in terms of body language for media interviews can do. In order to influence public perception. (Think the film 'Gone Girl' perhaps?)

Sadly for the pair but happily for the truth-seekers, neither Kate or Gerry would have been likely to gain places at RADA. Maybe Rothley pantomime players?

Hmmmm.........

by worriedmum 26.10.14 12:46

'What do you mean you woke up?'

as opposed to

' What woke you up?'

Subtly different questions and a different emphasis on time-scale IMO

by NickE 26.10.14 13:47

j.rob wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
"What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." Gerry McCann

Surely that must be a freudian slip!

The children were asleep when the supposed abduction took place, that is their official version.
What other circumstances he knew it happened under that he did not tell the Police?

That is a very odd pair of sentences isn't it?

Why did Kate get so agitated in that early TV interview about the incident where Madeleine allegedly woke up on Wednesday night along with Sean and cried? And so asked her parents: "Why didn't you come when Sean and I woke up?" As outlined in Kate's book on page 62.

Why has Kate made such a big deal out of this? I know it is allegedly to plant the seed that the random mystery abductor may have tried to carry out the abduction the night before.....but......what is the real story here I wonder?

Kate often comes up with something that is not that far from what really happened that week. But spins it. So Madeleine waking up and Madeleine crying are significant, imo.

In the interview (the clip is on the forum somewhere, I will try to find it) Kate becomes visibly very agitated over the subject of Madeleine waking up. Her facial expressions and body language are very revealing. Kate repeats I think three times, with increasing agitation: 'What do you mean you woke up?'

Of note Gerry looks on at Kate's agitation with a most perplexing expression. Not contrite or upset or 'sharing her pain'. More an expression which appears to signify a kind of : 'Oh well. What can you do?' attitude. With possibly a touch of a suppressed schoolboy smirk, imo.

In subsequent interviews (even one the very next day), Kate very noticeably tones down any emotional reaction to this. (Even to the extent of the curled lip and the shrug of the shoulders as demonstrated in a later TV interview. This tells me that this indent is highly important - and that she must control her body language to the extent of completely misrepresenting it's importance, imo.)

Then Kate in that early interview castigates herself for not having got the full story out of Madeleine - to find out why she woke up and what Madeleine meant. Even to the extent of simulating holding Madeleine by the shoulders and shaking her. The suggestion being that shaking Madeleine quite firmly by the shoulders might have revealed the information about what had happened to wake Madeleine up.

(Somewhat alarming, imo, that Kate should consider that garnering information about what had woken up and upset Madeleine to the extent that Madeleine would remembered it the next day would be achieved by fairly forceably shaking Madeleine by the shoulders. Is this how a caring parent approaches a potentially very sensitive and emotive situation? An incident whereby a child might have become highly distressed - despite the parents' claims - and where a very softly-softly approach would most definitely be needed to find out what had happened.)

Both Kate and Gerry noticeably play down the impact that this 'waking up and crying' incident had on Madeleine. It is interesting that they allege Sean woke up too and cried. Which may or may not be true. But I wonder why this was included? Is it to be deceptive? Was Sean not even in the apartment when Madeleine woke up and cried? But they wanted to make it appear that he was? Or was Sean in the apartment but sedated, perhaps? So he couldn't have woken up? Hence the spin.

Both Kate and Gerry allege that Madeleine's crying incident was no more than a passing remark. "She didn't seem to be at all anxious or upset. .....If something had happened to make her cry, it is pretty unlikely that she wouldn't tell us about it, assuming she remembered what it was."

Well, given the approach that you think might have been effective in terms of finding out what happened, Kate, I would suggest that Madeleine was either unable, unwilling or too scared to tell you what had upset her so much. Or you didn't want to hear.

In later media interviews Kate shrugged off this crying incident with a contemptuous curl of the lip and a shrug of the shoulders saying something like 'she just moved on'. What a dramatically different reaction from that early TV interview!

Amazing what a little coaching in terms of body language for media interviews can do. In order to influence public perception. (Think the film 'Gone Girl' perhaps?)

Sadly for the pair but happily for the truth-seekers, neither Kate or Gerry would have been likely to gain places at RADA. Maybe Rothley pantomime players?

Hmmmm.........

I think the reason was that the public would believe that Madeleine was alive that night/morning.
That's what I think.

by **PeterMac** 26.10.14 13:53

NickE wrote:
I think the reason was that the public would believe that Madeleine was alive that night/morning.
That's what I think.

Exactly.
It is, once again, over doing it. Too much information
And then roping one of the Tapas group to re-tell the story - so it MUST be true
The same with all the histrionics about the time on the Last Photo, when they wanted us to look at the date. On a photo they did not release (aka kept hidden ) for three WEEKS !
Without all this stuff there is no proof that Madeleine was alive and well at any time on 3rd.
And lots of circumstantial evidence that she wasn't !

by NickE 26.10.14 13:57

PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:
I think the reason was that the public would believe that Madeleine was alive that night/morning.
That's what I think.
Exactly.
It is, once again, over doing it. Too much information
And then roping one of the Tapas group to re-tell the story - so it MUST be true
The same with all the histrionics about the time on the Last Photo, when they wanted us to look at the date. On a photo they did not release (aka kept hidden ) for three WEEKS !
Without all this stuff there is no proof that Madeleine was alive and well at any time on 3rd.
And lots of circumstantial evidence that she wasn't !

..and Thursday,May 3rd was The BEST day on their holiday....and She WAS so happy....they looked like angels....unt zu weiter
Bad actors!

by cloak'ndagger 26.10.14 14:07

j.rob wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Dr What wrote:Quite.

It just seems to many people that the ridiculous and contradictory statements given by some of this group of people are simply lies.One does not have to be trained as an investigator to come to that conclusion.
Why is it then that the very best of SY brains continue to tip-toe around what is so apparent?

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened? Some might say, that it has happened and we simply don't know.But it does not take years and years to determine that some people should be charged with a variety of offences, including perverting justice, abandonment of minors and neglect.

We don't know what happened to Maddie, but we do know certain facts surrounding the case.Let's start with them.

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
---------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS!

17th JULY 2014.

Interviewer "What's your sense?"

DCI Driscoll: "My sense was i couldn't work certain things out, there were certain incidents, there were certain inquiries, which didn't appear to be progressed, there were certain, um, PARTS of 'the investigation' THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AT ALL, but i never investigated whether that was corruption or is it incompetent"

Interviewer: "But what does corruption look like?"

DCI Driscoll: "Question i've asked myself many times, what is corruption, i mean is corruption going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope full of 50 quid notes and thats corruption, or is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SO,
In answer to your:
Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
-------------------------

I think DCI Driscoll has 'probably' given you possible 'answers' to your 'questions'.
"You don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you."

Yes - I think that probably answers quite a few questions. At least as far as I am concerned. Thanks, JM.

Very interesting ..I haven't read that interview before .Do you have a link to the full interview please ?

by Jauna Loca 26.10.14 14:55

stillsloppingout wrote:Very good post . would be useful if it could find its way to Mirror, Sun, Star ideally to there most fervent followers . inc The Met and facebook etc .
oh and the writers of the new book .

Well done PM .

Apologies if this has been pointed out on this thread before. IIRC this 'article' is from Dr. Amaral's Book
so there's no way it'll be ever making it into MSM if the McCann's have their way.

by Stillthinking 26.10.14 15:56

NickE wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nikeE wrote:"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

Hang on a wait! That is new to me, first time I heard that.
On the basis of that info, if Mccanns helped RN take their daughter to the creche for 5 days in a row with the agenda to sign Elizabeth in and at the same time made false entries for Madeleine, then not necessary RN knew about their agenda or was complicit in their scheme.

and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

This bit I don't understand? Who took who to the creche?
Who is Elizabeth and who is Madalene referred to here?

Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.
GM took E.N the creche and M.R's parents was not there.
I Think GM took E.N and M.R to creche.

NickE you say...

"Kiko" have been in Contact with Robert Naylor,who admitted that the McCann's took Elizabeth to the Creche for 5 days,and what about Elizabeth's friend Madalene,who took her to the Creche?

and

"Elizabeth's friend Madalene Ri*er travelled to pdl and OC with the Naylor.
Madalene's parents was not with them on this trip.
GM took E.N the creche and M.R's parents was not there."

Who on earth is Kiko and why is their word taken as fact? You are stating all the above as fact and yet it seems to have no reliable source other than the name Kiko?

by Stillthinking 26.10.14 16:12

Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.

by Guest 26.10.14 16:20

Stillthinking: Kiko is a member here as Kikoraton.

Here's his Twitter account if you can access that.

https://twitter.com/kikoratton

by Stillthinking 26.10.14 16:30

Marian wrote:Stillthinking: Kiko is a member here as Kikoraton.

Here's his Twitter account if you can access that.

https://twitter.com/kikoratton

Many thanks. :)

Do we have any proof that the Mr Naylor has said this or just Kiko's word and has it been passed on to police?

If true it does make the creche fraud even less likely IMO as Mr Naylor would see whether or not Madeleine was with Gerry and would know the difference between her and the other child, and his daughter would know whether or not her friend was really there that day.

by Joss 26.10.14 17:22

I must say i have never read about another missing child case of this calibre. Just have a look at all the connections to the McC's. From the establishment, Masons, the pope to celebs. etc., that are involved in this thing. It truly is mind boggling. Didn't Branson even donate a large amount of money to the fund? What is he involved with, the label Virgin? There is very much more than meets the eye to all of this for sure. Who are the McCann's really? Did you also know the name Madeleine originates from Magdalene? I guess that is the Catholic thing?

by NickE 26.10.14 17:47

Stillthinking wrote:
Marian wrote:Stillthinking: Kiko is a member here as Kikoraton.

Here's his Twitter account if you can access that.

https://twitter.com/kikoratton

Many thanks. :)

Do we have any proof that the Mr Naylor has said this or just Kiko's word and has it been passed on to police?

If true it does make the creche fraud even less likely IMO as Mr Naylor would see whether or not Madeleine was with Gerry and would know the difference between her and the other child, and his daughter would know whether or not her friend was really there that day.

[ltr]@kikoratton 4 jul[/ltr]
@xklamation Yes, I spoke with two officers there, and received the "recibo" via Correos.

@kikoratton 4 jul
[ltr]@w_nicht @xklamation The PJ have been sent the evidence, including a photo of the lookalike girl. Let's hope they act on it.[/ltr]

[ltr]Joana Morais ‏
@xklamation
4 jul
@kikoratton Good, just learned recently about what took place, had no idea at all. I was shocked.[/ltr]

"Evidence" is evidence,not speculation.
"Kiko" is a former GCHQ traffic analyst,I assume that he is serious.

by Stillthinking 26.10.14 17:56

NickE wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Marian wrote:Stillthinking: Kiko is a member here as Kikoraton.

Here's his Twitter account if you can access that.

https://twitter.com/kikoratton

Many thanks. :)

Do we have any proof that the Mr Naylor has said this or just Kiko's word and has it been passed on to police?

If true it does make the creche fraud even less likely IMO as Mr Naylor would see whether or not Madeleine was with Gerry and would know the difference between her and the other child, and his daughter would know whether or not her friend was really there that day.

[ltr]@kikoratton 4 jul[/ltr]

@xklamation Yes, I spoke with two officers there, and received the "recibo" via Correos.

@kikoratton 4 jul
[ltr]@w_nicht @xklamation The PJ have been sent the evidence, including a photo of the lookalike girl. Let's hope they act on it.[/ltr]

[ltr]Joana Morais ‏
@xklamation
4 jul
@kikoratton Good, just learned recently about what took place, had no idea at all. I was shocked.[/ltr]

"Evidence" is evidence,not speculation.
"Kiko" is a former GCHQ traffic analyst,I assume that he is serious.

Thank you.

Is there any tweet that says Mr Naylor has confirmed any of this to Kiko because looking through the Kiko tweets it reads like he came to his conclusion through looking at the writing on the creche records and intuition. I can't see a tweet saying he spoke to Mr Naylor and that Mr Naylor confirmed anything. Though I don't know a quick way to look through so many tweets.

I just see tweets like:

dewi lennard

[ltr]@kikoratton[/ltr]

· Feb 16
Why was Gerry so stupid as to reveal for all to see that he'd taken #RobertNaylor 's girl to creche, and signed her and a false Maddie in?

dewi lennard
@kikoratton
Mar 2
record-keeping by PJ, unless one presumes an element of deliberate obfuscaation. So, I use intuition as I did to smash GM's creche fiddle.

ETA OK there's this one but it doesn't actually say he confirmed it either

dewi lennard

[ltr]@kikoratton[/ltr]

· 16 Oct 2013
I spoke with #RobertNaylor 10-15 minutes. I said "you let #McCann sign yr E...N... into creche five times. Why?" He didn't deny it. Stalled.

-----------------------------------

Reading some of the tweets I'm beginning to feel sorry for the Naylors. Their only "crime" is that their daughters name is next to Madeleines in similar writing on a holiday creche register yet they're being accused of being part of her disappearance, having a stranger call them asking them to explain themselves based on what looks like intuition alone, and if I'm reading correctly Kiko also tweeted their kids' school repeatedly about it until the school was forced to close it's Twitter account?

Kiko, if you do still post on here, do you not think that is going a tad too far, as you've already notified police of your suspicions

by Snifferdog 27.10.14 6:03

Sh!t Spatters, one of the unfortunate realities of life.
Logically, no one connected to this case can be ruled out until the truth of what happened to Madeleine comes out.
Unfortunately the "Law" has not been seen to be taking its course over these last seven years, and there is no evidence in sight that the whole Op. is not just One Big Whitewash.

by Varriott 28.10.14 0:48

Stillthinking wrote:Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.

huh? are you actually saying that if Kate had information showing a likely abduction of her daughter, that she was under no obligation to speak up? you really think it was ok for her to sit and wait to be asked the right questions? on what planet is this reasonable?

by Stillthinking 28.10.14 11:14

Varriott wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.
huh? are you actually saying that if Kate had information showing a likely abduction of her daughter, that she was under no obligation to speak up? you really think it was ok for her to sit and wait to be asked the right questions? on what planet is this reasonable?

I'm saying that according to the article in the OP, Kate had told Gerry what had happened and police arrived and took details of what had happened from Gerry and the friends but at no point went over and spoke directly to Kate, despite identifying her as the main/only witness. Yet the article appears to blame Kate for not speaking up and letting Gerry do all the talking, rather than blaming the police for not going over to the main witness and speaking to her directly. It does say they remember Kate asking them to get more officers. At that point no police officer though to ask her directly what she had seen? I'm not usually a critic of the Portuguese police, but if police arrive at a crime scene and then don't speak to the main witness ,I don't think the witness should be blamed for police not doing something they should have done.

by Snifferdog 28.10.14 11:25

cloak'ndagger wrote:
j.rob wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Dr What wrote:Quite.

It just seems to many people that the ridiculous and contradictory statements given by some of this group of people are simply lies.One does not have to be trained as an investigator to come to that conclusion.
Why is it then that the very best of SY brains continue to tip-toe around what is so apparent?

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened? Some might say, that it has happened and we simply don't know.But it does not take years and years to determine that some people should be charged with a variety of offences, including perverting justice, abandonment of minors and neglect.

We don't know what happened to Maddie, but we do know certain facts surrounding the case.Let's start with them.

Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
---------------------------------------------------------------
READ THIS!

17th JULY 2014.

Interviewer "What's your sense?"

DCI Driscoll: "My sense was i couldn't work certain things out, there were certain incidents, there were certain inquiries, which didn't appear to be progressed, there were certain, um, PARTS of 'the investigation' THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AT ALL, but i never investigated whether that was corruption or is it incompetent"

Interviewer: "But what does corruption look like?"

DCI Driscoll: "Question i've asked myself many times, what is corruption, i mean is corruption going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope full of 50 quid notes and thats corruption, or is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you?"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SO,
In answer to your:
Are they just stupid? Have they been told to back-off the T9? Whilst the statements cry out for a robust examination into the people who made them, why has this not happened?
-------------------------

I think DCI Driscoll has 'probably' given you possible 'answers' to your 'questions'.
"You don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you."

Yes - I think that probably answers quite a few questions. At least as far as I am concerned. Thanks, JM.
Very interesting ..I haven't read that interview before .Do you have a link to the full interview please ?

by jeanmonroe 28.10.14 11:28

Stillthinking wrote:
Varriott wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.
huh? are you actually saying that if Kate had information showing a likely abduction of her daughter, that she was under no obligation to speak up? you really think it was ok for her to sit and wait to be asked the right questions? on what planet is this reasonable?

I'm saying that according to the article in the OP, Kate had told Gerry what had happened and police arrived and took details of what had happened from Gerry and the friends but at no point went over and spoke directly to Kate, despite identifying her as the main/only witness. Yet the article appears to blame Kate for not speaking up and letting Gerry do all the talking, rather than blaming the police for not going over to the main witness and speaking to her directly. It does say they remember Kate asking them to get more officers. At that point no police officer though to ask her directly what she had seen? I'm not usually a critic of the Portuguese police, but if police arrive at a crime scene and then don't speak to the main witness ,I don't think the witness should be blamed for police not doing something they should have done.

KM a WITNESS? LET ALONE 'MAIN' 'WITNESS'!

What EXACTLY did KM er, 'WITNESS'?

A £10+ MILLION, (rising DAILY by £6,778) UNLIMITED TAXPAYER FUNDED 'INVESTIGATION' BY 38 FULL TIME MET POLICE STAFF, BASED ENTIRELY, SOLELY, UPON WHAT ONLY THE TWO PARENTS OF THE 'MISSING' CHILD HAVE 'SAID'!

A £10+ MILLION, (rising DAILY by £6,778) UNLIMITED TAXPAYER FUNDED 'INVESTIGATION', BY 38 FULL TIME MET POLICE STAFF, BASED ENTIRELY, SOLELY, UPON WHAT THEY, THE MET POLICE, HAVE ONLY BEEN 'TOLD' BY ONLY THE TWO PARENTS OF THE 'MISSING' CHILD. ONE OF WHICH HAS ADMITTED, ON RECORD, TO HAVE BEEN THE VERY LAST PERSON, TO HAVE SEEN THE NOW 'MISSIING' CHILD 'ASLEEP, ALIVE, IN HER BED'.

by Snifferdog 28.10.14 11:48

"Snipped.....Kate had told Gerry what had happened......snipped.

....and after "Telling Gerry, I wish Kate had told the PJ what had happened too!
It would also have saved the UK taxpayer a Fortune!

by Stillthinking 28.10.14 12:02

jeanmonroe wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Varriott wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.
huh? are you actually saying that if Kate had information showing a likely abduction of her daughter, that she was under no obligation to speak up? you really think it was ok for her to sit and wait to be asked the right questions? on what planet is this reasonable?

I'm saying that according to the article in the OP, Kate had told Gerry what had happened and police arrived and took details of what had happened from Gerry and the friends but at no point went over and spoke directly to Kate, despite identifying her as the main/only witness. Yet the article appears to blame Kate for not speaking up and letting Gerry do all the talking, rather than blaming the police for not going over to the main witness and speaking to her directly. It does say they remember Kate asking them to get more officers. At that point no police officer though to ask her directly what she had seen? I'm not usually a critic of the Portuguese police, but if police arrive at a crime scene and then don't speak to the main witness ,I don't think the witness should be blamed for police not doing something they should have done.

KM a WITNESS? LET ALONE 'MAIN' 'WITNESS'!

What EXACTLY did KM er, 'WITNESS'?

A £10+ MILLION, (rising DAILY by £6,778) UNLIMITED TAXPAYER FUNDED 'INVESTIGATION' BY 38 FULL TIME MET POLICE STAFF, BASED ENTIRELY, SOLELY, UPON WHAT ONLY THE TWO PARENTS OF THE 'MISSING' CHILD HAVE 'SAID'!

A £10+ MILLION, (rising DAILY by £6,778) UNLIMITED TAXPAYER FUNDED 'INVESTIGATION', BY 38 FULL TIME MET POLICE STAFF, BASED ENTIRELY, SOLELY, UPON WHAT THEY, THE MET POLICE, HAVE ONLY BEEN 'TOLD' BY ONLY THE TWO PARENTS OF THE 'MISSING' CHILD. ONE OF WHICH HAS ADMITTED, ON RECORD, TO HAVE BEEN THE VERY LAST PERSON, TO HAVE SEEN THE NOW 'MISSIING' CHILD 'ASLEEP, ALIVE, IN HER BED'.

I was using the wording from that article. They said

"the only first hand witness of the state of the apartment at 10 PM was Kate McCann."

by Stillthinking 28.10.14 12:03

Snifferdog wrote:"Snipped.....Kate had told Gerry what had happened......snipped.

....and after "Telling Gerry, I wish Kate had told the PJ what had happened too!
It would also have saved the UK taxpayer a Fortune!

Lol. Fair point.

by Varriott 28.10.14 12:35

Stillthinking wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:"Snipped.....Kate had told Gerry what had happened......snipped.

....and after "Telling Gerry, I wish Kate had told the PJ what had happened too!
It would also have saved the UK taxpayer a Fortune!

Lol. Fair point.

Whatever Kate said or didn't say that night, she later chose not to clarify when asked the famous 48 questions. Let's recall a few of them:

1. On 3 May 2007 at around 2200 when you entered the apartment what did you see and do, where did you look, and what did you touch?

2. Did you look inside the wardrobe in the bedroom?

5. How much time did you spend searching inside the apartment after realising that your daughter Madeleine had disappeared?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

by **PeterMac** 28.10.14 12:54

But she also insists she knows what happened because she was there. She said so outside the Court house.
Pity she has never told anyone else.

by Woofer 28.10.14 13:04

Stillthinking wrote:
Varriott wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:Interesting article in the OP, though I don't understand why they seem to think the onus was on Kate to approach the police to speak directly to them, rather than on the police to approach the main/only witness.

The scene where Kate and Gerry were wailing in the bedroom, kneeling in front of the bed... did this stop police searching in the wardrobe or under the bed in that room, as the article also reports that all cupboards were opened and searched as well as under all the beds and we know they also photographed inside the wardrobe.
huh? are you actually saying that if Kate had information showing a likely abduction of her daughter, that she was under no obligation to speak up? you really think it was ok for her to sit and wait to be asked the right questions? on what planet is this reasonable?

I'm saying that according to the article in the OP, Kate had told Gerry what had happened and police arrived and took details of what had happened from Gerry and the friends but at no point went over and spoke directly to Kate, despite identifying her as the main/only witness. Yet the article appears to blame Kate for not speaking up and letting Gerry do all the talking, rather than blaming the police for not going over to the main witness and speaking to her directly. It does say they remember Kate asking them to get more officers. At that point no police officer though to ask her directly what she had seen? I'm not usually a critic of the Portuguese police, but if police arrive at a crime scene and then don't speak to the main witness ,I don't think the witness should be blamed for police not doing something they should have done.

Did the GNR officers speak English then?

Latest topics