Re: Roderick MacDonald, newest suspect in the McCann case (Daily Mail 15/10/14)

by maebee 16.10.14 23:58

This is why the whole thing is a farce - it would never get near a court because there's not a shred of evidence against anyone else but the parents and the Tapas 7.

Merely knowing someone was in the vicinity, or a sighting of them in the vicinity (which may be incorrect) is not enough to charge someone, let alone have it stand up in court.

Newspapers are 90% PR, they are paid to print stories about all sorts of companies, it's no different for this case. Everything you read in the MSM about this case has been placed there by interested parties.

What's really going on is anyone's guess. The early years were all about generating more cash for the fund, however, public opinion is on the turn now, there's only so long you can sell a lie before people stop caring, so stories appearing nowadays are purely reputation management, ensuring the finger is firmly pointing away from the Mccanns.

IMO every reputation management story of a new "suspect" is an indicator of when something else is happening, something that needs burying beneath another story.

Well said phil_burton

IMO every reputation management story of a new "suspect" is an indicator of when something else is happening, something that needs burying beneath another story

We've had about 50+ "suspects" over the past seven and a half years. These (all very dodgy) suspects have always conveniently appeared when, as you say,something else is happening. Always at crucial times in the case. Is Snr. Amaral due in court sometime soon?

If SY are playing a clever game, someone should tell them that they are over-egging the pudding.

by jeanmonroe 17.10.14 0:13

Naz_Nomad wrote:If they are trying to fit up a convicted paedophile or whoever they might eventually pin it on, what happens at a trial?

Would the McCanns and their Tapas friends be brought in as witnesses?

"Witnesses" to WHAT, exactly?

thinking

by Geowoo 17.10.14 0:49

You can pile any amount of money into a case loaded against a character... For example .. The McCanns. But if the weight of circumstance...evidence..dogs..rogatories files..and senior Portuguese detectives say otherwise then you have a very serious case against you... Not guilty but not innocent either.

by jeanmonroe 17.10.14 0:58

Geowoo wrote:You can pile any amount of money into a case loaded against a character... For example .. The McCanns. But if the weight of circumstance...evidence..dogs..rogatories files..and senior Portuguese detectives say otherwise then you have a very serious case against you... Not guilty but not innocent either.

And NOT only senior Portuguese Police officers was it?

(p. 316.....madeleine)

In his statement to the Court, the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police wrote: “While one or both of them (McCanns) may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance”. Dr Kate: “We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us?…that line stuck in our heads as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.” Dr McCann said they made ‘a tactical retreat’ to ‘accept a smaller amount of information’: “Having to withdraw was quite galling........"

UK police officer/s AS WELL!

by Guest 17.10.14 6:58

Dr Kate: “We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us?…that line stuck in our heads as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.”

Incredible.

I think she needs to look at the word "suspect" in the dictionary.

Wasn't Murat a suspect she wanted to kill at some point?

by plebgate 17.10.14 9:52

BlueBag wrote:
Dr Kate: “We were completely staggered. No evidence to eliminate us?…that line stuck in our heads as ‘guilty until proven innocent’.”

Incredible.

I think she needs to look at the word "suspect" in the dictionary.

Wasn't Murat a suspect she wanted to kill at some point?

Have they ever produced any evidence which would eliminate them to the police?

by ultimaThule 17.10.14 9:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:For goodness sake, this 'arrest' is trending on Facebook.
Surely by far the most immediate question here is what has he been arrested for?

The purpose of a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is to bring back to the requesting country (in this case the UK) from an other E.U. country where someone is living (in this case Malta) a person where there is prima facie evidence that that person has committed a serious offence (more minor crimes are not covered by the EAW procedure).

An EAW can only be granted if a magistrate/judge in the country where the person is living (Malta in this case) is satisfied that the paperwork makes out a sufficient case that a person has committed a serious offence, either committed in England, or over which English law extends abroad (e.g. murder of a British subject abroad).

< snip >

On a point of information, it is not the case that only those persons who have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offences are subject to EAWs.

In addition, irrespective of the nationality of the victim(s), in cases of murder and manslaughter "English law extends abroad" only where there is reason to suspect that these offences have been committed by UK nationals.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.10.14 10:01

ultimaThule wrote:
On a point of information, it is not the case that only those persons who have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offences are subject to EAWs.

ultimaThule is wrong, the EAW IS for more serious offences, see this extract from Wikiepdia:

++++++++++++++

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] valid throughout all [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] period.

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison.

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 10:11

[quote="BlueBag"]

[size=16]Dr Kate: . . .
Wasn't Murat a suspect she wanted to kill at some point?

Has she ever withdrawn that threat, or does she still wish to kill him ?
Have they ever apologised ?

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 10:17

GAMBLE.

Why don't you go public and tell the Press that Mitchell has LIED to them.

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

Caugnt on the run! Two suspected child sex offenders tracked, arrested and now facing justice
Two suspected child sexual offenders - wanted in Canada and Australia respectively after going on the run - have been tracked down by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre and extradited by Australian and Canadian authorities in the last few days to face trials overseas.
In two unrelated cases, investigators from CEOP – the UK’s national centre for child protection – worked with international law enforcement agencies to track down:

John Cox, 34, a Canadian national, who had fled trial in Canada, to Ashford in Kent, and
Roderick Robinson, 72, a British man wanted for alleged child sexual offences in Australia who was tracked to Portugal
Both men will now face prosecution - Cox in Canada and Robinson in Australia.
Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of CEOP, said: “These individuals thought that they could cover their tracks and avoid law enforcement, but they underestimated the determination of CEOP and – in Cox’s case – Kent Police – to capture them. Both men represented a potential threat to children and we are pleased that they are back where they should be – facing justice.”

SNIP
Roderick Robinson arrived in Australia on Sunday 6 June following his extradition from Portugal. He had been on the run since 2001 for alleged sexual offences against a child in Australia.

Roderick Robinson was arrested first in 2001 in Australia for the alleged assault of a young girl and was bailed pending court hearings. He failed to appear to answer the charges in 2001. Fleeing Australia, he entered New Zealand where he was arrested for child sex offences allegedly committed there. He was granted bail with the requirement he surrender his passport. In November 2009 using a stolen passport, Robinson left New Zealand bound for the UK.

Piecing together intelligence on his transient movements in the UK, CEOP investigators worked with local police and UK Borders Agency and located him in Portugal. The Overseas Tracker Team disseminated intelligence on Robinson to Portugal, via Interpol, to advise them of the threat he posed to children in their country. In response to Australia’s request for Robinson’s urgent provisional arrest, Portuguese police arrested Robinson in March 2010. His prosecution is now before the courts in New South Wales, Australia.

Failing to tell the whole truth is almost as bad as lying.

by ultimaThule 17.10.14 12:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
On a point of information, it is not the case that only those persons who have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offences are subject to EAWs.
ultimaThule is wrong, the EAW IS for more serious offences, see this extract from Wikiepdia:

++++++++++++++

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] valid throughout all [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (EU). Once issued, it requires another member state to arrest and transfer a criminal suspect or sentenced person to the issuing state so that the person can be put on trial or complete a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] period.

An EAW can only be issued for the purposes of conducting a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (not merely an investigation), or enforcing a [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].^{[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]} It can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of 12 months or more in prison.

It would appear that you are not au courant with current debate on the use and abuse of European Arrest Warrants, TB, and relying on Wiki as your sole source of information has served to lead you up the garden path to a place where it cannot be maintained that EAWs are only used 'for more serious offences' unless, of course, you wish to argue that retired schoolteacher Jacek Jaskolski, who faced extradition to Poland for exceeding his overdraft despite Polish courts having confirmed that the event had taken place more than 10 years earlier and the sum in question had been repaid in full, committed a 'serious offence'? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For those who may have formed the erroneous impression that they will not be summarily hauled before a court in respect of minor misdemeanours they have committed, or may be suspected of committing, abroad, I recommend the following reading:

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

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

together with one of many such articles in the MSM: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by plebgate 17.10.14 12:31

Being led up the garden path, is that a new saying amongst people who always seem to be arguing or abusing Tony?

Seen that a couple of times since last night.

by ultimaThule 17.10.14 14:39

My absence from this forum for the past few months may have escaped your attention, plebgate, but it cannot be said that prior to my return I was one of those who, according to your opinion, 'always' seemed to be 'arguing or abusing Tony' and in merely seeking to clarify matters of law he may be unaware of, it cannot be claimed that I am doing so now.

With regard to the old saying of being 'lead up the garden path', I saw it used by viaveritasvita on another thead and purloined it as I consider it to be an apt description of how relying on a sole source of information can cause the enquirer to jump to erroneous conclusions about matters which may be far more complex than the manner in which they have been described.

by Liz Eagles 17.10.14 14:50

ultimaThule wrote:My absence from this forum for the past few months may have escaped your attention, plebgate, but it cannot be said that prior to my return I was one of those who, according to your opinion, 'always' seemed to be 'arguing or abusing Tony' and in merely seeking to clarify matters of law he may be unaware of, it cannot be claimed that I am doing so now.

With regard to the old saying of being 'lead up the garden path', I saw it used by viaveritasvita on another thead and purloined it as I consider it to be an apt description of how relying on a sole source of information can cause the enquirer to jump to erroneous conclusions about matters which may be far more complex than the manner in which they have been described.

aren't you the person who threatened me with making my PM's public on the forum because I disagreed with you?

Aren't you the person who proclaimed that making my PM's public is a matter of law?

Aren't you the person on this forum who cackles and makes fun of Gerry being a Glaswegian?

by Naz_Nomad 17.10.14 15:00

Just a thought I had. I recently contacted Peter James, the author [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and asked what Roy Grace would have thought of this case. I have yet to receive a reply. Peter James does a lot of detailed research, and spends a lot of time with police talking about cases and procedures. I bet he has two opinions. An "official" opinion, and a "personal" opinion.

Also, I would love to know what (real) serving police officers are thinking privately about this case.

by viaveritasvita 17.10.14 15:25

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:My absence from this forum for the past few months may have escaped your attention, plebgate, but it cannot be said that prior to my return I was one of those who, according to your opinion, 'always' seemed to be 'arguing or abusing Tony' and in merely seeking to clarify matters of law he may be unaware of, it cannot be claimed that I am doing so now.

With regard to the old saying of being 'lead up the garden path', I saw it used by viaveritasvita on another thead and purloined it as I consider it to be an apt description of how relying on a sole source of information can cause the enquirer to jump to erroneous conclusions about matters which may be far more complex than the manner in which they have been described.
aren't you the person who threatened me with making my PM's public on the forum because I disagreed with you?

Aren't you the person who proclaimed that making my PM's public is a matter of law?

Aren't you the person on this forum who cackles and makes fun of Gerry being a Glaswegian?

Do you Aquila have issues with women generally?
Is it because UT is better educated and more articulate than you?
Cristobell is down to earth ,intellegent and was prepared to start her own blog whereas you are pompous ,aloof and kow tow to TB something neither
UT and Cristobell are prepared to do.
You mock Candyfloss and Freedom/Marian for setting up a new forum and having the strength to break from the clutches of TB.
You take a few cheap shots at someone like Cristobell who as you know is banned from here and can,t defend herself.
I had asked a serious question about TB accusing the Met of lying and your only form of response is an aggresive personal attack
as you have done with UT above and Cristobell.
You said you have Scottish ancestory then familiarise yourself with the poem by Robert Burns "to a louse" and then reflect on how others see you.
It may not be a pretty sight.

by comperedna 17.10.14 20:14

Oh for goodness sake STFU the lot of you... squabbling like a henhouse full of cackling chickens!

Just my own viewpoint, natch. :-0

Things are moving again in this case, for good or ill, and we all need to be alert about it... and watching closely and thinking... not going for each other.

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 21:11

Could we start a new thread for people who wish to squabble with others over matters irrelevant to the discussion
ADMIN to move anything getting it the way of proper debate and discussion to that thread . . .

I have given up for the night.

by Guest 17.10.14 21:28

PeterMac wrote:Could we start a new thread for people who wish to squabble with others over matters irrelevant to the discussion
ADMIN to move anything getting it the way of proper debate and discussion to that thread . . .

I have given up for the night.

Have to agree there PM,its hard to fathom what is being discussed.

by Silverspeed 19.10.14 0:32

Man wanted in UK as part Madeleine McCann investigation jailed 18 months for child porn

Saturday, 18 October 2014, 18:13Last update: about 6 hours ago
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The man wanted in the UK in connection with the disappearance of Madeliene McCann this afternoon was jailed for 18 months for possession of child pornography.
Roderick Macdonald, who was living in an apartment in Sannat, admitted to being in possession of pornographic photographs of children found on his laptop.
On Tuesday, the 77-year-old convicted paedophile consented to his extradition when he appeared before Magistrate Audrey Demicoli, a day after he was arrested by the police in Gozo.
Madeleine McCann has been missing since May 2007 after disappearing during a family holiday in Portugal.
The magistrate jailed him for 18 months.
The Mirror has reported that the man told people he met in Sannat that he has a Maltese mother.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 19.10.14 9:47

Silverspeed wrote:
Man wanted in UK as part Madeleine McCann investigation jailed 18 months for child porn

Saturday, 18 October 2014, 18:13Last update: about 6 hours ago
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The man wanted in the UK in connection with the disappearance of Madeliene McCann this afternoon was jailed for 18 months for possession of child pornography.
Roderick Macdonald, who was living in an apartment in Sannat, admitted to being in possession of pornographic photographs of children found on his laptop.
On Tuesday, the 77-year-old convicted paedophile consented to his extradition when he appeared before Magistrate Audrey Demicoli, a day after he was arrested by the police in Gozo.
Madeleine McCann has been missing since May 2007 after disappearing during a family holiday in Portugal.
The magistrate jailed him for 18 months.
The Mirror has reported that the man told people he met in Sannat that he has a Maltese mother.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

THINGS THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM THIS ARTICLE

1. We now know the offence for which he was extradited: downloading images of children being abused. The mainstream media informed us that he was 'a suspect in the Madeleine McCann case' but NOT what the actual alleged offence against him was

2. Following on from No. 1, the claim that he was sought in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance would appear to be 'spin' supplied by some source of other. I would suggest that the likely source is Clarence Mitchell and it is my sincere belief that he and DCI Andy Redwood have throughout worked together to influence public perception in this case - and that Redwood would have tacitly approved the connection made by the mainstream media between Roderick MacDonald and Madeleine McCann...just as he has done with all the other ridiculous stories of numerous other 'suspects' and 'persons of interest' over the past three years, which will I am sure have been placed by the same source into various mainstream media, judicially shared out reasonably equally beeen different newspapers

3. Once people have acquired a thirst for sexually abusing young children or viewing such images, it is almost impossible to uproot this addiction from their minds, hearts and souls - just like the most persistent weeds, you try and pull them all up, but they just come back sooner or later and grow and grow again.

Also, is the slogan on his T-shirt

H A G L A N D

...the money-laundering expert appointed by Brian Kennedy in September 2007 to head up his Knutsford-based private investigations into Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

by Bishop Brennan 19.10.14 10:01

Tony Bennett wrote:[

...

2. Following on from No. 1, the claim that he was sought in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance would appear to be 'spin' supplied by some source of other. I would suggest that the likely source is Clarence Mitchell and it is my sincere belief that he and DCI Andy Redwood have throughout worked together to influence public perception in this case - and that Redwood would have tacitly approved the connection made by the mainstream media between Roderick MacDonald and Madeleine McCann...just as he has done with all the other ridiculous stories of numerous other 'suspects' and 'persons of interest' over the past three years, which will I am sure have been placed by the same source into various mainstream media, judicially shared out reasonably equally beeen different newspapers

...

Also, is the slogan on his T-shirt

H A G L A N D

...the money-laundering expert appointed by Brian Kennedy in September 2007 to head up his Knutsford-based private investigations into Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

I would agree with your opinion in point 2 above. This is a(nother) very crude attempt to create invalid but powerfully emotional linkage in the minds of the UK public. You could call it the "anyone but the McCanns" strategy. And so far it's been applied consistently by AR and the UK media. It is likely to be increased.

The biggest risk that AR and Team McCann have right now is that after 3 years, and £10m spent they have found NOTHING. They are no further forward. This is likely to lead to many people to speculate "perhaps it was the parents after all..." This is a natural and entirely logical conclusion. AR and the McCanns know this - and they have been working against it from day 1.

As for the T-Shirt, IIRC it actually says THAILAND according to other press images.

by Guest 19.10.14 10:05

Bishop Brennan wrote:
The biggest risk that AR and Team McCann have right now is that after 3 years, and £10m spent they have found NOTHING. They are no further forward. This is likely to lead to many people to speculate "perhaps it was the parents after all..." This is a natural and entirely logical conclusion. AR and the McCanns know this - and they have been working against it from day 1.

The thing is,they can try and influence the brit public all they like but its what happens on the ground in Portugal that really counts.

by lj 23.10.14 0:45

PeterMac wrote:So the age range for "Suspects" and "persons of interest" is now 16 - 72
They may be
Alive or Dead
White, Swarthy, or Black
Men or Women (Thanks Edgar for making that clear !)
Have long or short hair (thanks Jane Tanner for making that clear )
Live in Portugal, Angola, Morocco, Devon, (remember him !) New Zealand, Australia, Belgium, Holland, The Vatican, The White House, various TV studies (depending where we are going to 'search' next)
Be a paedo***, or running a paedo*** ring, or a random burglar who forgot his script, or a couple with no children, or a raggle-taggle gypsy, or some cleaners, or a Charity collector . . .

I was taught that the idea was to "narrow the field' of suspects ! !

by missbeetle 23.10.14 4:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from stuff.co.nz)

by tiny 23.10.14 15:14

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] · [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] CEOP & [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] team know this man was NOT in Portugal in 2007. He was in New Zealand. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Search: 'Robinson'

by **PeterMac** 23.10.14 16:31

He was a case history in that very report. Gamble's own Annual review.
And Gamble has apparently said nothing to the press, but has allowed them to go on printing things which he, and probably they, KNOW to be false.

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

by Doug D 23.10.14 21:01

New blog up from Joana Morais re. Roderick Robinson (McDonald), Jim Gamble, S&S etc

Spin & Manipulation – Round up the usual suspects

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

Lengthy blog, but ends with the following:

‘This incredibly well orchestrated integrated marketing campaign sadly resulted in human tragedy with the loss of a life. Hounded by the media and public opinion that labelled her as a “troll”, when she was clearly not, a human being was pushed to despair and Brenda Leyland is believed to have taken her own life in a hotel room in Leicester.

It is essential that the truth regarding the report, the book, the Sky exclusive on the report, the “Dossier” and the Sky exclusive report on the dossier is told and we trust the competent authorities to do so and to do it urgently.

These are not just mere coincidental isolated actions, these were planned and integrated, part of a whole disastrous PR and marketing campaign.

As the target audience we were and are, as tax payers and law abiding citizens it is our right and our moral duty to research and question what we read and watch and, above all, demand the truth surrounding these events.’

by missbeetle 25.10.14 18:51

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

by worriedmum 25.10.14 20:51

What a tribute to the marvels of modern journalism the previous article is!

'Madeleine McCann-linked paedophile fled 'on my passport'

screams the headline..

but if you read the article it actually says

''it is not known whether Robinson was in Portugal at the time of Madeleine's abduction..''

what