The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Follow the money trail.

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Jamming on 17.03.15 11:24

@inspirespirit wrote:Do people seriously think that the McCanns carried on their holiday as if nothing had happened if their daughter had died on the Sunday?   They continued to take the twins to the creche, played tennis, went jogging, ate meals and laughed in the Tapas Bar at night.   No matter what you think of them, you would have to be something else to have lost your first born and yet continue the charade for the rest of the week.  Plus they would have to be oscar winning actor/actresses.   It's just barmy.

Whilst ordinarily I would agree with you, surely most of those activities you list continued after their daughter had "officially" disappeared anyway, didn't they ? Including the disturbing video of GH laughing away on a balcony just days later ... As a parent I couldn't imagine when I would ever laugh again with one of my children missing
avatar
Jamming

Posts : 134
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Knitted on 17.03.15 11:52

@universe wrote:Universe to XTC... I will attempt to yet again explain my theory  to you in the most concise way I can. You ask to know the HOW, WHEN, & WHY of my theory.. so here goes;
    WHEN.... = SUNDAY 29th. April 2007 = Madeleine died.
     HOW....  = Madeleine fell off the top of the sofa onto tiled floor while looking out the window...Head injury is cause of death.
     WHY....  = Why the coverup by Mark Warner & Mccanns  = Fear of autopsy results by Mccanns &
                                                                                  = Fear of loss of childcare licence due to neglect of nanny  minding Madeleine in apt. 5a  by Mark Warners.
 What part of this theory do you not yet understand ???????
Hi Universe,

As per my response(s) to you in the 'Mark Warner Resort' thread:

A hypothesis needs to stand up to challenge, and challenge should always be welcomed. Yes, challenge may result in an idea being rejected, (but if so it is right that it should be rejected), but challenge may also result in an idea being validated and agreed upon by others. Challenge isn't personal, it's a way of necessarily separating the wheat from the chaff.

Apologies for having to repeat myself in this thread, but you're response to XTC is pretty much the same as your original response to me and I went to the trouble of explaining my concern with your hypothesis in a structured manner but it was ignored. So, please find the gist of my concern with your hypothesis below:

Your idea: "MBM is regularly sedated. On the 29th she dies. She wasn’t found for hours because the babysitter was elsewhere/distracted and missed everything. The parents don't want an autopsy as they'll be found out and Mark Warner's don't want the damage to their business of poor babysitting practices"  Are we agreed that's what you're saying?

The first logical conclusion is that MW would not have known that MBM was regularly sedated and so they would not have approached the parents to say "Sorry, can we do a deal".  That then means the parents would have had to have approached Mark Warner first, saying "although you are at fault, but we don't want an autopsy because we sedate our kids... so can we do a deal?"  Are we agreed that's logical? 

If so, we find ourselves with the following possible outcomes:

(i) (If MBM died peacefully)
- Mark Warner's could easily say that their babysitter looked in at the children at the required frequency and, not seeing any movement, simply assumed MBM was sleeping. No one would expect that a babysitter physically inspects a child to make sure they’re asleep and not dead. So MW would be able to come out of it blameless and there’s no need for a ‘deal’ with the parents.  Are we agreed this is logical?

(ii) (If MBM had died in the way that you describe and one might expect the babysitter to have noticed)
- We need to then imagine the following thoughts would be going through the mind(s) of whoever was standing there representing Mark Warner.  Maybe what went through their mind was something like:  “The parents don't want an autopsy because they sedate their kids, but then again we stuffed up and we should have spotted her dying/death. We may lose £X and suffer much brand damage if we are (again) found to have bad babysitting procedures. We can get Bell Pottinger in to make sure the parents are vilified on the front pages of the press because their child died after being sedated and then asked for a deal to cover it up, and with a bit of luck our failing in our duty of care regarding babysitting can be buried by Bell Pottinger at the back of the media articles. Yes, the parents may sue us, but considering they told us they regularly sedate her, and have just asked us to cover it up, it's unlikely their claim will get very far.  However, on the other hand, if we do a deal and we're ever found out, the damage to Mark Warner's reputation might be irretrievable and I/we will end up in jail"


After the above going through the minds of the Mark Warner representative(s) standing their faced with a dead child and a failed babysitter I would suggest that it is more likely that the decision would have been:
(a) "Don't get involved any further, so call the police and manage the fallout by getting Bell Pottinger in to do what they can to maximise the bad press against the parents so our babysitting faults aren't the headlines".

However, your hypothesis is that the decision would have been:
(b) "We'll get involved and implicate ourselves further, we won't call the police and we'll effectively increase the risk of a cover up being exposed by getting more people involved, such as Bell Pottinger". 

I think that most people, when faced with such a scenario, would go with (a), not (b).  Furthermore, to progress (b) would require others up the management chain, and at Bell Pottinger, having to also implicate themselves. In both scenarios Bell Pottinger get paid, in both scenarios there's some damage to Mark Warner's reputation, (i.e. the cover up of an 'abduction' now means people associate Mark Warner resorts with weak security and as hunting grounds for predatory paedophiles). But in the former scenario Mark Warner 'did the right thing' and in the latter scenario, they followed the higher risk strategy of getting involved...and for what gain?    

So, at least for me, what's missing from your hypothesis is appropriate justification that decision (b) would have been chosen by Mark Warner's representatives on the ground, (& then up the management line) over decision (a)  So, please can you weigh up and justify why those representing Mark Warner went with (b) over (a).

I've read all your thread comments, I understand your hypothesis, but I just don't see that the conclusion you've reached makes the most logical sense given the circumstances. Hence my (hopefully, polite and rational) challenge.

If you are, like me, interested in justice for Madeleine then all I ask is to embrace the challenge. As I said, wither your hypothesis will not stand up to the challenge and it is therefore appropriate to go back to the drawing board, or in responding to the challenge(s) it will become all the more informed and robust.   Indeed, our failing to robustly challenge ideas presented is a disservice to Madeleine and this forum.  So, please do not take anything personally and I look forward to your response to the questions in italic bold. Thanks.

____________________
Justice...  Fought for by the masses. Purchased by the wealthy. Traded by the powerful.
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Rogue-a-Tory on 17.03.15 12:06

@universe wrote:There are two other important elements within my theory that I would like to put forward;...
      (1)  That the Sagres beach mystery (on Monday 30th. April) event &...
                   the icecreams on the beach (on Tuesday 1st. May) event &...
                   the  Parissio restaurant on the beach (on Thursday 3rd May) event
            These all have a common denominator......
             ie. Madeleine having died in apt.5a on SUNDAY evening  in the care of the nanny, the Mark Warner/ Bell Pottinger & their "Crisis Management Team" wanted "The Abduction" to happen at the beach away from the Warner resort apartments ....... BUT......the Mccanns wanted to keep Warners firmly in the (vunerable) loop to keep their protection (both financial & political) ....so... A Mexican standoff  comes about & the Mccanns back out of the beachside kidnap scenario & will ONLY have the abduction in Warners apartment (smart move by Gerry to keep Warners always worried & helpful to them as it continues to put them in the spotlight too).
       (2)  That the witness called Nigel who told police that the Tapas group & Mccanns were photographing his young daughter on the tennis courts on Thursday was in fact correct & that this photo later became the famous "Tennis Ball Photo" with Madeleines head photoshopped onto his daughters body.
         All the above that I have written is OMO.
That tennis ball image is incredibly famous. So why has Nigel never come forward to say 'oi that's my girl & the photo has been shopped'? Nigel could name his reward & the expose would be a key to the door.
avatar
Rogue-a-Tory

Posts : 528
Reputation : 380
Join date : 2014-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 17.03.15 13:06

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@universe wrote:There are two other important elements within my theory that I would like to put forward...
      (1)  That the Sagres beach mystery (on Monday 30th. April) event &... [snipped]
                   
            These all have a common denominator... 
I think you had better make very clear exactly what you mean by the 'Sagres beach mystery event' - because I am 100% sure that such an 'event' never happened:

1. The McCanns never went there, and

2. Nuno Lourenco's tall tale of his 4-year-old girl neraly being snatched by a a kidnapper outside the pastry shop (NOTE: not on the beach) in Sagres is utter, fabricated, balderdash - nothing remotley like it ever happened.

So please share what you mean by the 'Sagres beach mystery event'
Universe to Tony Bennett; I have also ALWAYS been 100% convinced that the Sagres beach "fantasy" event never happened but that Warners told the media that it did in order to spread their "Abduction" mantra to be far away from the Warner resort apartments. The Mccanns say it did not happen, or rather Kate fails to mention Sagres at all in her book. The Mexican stand off between Warners & Mccann is highlighted by this lie about the non-existant  trip to Sagres by Warners paying BELL POTTINGER to manipulate the media newspapers to say that it did happen. I put the Nuno Lourenco  "fantasy"  in the same basket of deception,always did, it was also Bell Pottinger doing false rumours in the newspapers for their client Mark WARNERS PROTECTION. omo. spin ALL FOR THE NEWSPAPERS.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by j.rob on 17.03.15 13:18

@Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
@universe wrote:There are two other important elements within my theory that I would like to put forward;...
      (1)  That the Sagres beach mystery (on Monday 30th. April) event &...
                   the icecreams on the beach (on Tuesday 1st. May) event &...
                   the  Parissio restaurant on the beach (on Thursday 3rd May) event
            These all have a common denominator......
             ie. Madeleine having died in apt.5a on SUNDAY evening  in the care of the nanny, the Mark Warner/ Bell Pottinger & their "Crisis Management Team" wanted "The Abduction" to happen at the beach away from the Warner resort apartments ....... BUT......the Mccanns wanted to keep Warners firmly in the (vunerable) loop to keep their protection (both financial & political) ....so... A Mexican standoff  comes about & the Mccanns back out of the beachside kidnap scenario & will ONLY have the abduction in Warners apartment (smart move by Gerry to keep Warners always worried & helpful to them as it continues to put them in the spotlight too).
       (2)  That the witness called Nigel who told police that the Tapas group & Mccanns were photographing his young daughter on the tennis courts on Thursday was in fact correct & that this photo later became the famous "Tennis Ball Photo" with Madeleines head photoshopped onto his daughters body.
         All the above that I have written is OMO.
That tennis ball image is incredibly famous. So why has Nigel never come forward to say 'oi that's my girl & the photo has been shopped'? Nigel could name his reward & the expose would be a key to the door.

Sagres is significant in one way or another. Because the press reported that the McCanns visited Sagres on Monday 30th April. Whereas the McCanns never mention this. So they either did go there but did not want to make it public (even though the press did). Or they didn't go there but were SUPPOSED to have gone there (hence the reports in the press). If it was the latter this points towards some sort of press collusion. 

Or, on the other hand, it could point towards the press trying to land the McScams in it perhaps? Firing a warning shot, perhaps?

The Nuno de Jesus 'sighting' is of interest whether fabricated or not. Was this supposed to have happened when the McCanns were supposed to be on the beach at Sagres? To lend weight to the abductor spying on blonde three to four year old girls? And of course the 'sighting' lead to Polish couple who police investigated. Whether or not this sighting is fabricated, this couple must be significant in one way or another. Why did someone/several people wish to point the finger at the Polish couple? What is their role in all this? Why would someone or several people want to flag them up? And of course this Polish couple lead police to an apartment where traces of DNA were found which might link with Jane Tanner in some way? (And was it Murat too?) 

Perhaps the 'staged and faked' kidnapping was supposed to have happened on the beach (at Sagres on Monday?) but 'a disaster' occurred and it was staged on Thursday evening instead?

I wonder if Nuno de Jesus is related to the Sky anchor and news producer Gaynor de Jesus who is a childhood friend of Robert Murat? Both Gaynor and Murat helped with police interpretations and translations. Gaynor in an interview stated she knew the Portuguese police, as did Robert Murat. And of course Murat will also have links with police in the UK as he worked as a police interpreter in Norfolk.

Gaynor's father Martin is the owner of Naomi Corlett ship that I think I read somewhere left Luz in the early hours of 3rd May and went to the marina in Lagos. 

(Gaynor and Naomi Corlett de Jesus appear to be from the Cheshire area.)

And of course Kate visited the marina in Lagos and took photographs, after her friend's 'premonition' I do believe?

Barrister Michael Shrimpton suggests that Madeleine's kidnap had something to do with a couple on a Dutch-registered yacht and that Sergey Malinka was in phone contact with the couple that day.

Sergey Malinka is reported as having worked for Corlett Maritima organizing boat trips. 

--------

The holiday maker Nigel is most definitely a very important witness as he appears to have caught the McCann team filming his daughter playing mini-tennis in a manner that made him so uncomfortable that he actually went up to them and spoke to them. Leading, according to the McScams, to a playful little banter about paedophilia, as you do. Typical Team McCann antics here. Spinning the event to take the finger of blame away from themselves. 

I doubt the 'last photo' has much to do with Nigel's daughter, though. I suspect TM were trying to get footage of children playing mini-tennis so that they could produce a blurry image and claim it was Madeleine alive and well on Thursday, when she wasn't.

I think something had happened to Madeleine by Monday or it happened on Monday. 

http://forum4.aimoo.com/madeleinemccanncontroversy/Suspects-Photofits/RE-Sergey-Malinka-1-2132165.html

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10199-fishing-with-a-yacht

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2011/01/open-letter-to-textusa.html

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by NickE on 17.03.15 13:20

Do we know Nigels surname?

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1034
Reputation : 331
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 42

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.03.15 13:51

@universe wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@universe wrote:There are two other important elements within my theory that I would like to put forward...
      (1)  That the Sagres beach mystery (on Monday 30th. April) event &... [snipped]
                   
            These all have a common denominator... 
I think you had better make very clear exactly what you mean by the 'Sagres beach mystery event' - because I am 100% sure that such an 'event' never happened:

1
So please share what you mean by the 'Sagres beach mystery event'
Universe to Tony Bennett; I have also ALWAYS been 100% convinced that the Sagres beach "fantasy" event never happened but that Warners told the media that it did in order to spread their "Abduction" mantra to be far away from the Warner resort apartments. The Mccanns say it did not happen, or rather Kate fails to mention Sagres at all in her book. The Mexican stand off between Warners & Mccann is highlighted by this lie about the non-existant  . The McCanns never went there, and

2. Nuno Lourenco's tall tale of his 4-year-old girl neraly being snatched by a a kidnapper outside the pastry shop (NOTE: not on the beach) in Sagres is utter, fabricated, balderdash - nothing remotley like it ever happened.
trip to Sagres by Warners paying BELL POTTINGER to manipulate the media newspapers to say that it did happen. I put the Nuno Lourenco  "fantasy"  in the same basket of deception,always did, it was also Bell Pottinger doing false rumours in the newspapers for their client Mark WARNERS PROTECTION. omo. spin ALL FOR THE NEWSPAPERS.
Well, thank you for your reply.

So we are full agreed on these two very important matters:

1. The McCanns never went to Sagres, and

2. Nuno Lourenco's tall tale of his 4-year-old girl neraly being snatched by a kidnapper outside the pastry shop (NOTE: not on the beach) in Sagres is utter, fabricated, balderdash - nothing remotley like it ever happened.

I wonder if you might like to go further and explore these further considerations:

3. Why did Nuno Lourenco (as he clearly did) fabricate a story about an alleged kidnap attempt on his daughter?,

4. Who (if anyone) put him up to it?,

5. Do you agree that it is beyond coincidence that Nuno Lourenco's fabricated description of Krokowski, and what he didn't do, matches almost exactly Jane Tanner's fabricated description of 'Tannerman' (not a tourist, warm clothes, beige trousers, classic shoes etc. etc.)?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by j.rob on 17.03.15 13:51

@NickE wrote:Do we know Nigels surname?

No but it would be easy to find out as his daughter attended mini club tennis, or so TM say. His daughter's name begins with I according to Russell's statement. Nigel is British and married. 

Snipped from Russell's 11th May 2007 statement (my emphasis):

The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL—a British individual, married, and with a daughter of ¾ years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and “the state to which the world has come”. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate.

The parts in red above beautifully illustrate TM's devious modus-operandi. 

From the account above it would appear that fellow holiday maker Nigel catches Russell alongside other TM members filming Nigel's  three to four year old daughter playing mini-tennis using a video camera. Nigel approaches the group and tells them that he feels uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. 


Notice how this has been artfully spun by Russell. The TM version of events (also written about in Kate's book) would have us believe that Nigel gets into a little chit-chat with TM about paedophiles and ends up agreeing that it is ridiculous that everyone is so paranoid. 

So, effectively, it seems to me that TM have put words into Nigel's mouth that directly contradict what he actually said and how he actually felt. In effect, making it appear that Nigel is agreeing that he was being paranoid by going up to them and remonstrating.

But it gets even better than that!

Russell has NO REASON to suspect Nigel! laughat 

Surely what you really meant, Russell, was that Nigel may have had good reason to suspect you?!

And, what is even more extraordinary, is that, when questioned by police about the video recorder,  Russell cannot remember seeing one! Amazing! 

So Nigel saw an invisible video recorder then did he?

What is even more hilarious is that in Kate's book she has further spun the incident (if possible) and her version of events has Nigel filming his own daughter and, allegedly, looking 'a little embarrassed and 'laughingly' remarking to them that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

Don't you just love how TM literally turn everything on it's head? Planting words and thoughts in people's heads that are the direct opposite of what they actually meant. Accusing their critics of the very thing that they themselves are doing. 


http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8649-statement-of-russell-o-brien-11th-may-2007

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Doug D on 17.03.15 14:00

The Fosters were Nigel & Selina with a 3 year old daughter E (not I), but maybe RO'B got it wrong if he'd just heard her name called.
eg Evie/Ivy

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3918-the-foster-family-photograph

eta:
Mini-club booked but not used that I can see.

Doug D

Posts : 2461
Reputation : 847
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.03.15 14:25

@j.rob wrote:
Sagres is significant in one way or another. Because the press reported that the McCanns visited Sagres on Monday 30th April.

REPLY: I suggest that this was an entirely fabricated story by the press, which appeared on 10/11/12 May IIRC, that 'cemented' the idea of a probable abduction in the public's mind. (Whether this was orchestrated by Bell Pottinger, as 'universe' suggests, or by Clarence Mitchell (which I feel is more likely), I wouldn't like to say. Maybe both?

Whereas the McCanns never mention this. So they either did go there but did not want to make it public (even though the press did). Or they didn't go there but were SUPPOSED to have gone there (hence the reports in the press). If it was the latter this points towards some sort of press collusion. 

REPLY: All the available evidence points towards the latter (bold, above), @ j.rob. However, I think that 'press collusion' would be the wrong way to put it. I suggest that an apparently reliable source told the press that the McCanns were in Sagres on 30 April - and the media assumed that the source was telling the truth. Please also see my thread on Wojcek Krokowski.

Or, on the other hand, it could point towards the press trying to land the McScams in it perhaps? Firing a warning shot, perhaps?

REPLY: Please see my last comment.

The Nuno de Jesus 'sighting' is of interest whether fabricated or not.

REPLY: Fabricated. Definitely.

Was this supposed to have happened when the McCanns were supposed to be on the beach at Sagres?

REPLY: Here we come across major contradictions! The McCanns alleged visit was Monday 30 April. Lourenco's statement says 'Sunday 29 April'. Goncalo Amaral's book says 'Thursday 26 April'.  This alleged 'kidnapping' of Lourenco's child never happened - and that's why no-one can get the date right!

To lend weight to the abductor spying on blonde three to four year old girls?

REPLY: Yes. Exactly right.

And of course the 'sighting' lead to Polish couple who police investigated. Whether or not this sighting is fabricated, this couple must be significant in one way or another. Why did someone/several people wish to point the finger at the Polish couple?

REPLY: Let's put it this way. On 4 May, Jane Tanner gives a surprisingly detailed description of the bloke she saw for a few seconds in the dark. The PJ take note. The very next morning, Lourenco gets on the blower with his tall tale of a kidnapping.  Of a young blonde girl!!  AND - the description matches Tanner's! - unusually warm clothing, classic shoes, beige trousers, jacket and trousers of the same material, and of course that old chestnut ' 'didn't look like a tourist' - lines that the Smiths would repeat almost word for word 11 days later. And how do the PJ react?  Call INTERPOL! Call the German Police! Call the Polish Police!. Detain the passengers on Krokowski's plane! Question them! Search the Krokowski's flat! And all of that happened in the next 24 hours. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - Amaral's investigation well and truly diverted up a useless cul-de-sac
  

What is their role in all this? Why would someone or several people want to flag them up?

REPLY: That is a good question I've pondered over for ages. Innocent patsy - or part of the plot? I find it intriguing though that Krokowksi and wife stay in an apartment built by Robert Murat's father and still managed by his company, that the one person who gives the PJ details about him is a worker at the Burgau Beach Bar, run by Murat's aunt and uncle, the Eveleighs, and most of all that hairs with the DNA haplotypes of both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat are found by the PJ in the very flat where Krokowski stayed! Did they all have a mid-week meeting there? 

to an apartment where traces of DNA were found which might link with Jane Tanner in some way? (And was it Murat too?) 

REPLY: See above.

Perhaps the 'staged and faked' kidnapping was supposed to have happened on the beach (at Sagres on Monday?) but 'a disaster' occurred and it was staged on Thursday evening instead?

REPLY: No, I don't think there's any basis for suggesting that.

I wonder if Nuno de Jesus is related to the Sky anchor and news producer Gaynor de Jesus who is a childhood friend of Robert Murat?

REPLY: Ah! Now that might certainly be worth a very close look.

Both Gaynor and Murat helped with police interpretations and translations. Gaynor in an interview stated she knew the Portuguese police, as did Robert Murat. And of course Murat will also have links with police in the UK as he worked as a police interpreter in Norfolk.

REPLY: All potentially relevant.

Gaynor's father Martin is the owner of Naomi Corlett ship that I think I read somewhere left Luz in the early hours of 3rd May and went to the marina in Lagos. 

(Gaynor and Naomi Corlett de Jesus appear to be from the Cheshire area.)

REPLY: Wasn't it in the early hours of 4 May?

And of course Kate visited the marina in Lagos and took photographs, after her friend's 'premonition' I do believe?

REPLY: Personally I don't think that's a lead worth pursuing. 

Barrister Michael Shrimpton suggests that Madeleine's kidnap had something to do with a couple on a Dutch-registered yacht and that Sergey Malinka was in phone contact with the couple that day.

REPLY: Please ignore absolutely everything that the Walter Mitty character Michael Shrimpton has ever said about Madeleine.

Sergey Malinka is reported as having worked for Corlett Maritima organizing boat trips. 

REPLY: Anything to do with Sergei Malinka IS worth looking at IMO

--------

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 17.03.15 14:48

uNIVERSE TO TONY BENNETT; Firstly, may I say to you what a great pleasure it is to converse with you on the internet as both your good self & Mr. Amaral are my hero's & my inspiration. smilie . Yes we are both on the same page as far as Sarges goes, ie. it was all a hoax as was the rubbish fabrication reported by Norino L. And, in my theory it was the "CRISIS MANAGEMENT TEAM" of BELL POTTINGER working for Mark Warner PTY. LTD
who used their large cheque book to pay for these red herring fantasy's to be reported & put into the newspapers. I also believe that yes Mr. K was the original template model that "THEY" used to model Tannerman & SMITHMAN ON AS WELL. i HAVE LOTS MORE TO SAY ON THIS CONSPIRACY BY bell pottinger & WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER WITH YOU. i HAVE GREAT ADMIRATION FOR YOUR INTEGRITY & search for justice & TRUTH.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Tony Bennett on 17.03.15 15:09

@universe wrote:I HAVE LOTS MORE TO SAY ON THIS CONSPIRACY BY BELL POTTINGER & WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS IT FURTHER WITH YOU.
Well, as you've disabled your 'contact details' in your forum Profile, I can't send you a 'pm'.

If you can rectify that, I'm happy to discuss any theory backed by evidence, or my e-mail address is well known: ajsbennett@btinternet.com - and you can e-mail me there.

I'm not willing to discuss certain details on the open forum

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14729
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by inspirespirit on 17.03.15 15:30

Nuno Laurenco chats on facebook on a Verified account and is quite convincing in what he says.      Even so, it does not mean it has absolutely anything to do with the McCanns.
avatar
inspirespirit

Posts : 183
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2014-06-26
Age : 63

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 17.03.15 15:38

uNIVERSE TO TONY BENNETT; Thankyou for your reply. Now I need to ask how fearful should I be continuing to discuss my theory on this open forum ? You've now got me concerned for what I have already discussed on here, should I be more discreet on here with my theory?.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by j.rob on 17.03.15 15:46

This blogger suggested that the Naomi Corlett left Portimao in the early afternoon of 3rd May and headed to the marina at Largos to be positioned near Luz. And that Malinka called his wife who was onboard the ship in the early afternoon of 3rd May. It is claimed that Murat and Malinka were in telephone contact at around 10.30pm on 3rd May, shortly after the announcement of Madeleine's 'abduction'.

http://the-elite-and-child-abduction.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/did-sergey-malika-took-pictures-of.html


Matthew Fazackerley is also said to have worked as 'project organizer for island expeditions' with Malinka for Corlett Maritima and also runs a chain of computer offices with Malinka. 

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/ROBERT_MURAT.htm


Never seen this blog before. Seems to be towing the Shrimpton line. But a bit more on Malinka, Murat, Naomi Corlett, Sagres photographs. This suggests that the ship Naomi Corlett is operated by Malinka and Stephen and Matthew Hare.

I wonder what happened to the journalist Christopher Story?

http://dondevamos.canalblog.com/archives/2013/01/28/26273077.html

With regard to a possible association between Madeleine's disappearance and the ship Naomi Corlett, someone apparently wrote to Martin Corlett, the owner of the boat company, asking about a job working on 'an expedition.' The reply he received supposedly from Martin Corlett is dodgy as hell, imo. What 'expeditions' are they carrying out? The same kind of 'expeditions' that Malinka is/was involved in perhaps? 

So the 'project organizer' jobs involve expeditions to carry out studies in marine biology/archaeology and bio-diversity, do they?

Hmmmmmmm.........I think not.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1917.5;wap2

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Knitted on 17.03.15 15:47

@Doug D wrote:The Fosters were Nigel & Selina with a 3 year old daughter E (not I), but maybe RO'B got it wrong if he'd just heard her name called.
eg Evie/Ivy

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3918-the-foster-family-photograph

eta:
Mini-club booked but not used that I can see.
Possibly...?

Nigel A L Foster (
Selina A Foster (nee Gibbons)
Elizabeth Selina Foster (born early 2004)

(They met in 2009 at a function onboard HMS Warrior berthed at Portsmouth hosted by Shoosmiths Law Firm. Married in 2002)
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by j.rob on 17.03.15 16:01

Perhaps it is kosher after all. The Malinka connection is just odd, though, imo.

http://corlettgroup.com/research_education.html

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by plebgate on 17.03.15 16:20

Ref. the theory from Universe that Mark Warner would have been worried about losing their babysitting license.

I am happy to corrected of course, but didn't the company only provide a baby listening service?

 If that is the case, if any nanny had been babysitting in the apartment then that would have been a private agreement between the nanny and parents?

How would the company be held responsible for any accident if they were not part of such an agreement?

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by NickE on 17.03.15 20:54

@plebgate wrote:Ref. the theory from Universe that Mark Warner would have been worried about losing their babysitting license.

I am happy to corrected of course, but didn't the company only provide a baby listening service?

 If that is the case, if any nanny had been babysitting in the apartment then that would have been a private agreement between the nanny and parents?

How would the company be held responsible for any accident if they were not part of such an agreement?

Russel O´Brien:
"In the Luz Ocean Club, a baby-sitter service is offered so that the adults can dine. This service is free. However, the children do not stay at home, but in the creche installations. The nanny service costs around 15 euros per hour and functions until 01H00".


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN.htm

____________________
When asked if people will ever learn what really happened, Mr Amaral responded: “Yes, we will, when MI5 opens the case files, we will find out".
avatar
NickE

Posts : 1034
Reputation : 331
Join date : 2013-10-27
Age : 42

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 18.03.15 1:43

Universe to plebgate; You have been a member of this forum for such a long time that I am completly surprised by your basic question re. the Warner advertised childminding service that places Warner nannies inside guests apartments for a fee up to 1am each night if required. Such a well know FACT in this case that I do not understand how you say you did not know of it. Also, what gives with not knowing that Warners have never offered the baby listening service in PDL, even a basic novice on this forum is aware of this fact....I am not critisising you , I am just amased in your supposed gaps in knowledge for a long term contributer on here.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by Knitted on 18.03.15 2:19

@universe wrote:Universe to plebgate; You have been a member of this forum for such a long time that I am completly surprised by your basic question re. the Warner advertised childminding service that places Warner nannies inside guests apartments for a fee up to 1am each night if required. Such a well know FACT in this case that I do not understand how you say you did not know of it. Also, what gives with not knowing that Warners have never offered the baby listening service in PDL, even a basic novice on this forum is aware of this fact....I am not critisising you , I am just amased in your supposed gaps in knowledge for a long term contributer on here.

Universe... I fail to see what value that adds to this forum. I comes across simply as a petty swipe at a fellow forum member. If you felt compelled to tell Plebgate how amazed you were then might a private message have been a more appropriate vehicle?

Anyway, since you are online will you be, instead, adding value by responding to my polite and rational questions relating to your ideas. A few of us on here are saying the same (i.e. we can't see why MW would get embroiled in a cover up when they could have taken a different, less risky, route if events had happened as you suggest). It's healthy to challenge ideas, and in turn it's healthy to respond to challenges as that's how progress is made and how ideas are improved (or shelved) as necessary. Thank you.
avatar
Knitted

Posts : 240
Reputation : 15
Join date : 2015-01-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 18.03.15 2:38

@j.rob wrote:
@universe wrote:Maybe LORD BELL is being the WHISTLEBLOWER now with his latest revelation that Warner/Mccann team paid him $1million  for his reputation management services via  newspaper propaganda  manipulation because he now realises that the s... is about to hit the fan  soon with Mr. Amaral's  upcomming legal victory  re. his wonderfull  book "The Truth Of The LIE" . OMO. OMO.

Fingers crossed.
Could be that BELL POTTINGER's "Crisis Management Team" in trying to protect their well paying client Mark Warner Pty. Ltd  from a PR crisis have in reality created a vast crisis for their own company ! Time will tell, & how ironic it will be !  OMO.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by plebgate on 18.03.15 4:37

Nicke Posted:
Russel O´Brien:
"In the Luz Ocean Club, a baby-sitter service is offered so that the adults can dine. This service is free. However, the children do not stay at home, but in the creche installations. The nanny service costs around 15 euros per hour and functions until 01H00".


Thank you Nicke.


@ Universe.
Thank you for your reply.   You are right that I always did think that the child minding services was not offered in the apartments (but I am more than happy to be corrected  about the listening at the door option).   



Given the above statement from O'Brien, if a nanny had been looking after Maddie in the apartment, then IMO this was by private agreement as this apparently was not what was offered by the firm.   If that was the case I still cannot see why MW would have any licensing arrangements world wide cancelled so why would it have been necessary for them to cover any accident up?


@ Knitted - thanks for your reply to Universe - re.  "petty swipe".   I am not bothered by the tone of Universe's reply.  I have posted before, we all make mistakes and (big deal) I made one, but  my belief that the baby minding services in apartments was not offered was correct.  smilie







 

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by universe on 18.03.15 5:09

Universe to Plebgate;  Nice to see you awake so early big grin . May I ask in the nicest possible way & with no disrespect to you intended....."Are you a practioner of the art of using "confusion is good" in  your      convoluted reply in your last post ?" Are we in agreement that;
                                                 (1) Mark Warner always have advertised & offered their nannies for hire in the resort apartments & can be booked at the Warner reception desk on arrival & at any time for evening babysitting services until 1am every night. These Warner nanny/employees are subject to insurance coverage & non-neglect of duties obligations while childminding in Warner,s guests apartments.
                                                  (2) Mark Warner did advertise that PDL resort DID NOT offer any door listening  nanny service at all because the PDL Warner resort was too spread out.
avatar
universe

Posts : 147
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-12-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Follow the money trail.

Post by plebgate on 18.03.15 7:05

As it happens Universe I am awake early because I am caring for a sick family member at the moment, I don't see anything funny in that.

Sorry you find my reply convoluted, maybe you missed NickE's post and the quote from O'Brien.   The night time baby sitting service was at the creche not in the homes.   

Anyway, as you obviously do not want to answer my question about a private arrangement, perhaps you would answer Knitted's questions which you have so far failed to do satisfactorily.

plebgate

Posts : 6124
Reputation : 1795
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 19 of 20 Previous  1 ... 11 ... 18, 19, 20  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum