Dark Dealings of News International, The Prime Minister and the McCanns

When you click on the link further down 'unequivocal support' you get an article on Teresa May and three videos. One of which I have never seen, just after they fled Portugal I believe.

I'd never seen that one before and I'm amazed at Kate's confident attitude and her relaxed body language, she's laughing happily - taking part in the discussion - don't miss that one! I'm stunned.

Thanks Admin, we do live in interesting times ....... ( you probably know that is a Chinese saying if one wishes to curse a person - 'May you live in interesting times')

tigger wrote:When you click on the link further down 'unequivocal support' you get an article on Teresa May and three videos. One of which I have never seen, just after they fled Portugal I believe.

I'd never seen that one before and I'm amazed at Kate's confident attitude and her relaxed body language, she's laughing happily - taking part in the discussion - don't miss that one! I'm stunned.

Thanks Admin, we do live in interesting times ....... ( you probably know that is a Chinese saying if one wishes to curse a person - 'May you live in interesting times')

Just watched that too Tigger. How, well quite giddy she behaved in that little video. Very embarrassingly over the top, relaxing back in her chair, tosses her hair, remind me, did she loose a child?

tigger wrote:When you click on the link further down 'unequivocal support' you get an article on Teresa May and three videos. One of which I have never seen, just after they fled Portugal I believe.

Are you able to get that video and embed it here please?

Just watched it too! What was in that coffee? No signs of stress, worry, or even 'where is my beloved daughter!!??

Unbelieveable she looks like she's on a first date!

Hummingbird wrote:Just watched it too! What was in that coffee? No signs of stress, worry, or even 'where is my beloved daughter!!??

Unbelieveable she looks like she's on a first date!

Other shots too, you can see how they take to this celebrity lifestyle - I get the impression that they're finally living the life they think they deserve.
What they say goes. They're untouchable - that's coming across here imo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Perhaps someone else can now post the video, I'm waiting for the rest of my brain to arrive so I can learn to do that too!

[youtube][/youtube]

candyfloss wrote:[youtube][/youtube]

This one definitely earns a place in forensic linguistics.

Good blog. When taken in its entirety it kind of turns the stomach to think this country has been reduced to such vile and disgusting people now warming the highest seats of power. People with no soul left to sell, no values, no decency, no dignity, no morals, no characteristics at all in fact that would serve any benefit to any society wishing to progress for the good of all. Simply self serving egos, in it for whatever they can grab. No wonder we are in such a terrible mess.

An extract from his follow up post.....

"Because it is only someone in the Sarah Palin mould that would have the effrontery to stand before us, particularly given all that has been revealed these five years past, and to tell us he, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team, are treating this review as a case of stranger abduction only. Quite staggering really, that any cop heading an enquiry, sorry review, should predetermine cause and effect in the case of a missing three year old.

And given how this 'review' came to pass, it becomes even more staggering, stunning in fact. At the behest of the last two people to see the girl alive, the two people, who to this day are the only persons of interest in her disappearance. At the behest of the Doctors McCann, via a newspaper group, whose list of crimes and misdemeanours are so great that they cannot even be listed here, but do include helping to derail a murder enquiry.

The CEO of that group, Rebecca Brooks, who herself has just been arrested for perverting the course of justice, blackmailed, there is no other word for it; blackmailed the Prime Minister of Great Britain into setting up this sham of a review.

Not only did La Brooks blackmail the PM into setting up this travesty, she dictated what the outcome must be. Because let's face it, this review could never be a bona fide review, the outcome could never be left to chance, could never be left to go where the evidence and indicators took it. Any cop worth his salt would have had a quick shuffty at the files and would have had the parents down the nick and charged even quicker. And not just the parents I add, but the whole sorry lying bunch, the Tapas 7 included.

But Andy Redwood doesn't do that, rather, he liaises with the parents. But exhibiting behaviour even more unacceptable than colluding with the parents, Redwood issues an age progression sketch of Madeleine McCann age nine! Age nine! I ask you.

Just whereabouts does that one fall in Redwood's remit? It's not up to Redwood to start issuing such obscenities, and that's exactly what it is, an obscenity, just the latest in a long line of obscenities. But the release of such a vile thing does serve a purpose, it tells us everything we need to know about this review, its purpose and its outcome, and not least it tells us just how Palinesque is Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood."

This also shows 2 things for everyone to see about the mccanns

1. gerry mccann controlling nature - his arrogance & aggression is just pouring out of him
2. Most alarmingly kate mccann LAUGHING after she says "...when Maddie was taken" No mother in their right mind would smile and laugh after having said this about their daughter

Is this the incredible traumatic experience the mccanns were going though that rebekah brooks was talking about last week! laughing when they mention their daughter being taken

This video at 1.44 secs sends shivers down my spine, the reaction to the sightings by GM...................

[youtube][/youtube]

Interviewer........Just take us through the emotional experience you go through the moment someone says I've definitely seen Madeleine, then its discounted.

GM's attitude to that question, the look on his face, totally shocking.

An interesting aero'le and that expresso video is extremely revealing, absolutely no stress, totally relaxed, very arrogant and hardly the behaviour of people in grief. It almost seems to me like similar clips where they don't realise the camera is still running. No wonder this one hasn't been shown in the UK or used on one of the fragrant daytime chat shows.

Sorry should read ...interesting article...my typo.

Too many conspiracy theories for me I'm afraid. As I see it News International kept the story alive as it sold papers. They will jump to parental involvement when that sells more papers and that time will surely come. As for the politicians - they rely on votes to get elected and its too hot to handle for them to suggest parental involvement right now anyway I doubt that many are abreast of the full facts. I like the masonic angle amongst the police though. The Steven Lawrence enquiry was allegedly delayed and obstructed inside the police (though not masons in that case if I recollect).

candyfloss wrote:This video at 1.44 secs sends shivers down my spine, the reaction to the sightings by GM...................

[youtube][/youtube]

Interviewer........Just take us through the emotional experience you go through the moment someone says I've definitely seen Madeleine, then its discounted.

GM's attitude to that question, the look on his face, totally shocking.

I agree, I have just watched it a few times focusing on different things whilst the question is being asked. He only just stops himself from actually bursting out laughing but then watch Kate and see how she also has to smother a smirk and look away from him before she takes a deep breath and then answers. It is like watching two kids in assembly trying not to have a giggling fit!!
Oh and to say they don't go through the emotions - WHAT??

Apparently in some universes you have a choice whether you will feel emotions or not. Possibly Mr. Spock's home planet.

tigger wrote:Apparently in some universes you have a choice whether you will feel emotions or not. Possibly Mr. Spock's home planet.

hahahahaha Maybe that is where....................no won't continue with that thought!! LOL

Prior to this passage for the 16 text messages explains the calls

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The batch of SMS messages received by Gerald McCann on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 seems to have caused him some anxiety. Although the number '07818520047' is in a block allocated to Vodafone, the company has no record of the subscriber's name. When the number is dialled, connection is made to a recorded message which explains that changes have been made to the way customers can access their mailboxes and that they can now dial '121' from their handset or '07836121121' from any other telephone.

Thus the number appears to be a message box for Gerald McCann that sends him an SMS when his mobile is unable to accept a call (because it is out of range or turned off). However, when he was asked by 'Expresso TV' on 6th September 2008 about the 'sixteen SMS messages' received, he flustered:

'No one has ever asked to see any of my text messages. There is no way that there 16 messages on that day or even the day after, you know. You know, the day after, you know that we got'' Kate McCann came to his rescue and interrupted; 'Gerry hardly ever sends text messages until the day after, the day after Madeleine was taken'. (laughs) Gerald McCann continued: 'so you know that it is actually rubbish'

Their McCann's denials were, of course, technically true although perhaps disingenuous - because there were only 14 messages received on the day before they reported Madeleine missing and two on the day after.

There were 16 SMS messages, in total, so why prevaricate and deny an allegation that was never made. The question was about received messages, not those sent, and on the day before not on 3rd May 2007 or the day after! In the field of forensic linguistics you must always concentrate on the precise wording of denials and especially on those of allegations not made. The denials made by the McCanns are suspicious. However, Mrs McCanns statement about her husband not sending SMS messages, until after Madeleines disappearance, is confirmed by Vodafones records.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
-------------
Again matching antenna records to memory suggests that by the time he gave the handset to the PJ the records of 24 calls or SMSs had been erased, including the one from him found on his wifes handset and timed at 23.17 on Thursday 3rd May 2007. It appears that he had deleted details of the four calls he made to her that night and she deleted just three. It was this simple discrepancy that first led the PJ to suspect interference with the handsets
-------------
Her (kate mccann) mobile memory held details of 39 calls from 18.28 on Wednesday 25th April to 16.35 on 27th April 2007. After her arrival in Portugal on 28th April 2007, with the exception of one incoming call on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 at 11.21 (which, very interestingly, was the Swansea 'wrong number'), and one call from her husband at 23.17 on Thursday 3rd May 2007, everything else has been 'whoosh-clunked' from memory. These deletions could have been accidental, but a high degree of cunning could be implied. Why would she selectively delete everything up to Thursday 3rd May 2007 with the exception of one wrong number and what was her reason for deleting three of the four calls, between 23.14 and 23.17, from her husband on that critical night'. A possible answer is that she wished to avoid alerting the PJ to evidence that details of around 40 calls had been erased and she felt happier leaving something uncontroversial (or misleading) in memory for them to find. Another answer is that, unsurprisingly, she was under the most extreme stress imaginable following the disappearance of her daughter: but why, in that case, give priority to deleting anything. It is the last thing most parents would think about in the circumstances.

-------------
So the bottom line is that Kate McCann was in Apartment 5A when Madeleine cried for her father between 22.30 and 23.45 on Tuesday 1st May 2007, leading to a unique flurry of late night calls and to unique calls very early the following morning. A forensic examination of the records of Madeleines attendance at the 'Lobsters' creche on Wednesday 2nd and Thursday 3rd May 2007 is critically important because if they have been falsified, to establish she was there when she was not, this case takes on an entirely new dimension and sets different search parameters.

Secondly, if the memories of the mobile telephones were deleted in way suspected, a level of cunning is implied that would be capable of conceiving plan to deliberately delay reporting Madeleines 'disappearance'; if for no other reason than to disassociate it from the crying incident on Tuesday 1st May 2007.

Of course, this is speculation and it is entirely possible that further investigation and the much awaited transparency by Mr and Mrs McCann will totally exonerate them. But why dont they simply produce the SMS messages and explain why call details were deleted'

jd wrote:This also shows 2 things for everyone to see about the mccanns

1. gerry mccann controlling nature - his arrogance & aggression is just pouring out of him
2. Most alarmingly kate mccann LAUGHING after she says "...when Maddie was taken" No mother in their right mind would smile and laugh after having said this about their daughter

Is this the incredible traumatic experience the mccanns were going though that rebekah brooks was talking about last week! laughing when they mention their daughter being taken

Shocking really. And I love the way Gerry embellishes and denies facts. The dna in the car was from AT LEAST five different people, er no, was from three and possibly up to five according to the FSS.

There was no blood he laughingly says, erm, there was old chap as a csi blood detecting dog found it!

Amazing.

This was was politically interfered with from the start. Why? Is it the Murdoch / Freud connection. If Sir Clement Freud had his holiday home in PdL - and was present in PDL when M disappeared then was he part of the gang that was there that week? Along with P Edmonds. Was Matthew there ?  
What were they up to? 

Sir Clement wouldn't have invited the Mc Canns over for a meal, if he had had absolutely no involvement with them. There has to be some connection why they were all there that week.

It explains then why there was establishment interference as Rupert may step in to help his son in law and was big enough a media mogul, and part of he Chipping Norton (He and his son in law allegedly own or owned Burford Priory - or so I have read..) to have great political influence with the Sun and The Times. 
It kind of all makes sense now - why there was interference and the connections involved. The reason - so certain people were not exposed in partaking in certain activities in PdL on that week.
Anyone present on the weeks' 'festivities' had a reason to aid the cover up. The death of Madeleine was not allowed to be investigated as it would expose everyone who was there.  The sad thing is they probably weren't doing anything illegal anyway - just having fun with perhaps a few other things that certain people would not want out in the news. Whatever, it cost the UK a few millions and our reputation. Not to mention anglo - portuguese relations and most of all GA's reputation. In fact - most of all it cost M's dignity, the right to a decent burial
and the right to a decent life.

I was recently told the terrible story of a man who worked in a stately home.  He had been brought up as an orphan and "traded up", starting in a modest residence until he reached the top.  He was systematically mistreated by his "owners" on every rung of the ladder, all with the over sight of organisation like charities and those supposed to know better.  He was effectively "farmed out".  It had devastating consequences for him.  In his old age he was never bitter about it but had been exposed to some awful things throughout his life.

Hummingbird wrote:Just watched it too!  What was in that coffee?  No signs of stress, worry, or even 'where is my beloved daughter!!??

Unbelieveable she looks like she's on a first date!

If you watch the clip from around the 1.07 point, where the Mcs are responding to questions about 16 (deleted) text messages, they both seem to find the subject hugely amusing.

Gerry has a wide grin and trips around over the phrase 'the day' as if he is not quite sure which 'day' this is referring to. As in, there was a day before the alleged 'disappearance' and then the day of the 'abduction' and he doesn't want to muddle the two.

Kate also has a huge grin on her face over the subject of the text messages.

Why? What is so funny about this? Given that it relates to a period of time when something terrible is supposed to have 'shattered their lives'?

What's the 'in joke?'

Breathtakingly inappropriate. Are they just dosed up on 'happy pills'? Or just psychopaths?

HelenMeg wrote:Amazing.

This was was politically interfered with from the start. Why? Is it the Murdoch / Freud connection. If Sir Clement Freud had his holiday home in PdL - and was present in PDL when M disappeared then was he part of the gang that was there that week? Along with P Edmonds. Was Matthew there ?  
What were they up to? 

Sir Clement wouldn't have invited the Mc Canns over for a meal, if he had had absolutely no involvement with them. There has to be some connection why they were all there that week.

It explains then why there was establishment interference as Rupert may step in to help his son in law and was big enough a media mogul, and part of he Chipping Norton (He and his son in law allegedly own or owned Burford Priory - or so I have read..) to have great political influence with the Sun and The Times. 
It kind of all makes sense now - why there was interference and the connections involved. The reason - so certain people were not exposed in partaking in certain activities in PdL on that week.
Anyone present on the weeks' 'festivities' had a reason to aid the cover up. The death of Madeleine was not allowed to be investigated as it would expose everyone who was there.  The sad thing is they probably weren't doing anything illegal anyway - just having fun with perhaps a few other things that certain people would not want out in the news. Whatever, it cost the UK a few millions and our reputation. Not to mention anglo - portuguese relations and most of all GA's reputation. In fact - most of all it cost M's dignity, the right to a decent burial
and the right to a decent life.

I think there was a plan for a faked abduction - a la Elizabeth Smart in the USA. Something to get the public paranoid about random stranger abduction. Soften them up for maybe micro-chipping of children, DNA banks, increased state surveillance and interference into an individual's life. Plus a good 'human interest' story to bury 'bad news' (Iraq etc). Random sightings of 'the big bad bogeyman' from around the world would keep the public interest going and the Funds pouring in. The Mcs were banking (literally) on playing the 'victim role' with a very gullible public.

The case came on the back of several very high profile missing/abducted/murder cases of children in the UK so the timing was able to capitalize on an understandably nervous public and 'paranoid' parents. Although, statistically at any rate, these type of random stranger abductions are extremely rare. (And, in actual fact, the UK cases mostly involved a person who was known to the child - eg: April Jones, the Soham case).

These stories sell papers. Sell air-time. They are 'big news'. It's no coincidence, imo, that this has overlapped with all the phone-tapping stuff and so on.

The abduction was a bodge-job. Something went wrong. Maybe the Mc agenda was never quite synchronized with whatever other agendas may have been on the cards. (And I think there were other dark forces at play - as suggested by the Mcs themselves and their friends). 

If it had *just* been an accident that had been covered up, then why would TM have got the time-lines so bodged up? Almost as though the home players had been given a script which they stuck to on the night of the 'abduction' while the away players had to hurriedly rewrite the script and shoe-horn the old one into a new set of circumstances.

I am surprised that there has be so little scrutiny of TV producer Jeremy Wilkins role in all this. Given he was in a key place at a key time. And was the last person to speak to Madeleine's father before Madeleine was allegedly abducted. And given that he changed his testimony about where he was and what he was doing that evening. Why?

The whole thing is a complete farce, imo. What little respect I had for any of our state or public institutions (and there wasn't much) has pretty much gone. I find the whole thing repulsively  stupid. 

And so keen are all the 'key players' to cover their own filthy backsides that there really don't give a damn for the real victims in all this. Yes of course Madeleine. And also the many others who have tried to help, sometimes putting their professional/personal reputations on the line, only to be dragged through the mud.

So when is an apology going to be issued then, to all those people who wanted to help find Madeleine? Who contributed to The Fund?

Opinions and theories, as always.