Today's Sun - 7th September 2014

aquila wrote:Swan told the Sun on Sunday 'I didn't have good answers'. Her husband added. 'What we do as authors is dig for the facts, dig the hell out of a case and see what we come up with'.

Newintown wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:http://www.lbc.co.uk/madeleine-book-sheds-light-on-mystery-predator-96643

"She soon realised he wasn't really looking at her, but was staring intently at her young daughter of three or four who was standing at her side, holding on to her skirt"

1  It's a foreigner looked at us funny story.

2. The mother didn't know exactly how old her daughter was.  

"Mummy, am I three or four?"

"I don't know darling. That swarthy man has scared me so much, I've completely forgotten."

I can't imagine the amount of money that is being paid to Summers and Swan for their "joke of a book" on what happened to Madeleine.  Everyone who has made a penny out of the demise of Madeleine should be hanging their heads in shame, including her parents.

She has become a cash cow for all and sundry since 3rd May 2007 and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight unless the SY get their fingers out and put a stop to this whole charade.

Myself and many others on this forum could each publish a book on the past 7 years of Madeleine's disappearance, all we have to do is copy and paste numerous newspaper stories, together with items from the PJ files and add in a few fairy tales as with the new never seen or heard of before "Egyptian mummy" man, and we can make ourselves a fortune off the back of a poor child who didn't ask to be born, but we have more integrity than that and actually what to find out what REALLY HAPPENED TO MADELEINE.

Summers and Swan can add themselves to the long list of lowlives who only want to make a profit off the back of Madeleine but have no intention in actually finding out what happened to her.

They have all let Madeleine down in their quest for ££££££££.

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that.

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News
SNIP = that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that.

Tony Bennett wrote:

aquila wrote:Swan told the Sun on Sunday 'I didn't have good answers'. Her husband added. 'What we do as authors is dig for the facts, dig the hell out of a case and see what we come up with'.

I think Richard D Hall with his 4.5 hours of film: 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The Truth about Madeleine McCann' has a much better claim to have done that.

And he went to Praia da Luz and filmed at the Palmeras Golf Club (where Murat eventually admitted he was on the afternoon of 3 May) and at the Eveleighs' villa (place where Brian Kennedy & Freemason Edward Smethurst met in secret with Robert Murat, his lawyer and his family on 13 November 2007).

His films have been viewed by 50,000 already on YouTube and another person views them every 40 seconds or so.

And they're FREE to watch

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that".

Newintown wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

aquila wrote:Swan told the Sun on Sunday 'I didn't have good answers'. Her husband added. 'What we do as authors is dig for the facts, dig the hell out of a case and see what we come up with'.

I think Richard D Hall with his 4.5 hours of film: 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The Truth about Madeleine McCann' has a much better claim to have done that.

And he went to Praia da Luz and filmed at the Palmeras Golf Club (where Murat eventually admitted he was on the afternoon of 3 May) and at the Eveleighs' villa (place where Brian Kennedy & Freemason Edward Smethurst met in secret with Robert Murat, his lawyer and his family on 13 November 2007).

His films have been viewed by 50,000 already on YouTube and another person views them every 40 seconds or so.

And they're FREE to watch

What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?

You seem to be obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion.

Give it a rest TB, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

aquila wrote:Swan told the Sun on Sunday 'I didn't have good answers'. Her husband added. 'What we do as authors is dig for the facts, dig the hell out of a case and see what we come up with'.

I think Richard D Hall with his 4.5 hours of film: 'Buried by Mainstream Media: The Truth about Madeleine McCann' has a much better claim to have done that.

And he went to Praia da Luz and filmed at the Palmeras Golf Club (where Murat eventually admitted he was on the afternoon of 3 May) and at the Eveleighs' villa (place where Brian Kennedy & Freemason Edward Smethurst met in secret with Robert Murat, his lawyer and his family on 13 November 2007).

His films have been viewed by 50,000 already on YouTube and another person views them every 40 seconds or so.

And they're FREE to watch

What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?

You seem to be obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion.

Give it a rest TB, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

Hmmm, you seem pretty angry, Newintown.

You asked: "What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?"

Have you not seen his films? - link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpTsMrU-nIk

Summers & Swan claim to have written 'the most definitive account possible' of what happened to Madeleine.

By contrast, Richard Hall claims in effect, more modestly, to have made the most definitive film yet about what happened to Madeleine.

Summers & Swan charge £10 for their book.

Richard Hall has made his films available FREE on the internet.

Summers & Swan's views are being reproduced, just like a copying machine, by Britain's mainstream media.

Hall's allegation is that the true story of Madeleine McCann has been 'buried' by the mainstream media.

Summers & Swan's book appears to be low on facts and high on misrepresentations and omissions.

Hall has given us hundreds of facts.

Surely you support him?

I am continuing to compare the rival efforts of the two sets of authors.

parapono wrote:@Newintown Here we go again... 

It's Tony's birthday.

PeterMac wrote:

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News
SNIP = that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that.

No basis in fact, except for the number of times people have been sentenced to LIFE on exactly that basis -
see above for details, and that is only a few of the most notorious cases.

One would have thought that people who  bill themselves as being able to do meticulous research would have been able to do something a bit more imaginative with the evidence of the dogs' alerts.

And remember there were TWO dogs, trained to do different things, which to a very significant extent corroborated each other.
Not just one hunting for a piglet, or whatever the latest "shill' paid excuse is today.

comperedna wrote:About the dogs... there is a false assumption made by many quite otherwise sensible people (a bit like all those medics who confuse correlation with causation.) Because the dogs evidence is described as 'only' indicative, and needs to be backed up by other evidence forensic, or otherwise, it does NOT mean that the dogs are 'wrong' or that the pattern of their alerts is not  valuable, or significant... far from it. It just means that more evidence has to be found to back it up, if the case is to be taken to court, because cadaver and blood dog evidence is not accepted as stand alone evidence there. Thats just how it is.

The pattern of alerts in this case is amazing... Only places and the vehicle associated with the McCanns were alerted to by the dogs, though they were traipsed around lots of other flats and put in front of other cars etc... The pattern of alerts is HIGHLY significant, and the chance of it being random, or faked in some way, is nil IMHO

Newintown wrote:

REPLY:  If we begin with your original claim, it was: 'You are obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion'. First point, is your accusation justified?

Well, no it isn't, actually. Look back at say my last 50 or 100 posts and Murat hardly features. I have more usually been accused lately of being 'obsessed with the Smith sighting'. But that's not true of my recent posts either. So you cannot substantiate your charge. Which leaves me wondering why you made that false allegation against me. I can hazard a guess, mind.

So, putting all your points tonight together, here are my replies... 

What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?

REPLY: As you well know, my simple point was that Hall had bothered to go out to Praia da Luz. I am not yet aware that Summers & Swan did so. If they did, all well and good - so far as that goes.

He visited and took shots at quite a few locations.

I mentioned the Palmeras Golf Club and the meeting at the Eveleighs in November 2007 because they are important events IMO in understanding all the many events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

Put simply, when Murat was asked about his movements on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, inter alia he denied two separate meetings and at least one 'phone call with Sergei Malinka, claiming he was elsewhere, and then lied about his movements on the all-important afternoon of 3rd May. He was at Palmeras Golf Club meeting various people - but again lied to police in his first interview, saying he was elsewhere. When one person can give me an adequate explanation - bearing in mind this was an enquiry about a missing 3-year-old girl - for Murat lying about these and several other matters, I shall let that matter rest completely. But no-one has yet done so.

Hall also visited the Eveleigh's property. Quite right, too. Murat was the chief suspect when one of Britain's wealthiest Britons, Brian Kennedy, and his high-ranking Freemason who acted as his Chief Legal Officer, Edward Smethurst, went out to visit Murat, his mother, and the Eveleighs. Murat had his lawyer Francisco Pagarete there. Kennedy was the head of the McCann Team's private investigators; Smethurst was (and as far as we know still) is the McCanns' co-ordinating solicitor and has been a director of the Find Madeleine Fund since 2009. When Kennedy was asked about this meeting, he claimed it was 'to offer Murat a job helping to find Madeleine'. IMO that doesn't convince anyone. Not even you, I suspect.

So I think Hall was right to highlight these two aspects of the case. Do you disagree?         
 
You seem to be obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion.

REPLY: See above.

Give it a rest TB, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

No, I'm not angry, why did you think that.

REPLY: It is plain that your tone was hostile.

I was curious as to why Murat was brought into a discussion about a book by Summers and Swan.

REPLY: I was comparing a book costing £10 that avoids the truth with a film that is laden with facts and is free to watch. I added that, in favour of Hall's film, he had obviously undertaken not only a lot of research but had also taken the trouble to visit and film in Praia da Luz. 

You seem to be the one on the defensive.

REPLY: If so, that's hardly surprising if a person has been attacked, is it?

I support anyone who is on the side of MBM, I often wonder which side of the fence you're on??

REPLY: An echo of some similarly absurd comments being made in another place. My position is that everything about this case - what people have done, not done, said, not said etc. - is open to examination. That includes Murat's actions and it includes querying the basis of the Smith's claims.

Often when people make accusations against others, they are simply holding up a mirror to themselves. Are you sure it's not you who does not seek the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

What does that mean? Am I not allowed to query anything because it's his Birthday, oh, deary, deary me, so sorry to upset TB's birthday, well he shouldn't be posting on his Birthday then should he if he doesn't like criticism which he obviously doesn't.

REPLY: No-one likes criticism, though if it is a fair criticism, hopefully the person criticised will take the criticisms on board and learn from them. But in this case, your basic criticism - 'being obsessed with Murat' - has simply not been made out. Actually, you haven't upset my birthday in the least. On the contrary, you have enhanced it, as by your reaction and subsequent comments, both I and other forum members have learnt something valuable about you.

Excuse me for living and upsetting TB's Birthday.

REPLY: Please carry on living, Newintown.

Have you deleted Parapono's post, no, I thought not and WHY NOT? I was only answering her/his "nasty" reply.  If I get banned I'll know why.

REPLY: I've not seen your deleted post. But what is clear that such 'nastiness' as there has been on this thread was injected by yourself.

As my posts do not reveal any obsession with Murat, the courteous thing for you to do would be to withdraw  your unpleasant accusation.

Finally, I gave you an opportunity to acknowledge the informative content of Hall's four DVDs, as so many other people have done already.

You have not done so yet  

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for tha

Newintown wrote:Post deleted.

Please adhere to the forum rules.  Stay on topic.  Engage in good discussion and debate, but please refrain from heated and personal arguments.

Have you deleted Parapono's post, no, I thought not and WHY NOT?  I was only answering her/his "nasty" reply.

If I get banned I'll know why.

aquila wrote: wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for that

nglfi wrote:

aquila wrote:This is Swan dissing the dogs on Sky News

They conclude that British snifferdogs sent to examine the family apartment and hire car never found any evidence that Madeleine had been harmed.

Swan:

"The behaviour of the snifferdogs, the cadaver, erm so-called cadaver dog and the blood dog that were sent out were rather over sold to the Portuguese erm in a way that they were so unique and so special that what these dogs provided erm was equivalent to evidence. The idea of those dogs is that they're indicators and even the handler himself erm consistently said, and it's there in the police files to see, anything these dogs do must be followed through. There must be actual physical evidence turned up after the fact. No such evidence ever emerged in this case and yet the dogs and it's widely known were the pivotal turning point in the Portuguese Police to name the McCanns as arguidos erm and that is a persistent feeling in Portugal today that that dog evidence was indicative of some kind of culpability and there's just no basis in fact for tha

The idea of these dogs is that they are indicators - Summers hasn't addressed the issue of what the dogs are trained to indicate, and what they did indicate in apartment 5a. I'll help them out - The dogs indicated that a bloody cadaver had been present behind the sofa, in the cupboard in the adult bedroom,  and in the renault scenic. They also indicated that a cadaver had been handled by Kate McCann. These things were and are still being 'followed through'. Police are still looking for Madeleine's body, after both the PJ and Andy Redwood decided she did not leave the apartment alive. 

What part of cadaver and blood dog do these idiots not understand.  

If you watch these border force type programmes, I've seen many many examples of a drug dog that identifies a person. Said person is then taken aside and their belongibgs are swabbed. Items then show positive for sone drug, eg cocaine.  However, no drugs are found on the person or in their bag. Now, do we think 

A) both the dog and hi tech machine made a mistake and there were never any drugs, or

B) they have already taken/disposed of the drugs they had?

In the same way, are we now going to just pretend there was no DNA match for Madeleine found in the car or blood found behind the tiles either? 
Morons.

The Rooster wrote:When will this case get real.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Newintown wrote:

REPLY:  If we begin with your original claim, it was: 'You are obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion'. First point, is your accusation justified?

Well, no it isn't, actually. Look back at say my last 50 or 100 posts and Murat hardly features. I have more usually been accused lately of being 'obsessed with the Smith sighting'. But that's not true of my recent posts either. So you cannot substantiate your charge. Which leaves me wondering why you made that false allegation against me. I can hazard a guess, mind.

So, putting all your points tonight together, here are my replies... 

What has Richard D Hall got to do with the Sun article on Summers and Swan?

REPLY: As you well know, my simple point was that Hall had bothered to go out to Praia da Luz. I am not yet aware that Summers & Swan did so. If they did, all well and good - so far as that goes.

He visited and took shots at quite a few locations.

I mentioned the Palmeras Golf Club and the meeting at the Eveleighs in November 2007 because they are important events IMO in understanding all the many events surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

Put simply, when Murat was asked about his movements on 1st, 2nd and 3rd May, inter alia he denied two separate meetings and at least one 'phone call with Sergei Malinka, claiming he was elsewhere, and then lied about his movements on the all-important afternoon of 3rd May. He was at Palmeras Golf Club meeting various people - but again lied to police in his first interview, saying he was elsewhere. When one person can give me an adequate explanation - bearing in mind this was an enquiry about a missing 3-year-old girl - for Murat lying about these and several other matters, I shall let that matter rest completely. But no-one has yet done so.

Hall also visited the Eveleigh's property. Quite right, too. Murat was the chief suspect when one of Britain's wealthiest Britons, Brian Kennedy, and his high-ranking Freemason who acted as his Chief Legal Officer, Edward Smethurst, went out to visit Murat, his mother, and the Eveleighs. Murat had his lawyer Francisco Pagarete there. Kennedy was the head of the McCann Team's private investigators; Smethurst was (and as far as we know still) is the McCanns' co-ordinating solicitor and has been a director of the Find Madeleine Fund since 2009. When Kennedy was asked about this meeting, he claimed it was 'to offer Murat a job helping to find Madeleine'. IMO that doesn't convince anyone. Not even you, I suspect.

So I think Hall was right to highlight these two aspects of the case. Do you disagree?         
 
You seem to be obsessed with Murat and have to bring him into every forum discussion.

REPLY: See above.

Give it a rest TB, you're beginning to sound like a broken record.

No, I'm not angry, why did you think that.

REPLY: It is plain that your tone was hostile.

I was curious as to why Murat was brought into a discussion about a book by Summers and Swan.

REPLY: I was comparing a book costing £10 that avoids the truth with a film that is laden with facts and is free to watch. I added that, in favour of Hall's film, he had obviously undertaken not only a lot of research but had also taken the trouble to visit and film in Praia da Luz. 

You seem to be the one on the defensive.

REPLY: If so, that's hardly surprising if a person has been attacked, is it?

I support anyone who is on the side of MBM, I often wonder which side of the fence you're on??

REPLY: An echo of some similarly absurd comments being made in another place. My position is that everything about this case - what people have done, not done, said, not said etc. - is open to examination. That includes Murat's actions and it includes querying the basis of the Smith's claims.

Often when people make accusations against others, they are simply holding up a mirror to themselves. Are you sure it's not you who does not seek the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann?

What does that mean? Am I not allowed to query anything because it's his Birthday, oh, deary, deary me, so sorry to upset TB's birthday, well he shouldn't be posting on his Birthday then should he if he doesn't like criticism which he obviously doesn't.

REPLY: No-one likes criticism, though if it is a fair criticism, hopefully the person criticised will take the criticisms on board and learn from them. But in this case, your basic criticism - 'being obsessed with Murat' - has simply not been made out. Actually, you haven't upset my birthday in the least. On the contrary, you have enhanced it, as by your reaction and subsequent comments, both I and other forum members have learnt something valuable about you.

Excuse me for living and upsetting TB's Birthday.

REPLY: Please carry on living, Newintown.

Have you deleted Parapono's post, no, I thought not and WHY NOT? I was only answering her/his "nasty" reply.  If I get banned I'll know why.

REPLY: I've not seen your deleted post. But what is clear that such 'nastiness' as there has been on this thread was injected by yourself.

As my posts do not reveal any obsession with Murat, the courteous thing for you to do would be to withdraw  your unpleasant accusation.

Finally, I gave you an opportunity to acknowledge the informative content of Hall's four DVDs, as so many other people have done already.

You have not done so yet