Re: "The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor"

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.15 14:38

roy rovers wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories is the impossibility and logistics of keeping all the actors silent after the event. Take the theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked...It would have directly involved thousands and even more thousands of others would be 'in the know'.

Point taken and agreed re the Apollo moon landings.

But, how many were involved or were 'in the know' about (Sir) Jimmy Savile?

How many were involved or were 'in the know' about (Sir) Cyril Smith?

How many were involved or were 'in the know' about, say, Lord Brittan?

And what is the common denominator in all the above?

The rape and abuse of young children.

Some of the top people who do this are devious, manipulative, and powerful - and they 'control what comes out in the media'.

by Mark Willis 23.04.15 14:42

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Sorry Pat but I applied Occam's Razor to yourself and found you making 2+2 = 5.
This case is complicated, despite the events seemingly playing out badly.
I think it was a case of a plan A that fouled up and plan B was hastily cobbled together.
As for you being a profiler, yes, so is/was Paul Brittan* and we all know what happened there..

*Brittan wrongly "profiled" Colin Stagg as Rachel Nickell's murderer.
All I see when I read a "profiler" is someone stating the bleedin' obvious, a misnomer of a title and profession.
Basically you are not superhuman just because of a "title" saying you are.
Besides, Pat is not assiigned to this case in the capacity of a profiler is she? All she can do from across the Atlantic is express an opinion based on the case files the media and the web, same as the rest of us. What do profilers look for when working on a case, they look for patterns of behaviour, trends, appearance, it's all guess work really.

Because the high seas most wanted cut-throat wears an eye patch, a skull and cross-bone badge on his jaunty tricorn titfer, balances a moth-eaten dead parrot on his shoulder and dangles a lethal cutlass from his braces he must be a personification of Captain Pugwash. Never would it dawn that the suspect is indeed Sir Walter Riley having a bad hair day.

LMAO!! I agree, because if she is titled a "profiler" then we all are. I see no distinction except not being in it for ourselves but for justice and the truth to come out. Unlike one or two I don't want a book deal over this or a higher ranking kudos in the world of journalism.

by Mark Willis 23.04.15 14:49

Regarding conspiracy theories that involve large amounts of people, when one of then speaks out, they tend to depart this planet in most odd ways. This serves as a warning to others who are in the know to keep schtum.
Anyone who has read about the Apollo moon landings and Kubrick will know what happened to the 4 man film crew at Elstree studios (with Kubrick one weekend) who all suddenly stopped breathing forever. Conveniently.

As stated, most of the BBC knew about Savile - but when your job/life is at stake one tends to keep quiet.

TEAM McCann is a big bunch, from ex-PMs to wannabe journos & book writers, to deployed forum/twitter disruptors to MSM and SY. Now that is one formidable army to battle against.

So Tony is right.

by Guest 23.04.15 15:03

10:03 wrote:The biggest mistake Smithman did to get his alibi being at the table was to give the sighting time away after he passed the Smiths. He said the time was 10:03 when he tod Kate it was time to do her check. 10 minutes later he started to worry and then she came running back raising the alarm. Everything you need to know how it happened is there. I believe the first long check was the first move away from the apartment (not watching football as said at the table when Jane was still present). The second move after he told everybody to split up and search, he was seen and when he passed them the time was 10:03 - his alibi time being still at the table and 10 minutes to hide.

"We were hoping that she was just in a bush hiding." (KM)

"Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left." (AS age 12)

Sorry.. I'm a bit thick today.

Who what when?

Links to statements would be good.

by HelenMeg 23.04.15 15:04

aquila wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:If that is the case, and it certainly seems feasible - what are the possible reasons for this?
It's been discussed over and over again HelenMeg (btw I like your tweets to Jimmy no flags) and this is the crux of the matter. It's what and who was being protected and why there was such immediate assistance. The immediate influx of assistance from political big wigs is beyond comprehension. I can think of no other case where a missing child case has been given such immediate attention from those in power.

That's likely because this is not and never has been about a missing child. As suggested, this is surely about a cover up job - cover u[p of what was going on at Ocean Club that week and a certain VIP guest (or certain VIP guests). The death of a child was most inconvenient and would have led to events being uncovered and the presence of VIP guests being exposed in the media. The death of a child therefore had to be covered and all the attention centred on the TAPAS 9 - a group of doctors. Whilst all the attention was on the TAPAS 9 the VIP guest / s would remain in the background.
Whoever those VIP guests were have spent the last 8 years trying to prevent any truth from being exposed. Unsuccessfully. The VIP guests called their mates in the establishment, called in favours, and a huge cover up operation began.
Poor DC duped into opening up a can of worms

by Knitted 23.04.15 15:04

roy rovers wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories is the impossibility and logistics of keeping all the actors silent after the event. Take the theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked. The idea that those who were involved in planning and commissioning the fake landing, creating the sets, the props, the lighting, the filming, the actors etc etc could be kept silent in perpetuity is preposterous. It would have directly involved thousands and even more thousands of others would be 'in the know'.

There are lots of 'Conspiracy Theories' that turned out to be grounded in fact, so each case has to be taken on its respective merits/demerits. One 'Conspiracy Theory' that shows that tens of thousands of people knew what was going on, and went to the top of the Establishment was the Mafia in the USA. Since the late prohibition era people had said that Italian organised crime was controlling much of the black market. This was constantly denied by the 'Establishment', (many of whom appear to have been being blackmailed). Indeed, J Edgar Hoover is now known to have been socialising with senior Mafia figures since the 1930s. However, throughout the early 1950s Hoover constantly denied the Mafia existed and operated within the USA. Just think of all the countless people across the States that knew otherwise and knew 1st hand who was controlling drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, large scale heists, etc.

Anyway, the denials (and lack of interest by law enforcement) continued until 1957 when local officers on the beat rumbled a meeting of an estimated 100 crime bosses at a meeting in the Appalachians, ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Around 60 were caught and arrested with around 20 being fined $10,000 for organised crime. What's important is that the story was front page news and the Establishment (& Hoover), changed tack and admitted the problem and started to tackle it, (how effectively is a moot point!). n.b. The consensus is that Hoover was being controlled by the Mafia owing to his homosexuality, (then illegal in the USA).

So, I think this is a good, practical, example of a 'conspiracy theory' that was actively denied by the very people who should have been tackling it, as well as carrying on despite many thousands of people being involved and countless people being aware and effected by it. It remained hidden and denied for over 20yrs, before the denials were exposed to be lies. It took one event uncovered by local uncorrupted officers on the ground to expose the lie... and a media willing to report it.

by HelenMeg 23.04.15 15:08

Hence Amaral's very apt observation that solving this case required political courage.
Whoever allows this to be solved properly anticipates being a much hated figure by some powerful and influential people who thought they were above the law/ truth. Moguls etc.

It does require political courage. If any of us were in the shoes of DC and aware about how much was at stake in exposing the truth - I guess we would all be stalling and thinking twice.....

by 10:03 23.04.15 15:34

BlueBag wrote:
10:03 wrote:The biggest mistake Smithman did to get his alibi being at the table was to give the sighting time away after he passed the Smiths. He said the time was 10:03 when he tod Kate it was time to do her check. 10 minutes later he started to worry and then she came running back raising the alarm. Everything you need to know how it happened is there. I believe the first long check was the first move away from the apartment (not watching football as said at the table when Jane was still present). The second move after he told everybody to split up and search, he was seen and when he passed them the time was 10:03 - his alibi time being still at the table and 10 minutes to hide.

"We were hoping that she was just in a bush hiding." (KM)

"Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left." (AS age 12)

Sorry.. I'm a bit thick today.

Who what when?

Links to statements would be good.

it being 22h03, he turned to alert KATE that it was time for her to go to see the children. She immediately made her way to the apartment by the usual path, she having entered by the rear door. About 10 minutes later, he started to worry about her lateness and, at the moment he prepared to stand and to go to see the reason for her lateness, KATE appeared running, completely distraught and crying, saying that MADELEINE had disappeared and that she was sure because she had looked throughout the house.

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that David Payne also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.

During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.

The dinner ended at 17h30 the time at which the employee supervision ended and the parents took over watching the children in the play area until 18h30.
The hygiene done, the children were put to bed about 19h30

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

perhaps you go up around six thirty, seven o' clock, then they'd have you know the, most nights we liked to give ours baths.

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

by j.rob 23.04.15 17:18

Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Sorry Pat but I applied Occam's Razor to yourself and found you making 2+2 = 5.
This case is complicated, despite the events seemingly playing out badly.
I think it was a case of a plan A that fouled up and plan B was hastily cobbled together.
As for you being a profiler, yes, so is/was Paul Brittan* and we all know what happened there..

*Brittan wrongly "profiled" Colin Stagg as Rachel Nickell's murderer.
All I see when I read a "profiler" is someone stating the bleedin' obvious, a misnomer of a title and profession.
Basically you are not superhuman just because of a "title" saying you are.
Besides, Pat is not assiigned to this case in the capacity of a profiler is she? All she can do from across the Atlantic is express an opinion based on the case files the media and the web, same as the rest of us. What do profilers look for when working on a case, they look for patterns of behaviour, trends, appearance, it's all guess work really.

Because the high seas most wanted cut-throat wears an eye patch, a skull and cross-bone badge on his jaunty tricorn titfer, balances a moth-eaten dead parrot on his shoulder and dangles a lethal cutlass from his braces he must be a personification of Captain Pugwash. Never would it dawn that the suspect is indeed Sir Walter Riley having a bad hair day.

Yes, I believe there was a plan A that went wrong or was even deliberately sabotaged leading to a hastily cobbled together plan B.

Just suppose that the Dr K Gasper's hunch about Dr David Payne was correct. Dr David Payne is one of Gerry McCann's best friends. Gerry McCann does not object to David Payne apparently making lewd gestures in connection with Madeleine in front of himself, Kate and other adults seated at the table.

So this raises a question mark as to possible sexual deviances of not just Dr David Payne but also Dr Gerry McCann. Seeing as how he apparently found David Payne's gesture acceptable.

The Payne family and the McCann family had also shared more than one previous holiday. Not just the Majorca one that the Gaspers were on, as Kate writes in her book: "We'd been away with Fiona and David on several occasions and we'd always enjoyed ourselves."

You can often tell quite a lot about a person or people by the company they keep. So who were the other male friends that David Payne and Gerry McCann wanted to share this family holiday with?

Russell O'Brien and Matt Oldfield and their partners. According to Kate in her book: "Although they were all originally friends of David and Fiona's, we knew them quite well too - in fact Gerry had worked in the past with both Russell and Matt - so we had no concerns about whether we'd all get along."

And, if Dr K Gasper's account of the Majorca family holiday with the McCann family and the Payne family is correct, we also know that the adult males took it in turn to bathe the children. Because Dr Gasper says she always made sure she was nearby when it was David Payne's turn to bathe the children, as she suspected that he was interested in child porn.

And who was it that insisted that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile, or a paedophile ring? The McCanns themselves and their Tapas friends. Kate and Russell both even record a conversation with a fellow holiday maker called Nigel about paedophiles.

Well I do agree with Team McCann that (at least a large part of) the motive for Madeleine's disappearance was paedophilia. And it was very helpful of them to point this out, even if their finger pointing was in the wrong direction.

Isn't it amazing how they have incriminated themselves, imo.

So is this all part of the paedo rings expose, then?

by NickE 23.04.15 17:55

aiyoyo wrote:I believe the Smith family saw a random guy, but the guy wasn't Gerry.
I wonder if the Smiths got the date (and maybe the venue) confused due to fuzzy recollection after the lapse of time ?

Could they be another johnny come lately do gooder just like Lurenco (sp) ?
There are plenty people like that around, connecting the dots after an occurred crime, in a mistaken belief they're doing their civic duty to help the police and the victim family. Something they'd witnessed earlier which they didn't make anything of then, suddenly they assumed a significance and perceived it differently; and after pondering decided they should/would report it to the Police.
I'm not saying that this is what happened with the Smiths report. Just one possibility of looking at it.

To have been so effective at the disposal, it seems a strong possibility to me that they had help by an outside third party. Maybe the third party isn't the patsy we know, but he may have something to do with it, as in he's the middleman that provides the connection to someone else. I think a certain self made millionaire (not naming him here) who bent backward to help the Mcs & co. in every way and in every aspect, going the extent of interfering with the investigation needs to be looked at by the Police. It's highly unusual for someone that claims not to have known the McCanns pre the incident to pledge unconditional support in more than just the moral way as well as to get his hands dirty up to that level. Just my view as usual.

I am with Pat's belief of the occam's razor principle of keeping the theory simple. A conspiracy that involves that many levels and that many people is just too complicated to be viable.

I agree, but one thing that bothers me is why this "random" guy not have contacted the police?
Or was this person a smokescreen and a part of the plan?
JW?

by aiyoyo 23.04.15 19:33

NickE wrote:

I agree, but one thing that bothers me is why this "random" guy not have contacted the police?
Or was this person a smokescreen and a part of the plan?
JW?

One possibility is - if the Smiths got the date wrong, then there's nothing this 'random' guy has to do. He can't possibly know he is being sought if the date is out.
Again, just saying this is one possibility, not saying it happened this way.

On the other hand, TB and RH's doubt about the Smiths is equally valid because there are so many glaring inconsistencies. It's always good to question irregularity and abnormality. Question every thing, never trust anyone who isn't straight forward.

For one thing, the McCanns didn't push for it to be pursued or investigation. That alone is red flag. Unless because they knew knew exactly what happened to Madeleine and therefore knew that the guy couldn't possibly be the abductor.

by MRNOODLES 23.04.15 19:39

NickE wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I believe the Smith family saw a random guy, but the guy wasn't Gerry.
I wonder if the Smiths got the date (and maybe the venue) confused due to fuzzy recollection after the lapse of time ?

Could they be another johnny come lately do gooder just like Lurenco (sp) ?
There are plenty people like that around, connecting the dots after an occurred crime, in a mistaken belief they're doing their civic duty to help the police and the victim family. Something they'd witnessed earlier which they didn't make anything of then, suddenly they assumed a significance and perceived it differently; and after pondering decided they should/would report it to the Police.
I'm not saying that this is what happened with the Smiths report. Just one possibility of looking at it.

To have been so effective at the disposal, it seems a strong possibility to me that they had help by an outside third party. Maybe the third party isn't the patsy we know, but he may have something to do with it, as in he's the middleman that provides the connection to someone else. I think a certain self made millionaire (not naming him here) who bent backward to help the Mcs & co. in every way and in every aspect, going the extent of interfering with the investigation needs to be looked at by the Police. It's highly unusual for someone that claims not to have known the McCanns pre the incident to pledge unconditional support in more than just the moral way as well as to get his hands dirty up to that level. Just my view as usual.

I am with Pat's belief of the occam's razor principle of keeping the theory simple. A conspiracy that involves that many levels and that many people is just too complicated to be viable.
I agree, but one thing that bothers me is why this "random" guy not have contacted the police?
Or was this person a smokescreen and a part of the plan?
JW?

That's the problem if the Smiths past any random person and invented the carrying child bit. You have a random innocent person drawn in, to contradict another person's statement.

The head-scratcher that Rich Hall has illustrated and laid out so well in his latest film is the fact, you have three separate sitings of a 'person' with near as damn it, the same description. At least 2 or all 3 are cobblers, unravel the origin of who made them up, the case is crackerble.

Also, I find it strange that M Smith was keen to point out to Mr Hall the exact relationship between him and Murat. But further probing by Mr Hall he refuses to make further contact.

by MRNOODLES 23.04.15 19:46

aiyoyo wrote:
NickE wrote:

I agree, but one thing that bothers me is why this "random" guy not have contacted the police?
Or was this person a smokescreen and a part of the plan?
JW?

One possibility is - if the Smiths got the date wrong, then there's nothing this 'random' guy has to do. He can't possibly know he is being sought if the date is out.
Again, just saying this is one possibility, not saying it happened this way.

How could they get the date wrong, if the receipts from the bar show they were there that night? And assuming it was proven they were there when they said.

Other than that, they'd be delibrately being untruthful IMO

by **Tony Bennett** 23.04.15 20:54

MRNOODLES wrote:
Also, I find it strange that M Smith was keen to point out to Mr Hall the exact relationship between him and Murat. But further probing by Mr Hall he refuses to make further contact.

I find it beyond strange, I find it fascinating.

Assuming it was a genuine e-mail from the real Martin Smith, he sits through 4.5 hours of a comprehensive unravelling of the Madeleine McCann case, only to say he flound it 'interesting'. He challenges nothing, even though he also comes under the spotlight in the documentary.

In his first video, Hall describes Smith as a 'friendf' of Murat, presumably based on Hall's knowledge of his later quotes about 'having known Murat for two years', 'met him several times' and so on.

The one and only thing he asks Hall to correct is to say: "I was not a friend of Murat".

I'm not sure that I accept that. He has met Murat several times over 2 years. Martin Smith does nothing about him and his eight other family members having, allegedly, seen a sleeping or possibly dead child being carried through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm in the evening. The man is on his own, has no puschair or buggy, and the child is in pyjamas only and it is late on a dark evening. The next day the world erupts with publicity about a missing three-year-old girl. Yet not one of the family stir themselves until the very day after Murat is made a suspect - thirteen whole days later.

Beyond strange

by MRNOODLES 23.04.15 21:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:
Also, I find it strange that M Smith was keen to point out to Mr Hall the exact relationship between him and Murat. But further probing by Mr Hall he refuses to make further contact.
I find it beyond strange, I find it fascinating.

Assuming it was a genuine e-mail from the real Martin Smith, he sits through 4.5 hours of a comprehensive unravelling of the Madeleine McCann case, only to say he flound it 'interesting'. He challenges nothing, even though he also comes under the spotlight in the documentary.

In his first video, Hall describes Smith as a 'friendf' of Murat, presumably based on Hall's knowledge of his later quotes about 'having known Murat for two years', 'met him several times' and so on.

The one and only thing he asks Hall to correct is to say: "I was not a friend of Murat".

I'm not sure that I accept that. He has met Murat several times over 2 years. Martin Smith does nothing about him and his eight other family members having, allegedly, seen a sleeping or possibly dead child being carried through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm in the evening. The man is on his own, has no puschair or buggy, and the child is in pyjamas only and it is late on a dark evening. The next day the world erupts with publicity about a missing three-year-old girl. Yet not one of the family stir themselves until the very day after Murat is made a suspect - thirteen whole days later.

Beyond strange

That makes no sense at all does it.

You don't shift your backside for a missing 3-4 year old girl. But you do, for somebody who isn't your mate. huh

by Guest 23.04.15 22:12

aiyoyo today @ 1:07 pm says:

"Could they be another johnny come lately do gooder just like Lurenco (sp) ?
There are plenty people like that around, connecting the dots after an occurred crime, in a mistaken belief they're doing their civic duty to help the police and the victim family. Something they'd witnessed earlier which they didn't make anything of then, suddenly they assumed a significance and perceived it differently; and after pondering decided they should/would report it to the Police."

Must say it might explain why Lourencos witness testimony was so long drawn out. I thought it to be rather suspicious because, despite his repeated emphasis on the lurking stranger who he was convinced was eyeing up and photographing his young daughter with a view to abduction, he didn't think to report the incident to the police until he associated it with Madeleine McCanns disappearance. Then there is the matter of the noted car registration that he decided to throw away for some pathetic reason, again rather than directly giving it to the police.

Very odd behaviour. To think someone is furtively taking an interest in and photographing your child yet it doesn't occur to report it to the police until a total strangers child has gone missing? Something doesn't add up.

by Mark Willis 24.04.15 7:16

j.rob wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Mark Willis wrote:Sorry Pat but I applied Occam's Razor to yourself and found you making 2+2 = 5.
This case is complicated, despite the events seemingly playing out badly.
I think it was a case of a plan A that fouled up and plan B was hastily cobbled together.
As for you being a profiler, yes, so is/was Paul Brittan* and we all know what happened there..

*Brittan wrongly "profiled" Colin Stagg as Rachel Nickell's murderer.
All I see when I read a "profiler" is someone stating the bleedin' obvious, a misnomer of a title and profession.
Basically you are not superhuman just because of a "title" saying you are.
Besides, Pat is not assiigned to this case in the capacity of a profiler is she? All she can do from across the Atlantic is express an opinion based on the case files the media and the web, same as the rest of us. What do profilers look for when working on a case, they look for patterns of behaviour, trends, appearance, it's all guess work really.

Because the high seas most wanted cut-throat wears an eye patch, a skull and cross-bone badge on his jaunty tricorn titfer, balances a moth-eaten dead parrot on his shoulder and dangles a lethal cutlass from his braces he must be a personification of Captain Pugwash. Never would it dawn that the suspect is indeed Sir Walter Riley having a bad hair day.
Yes, I believe there was a plan A that went wrong or was even deliberately sabotaged leading to a hastily cobbled together plan B.

Just suppose that the Dr K Gasper's hunch about Dr David Payne was correct. Dr David Payne is one of Gerry McCann's best friends. Gerry McCann does not object to David Payne apparently making lewd gestures in connection with Madeleine in front of himself, Kate and other adults seated at the table.

So this raises a question mark as to possible sexual deviances of not just Dr David Payne but also Dr Gerry McCann. Seeing as how he apparently found David Payne's gesture acceptable.

The Payne family and the McCann family had also shared more than one previous holiday. Not just the Majorca one that the Gaspers were on, as Kate writes in her book: "We'd been away with Fiona and David on several occasions and we'd always enjoyed ourselves."

You can often tell quite a lot about a person or people by the company they keep. So who were the other male friends that David Payne and Gerry McCann wanted to share this family holiday with?

Russell O'Brien and Matt Oldfield and their partners. According to Kate in her book: "Although they were all originally friends of David and Fiona's, we knew them quite well too - in fact Gerry had worked in the past with both Russell and Matt - so we had no concerns about whether we'd all get along."

And, if Dr K Gasper's account of the Majorca family holiday with the McCann family and the Payne family is correct, we also know that the adult males took it in turn to bathe the children. Because Dr Gasper says she always made sure she was nearby when it was David Payne's turn to bathe the children, as she suspected that he was interested in child porn.

And who was it that insisted that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile, or a paedophile ring? The McCanns themselves and their Tapas friends. Kate and Russell both even record a conversation with a fellow holiday maker called Nigel about paedophiles.

Well I do agree with Team McCann that (at least a large part of) the motive for Madeleine's disappearance was paedophilia. And it was very helpful of them to point this out, even if their finger pointing was in the wrong direction.

Isn't it amazing how they have incriminated themselves, imo.

So is this all part of the paedo rings expose, then?

This is the nub of one of my theories. Payne organized the fateful holiday.
You only need ask, "What makes a UK government close ranks so fiercly?"
Well, apart from leading us into bogus wars its in-house peadophilia.
That tells me why the Mcs get such protection from them, and that "one of the Government's own" (at least one) was caught up in the "Disaster" that week. It is he (or them) that is being protected, the Mcs the Aunt Sally vanguard, afforded amnesty as long as they take the flak.
Remember we are talking about a 3 year old girl here and sadly many Westminster bods have dark designs on minors.
As a theory it works when you consider the Gaspars, the bathing, Payne's "Pact" his call to that child line body, the adult-applied make up to Maddie. A horrid thought but then the truth can hurt.
All that and the notorious page 129 of Kate's bewk.
I feel ill as I type this but if this is what it is all about then let's say I wouldn't be exactly surprised.

by plebgate 24.04.15 10:46

Verdi's last para. last post - Exactly why on earth would someone take a number plate registration unless they were seriously worried that an abduction was being planned - and then not report it to the police?

Makes no sense whatsoever to me.

by By Numbers 24.04.15 11:43

roy rovers wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories is the impossibility and logistics of keeping all the actors silent after the event. Take the theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked. The idea that those who were involved in planning and commissioning the fake landing, creating the sets, the props, the lighting, the filming, the actors etc etc could be kept silent in perpetuity is preposterous. It would have directly involved thousands and even more thousands of others would be 'in the know'.

I worked for an organisation that is extremely corrupt in several ways. There are around 20,000 employees, many of whom would know things are going on, but almost no one has ever spoken out. The handful (at best) that have were fired or broken in some other way. Despite crimes being shown to have been committed, they are still free to act with impunity, and this is aided and abetted by politicians, people in the law, in the papers, in the police, etc., etc., etc., so the sheer number involved and 'in the know' has no bearing on whether it's true or not.

These days, though, I don't believe that we react in the way we think we would (and think films and books may shape our perception of what humans do in a given situation, rather than experience or reality). An ideal example of this came about recently. Now, this may not be something that people want to know about the world, but there has been ongoing discussion about 'chemtrails' and what they are/whether they exist. It has already been shown that we were sprayed with lethal substances in the past, and I see no reason that, if it was acceptable then, this shouldn't still be the case. Therefore, when I found out that someone had been probing all the strange formations in the sky, I wasn't surprised to hear that this was aluminium. I was only surprised that it was confirmed (even under extreme duress, I've never heard of someone getting an answer) and the extremely bizarre justification: there was apparently strong emphasis on the fact that this wasn't being done by anyone in power, but was just the act of kindly benefactors (might have been something like rich entrepreneurs or rich businessmen that was stated) that were soooo concerned for our environmental safety that they were independently funding schemes to 'prevent global warming'. Obviously, the respondent knew there was something wrong with it, to be worried about giving out this information, but didn't seem to understand what was wrong with. I think this is much more in tune with reality -- people can be fearful and conformist and the path of least resistance is so much more appealing than the stuff that comes with raising your head above the parapet.

by HelenMeg 24.04.15 12:01

"As a theory it works when you consider the Gaspars, the bathing, Payne's "Pact" his call to that child line body, the adult-applied make up to Maddie. A horrid thought but then the truth can hurt.

All that and the notorious page 129 of Kate's bewk.

I feel ill as I type this but if this is what it is all about then let's say I wouldn't be exactly surprised." snipped from above post by MarkWillis

But also please consider that this is perhaps what they, Team Mc Cann, would like you to think.
There are people who want the truth to be hidden at all costs. They will certainly be aiming that we are discussing plenty of red herrings. They will be feeding us lots of red herrings so that we spend time discussing them and being distracted by them.. How do we tell what is a red herring and what isnt ?

So if this really was about M being abused at the age of three whilst on holiday and dying from it - do you realy think all these people would have hidden it and made sure it remained hidden? I dont - not for one minute. all imo

by Guest 24.04.15 12:12

@ j.rob and Mark Willis
Hallelujah! At last caution is thrown to the winds, taboo is screwed and voices are being heard. Too many pointers in that direction to be ignored, or even dismissed as conspiracy theory. It's that ostrich effect that's allowed the corridors of Westminster and other well respected establishments to become rat infested refuges for misfits who, in an ideal world, should be incarcerated in some penal colony and forced to make shoddy goods for consumers in the far east. Well away from children and decent folk.

It is a repulsive subject but nonetheless has to be addressed. Can't keep pretending it's not going on in the hope it will go away because it won't! The name Savile will be used now with impunity, there is no escape. it happens and will continue to grow unless it's stopped!

by Liz Eagles 24.04.15 12:27

Verdi wrote:
It is a repulsive subject but nonetheless has to be addressed. Can't keep pretending it's not going on in the hope it will go away because it won't! The name Savile will be used now with impunity, there is no escape. it happens and will continue to grow unless it's stopped!

Savile was charged with nothing. There is a half arsed, half-hearted inquiry that can't even find an appropriately unbiased person to head it regardless of gender or country of origin who isn't connected either professionally or maritally (is that a word?) to someone who knows someone.

What do you suggest can be done?

If you bring this back to the case of Madeleine it points to me that there was someone in PDL who needed to be protected at all cost. It's logical to think this isn't it?

by jeanmonroe 24.04.15 12:40

aquila wrote:

"If you bring this back to the case of Madeleine it points to me that there was someone in PDL who needed to be protected at all cost. It's logical to think this isn't it?"
-----------------------------------

And a 'theory', freely purported, to be 'welcomed', by the father of a 'missing' three years old, at the time, child.

by Mark Willis 24.04.15 14:48

HelenMeg wrote:"As a theory it works when you consider the Gaspars, the bathing, Payne's "Pact" his call to that child line body, the adult-applied make up to Maddie. A horrid thought but then the truth can hurt.

All that and the notorious page 129 of Kate's bewk.

I feel ill as I type this but if this is what it is all about then let's say I wouldn't be exactly surprised." snipped from above post by MarkWillis

But also please consider that this is perhaps what they, Team Mc Cann, would like you to think.
There are people who want the truth to be hidden at all costs. They will certainly be aiming that we are discussing plenty of red herrings. They will be feeding us lots of red herrings so that we spend time discussing them and being distracted by them.. How do we tell what is a red herring and what isnt ?

So if this really was about M being abused at the age of three whilst on holiday and dying from it - do you realy think all these people would have hidden it and made sure it remained hidden? I dont - not for one minute. all imo

Yes, I do believe they would hide it, it's not something you'd want anyone to know is it?
Look at the Westminster Inquiry. May made certain she delayed; 1st by appointing a blatantly unsuitable person: 2nd she did the same again; Thirdly delayed by the forthcoming election.
Why did Blair slap a D-notice on Op Ore? That was a rhetorical question btw.
It is an entirely plausible theory although I grant you, the Mcs et al are masters of deflection, like the neglect-and-check nonsense we all swallowed for way too long.

by Mark Willis 24.04.15 14:49

Verdi wrote:@ j.rob and Mark Willis
Hallelujah! At last caution is thrown to the winds, taboo is screwed and voices are being heard. Too many pointers in that direction to be ignored, or even dismissed as conspiracy theory. It's that ostrich effect that's allowed the corridors of Westminster and other well respected establishments to become rat infested refuges for misfits who, in an ideal world, should be incarcerated in some penal colony and forced to make shoddy goods for consumers in the far east. Well away from children and decent folk.

It is a repulsive subject but nonetheless has to be addressed. Can't keep pretending it's not going on in the hope it will go away because it won't! The name Savile will be used now with impunity, there is no escape. it happens and will continue to grow unless it's stopped!

Seconded.

by HelenMeg 24.04.15 14:55

Mark Willis wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:"As a theory it works when you consider the Gaspars, the bathing, Payne's "Pact" his call to that child line body, the adult-applied make up to Maddie. A horrid thought but then the truth can hurt.

All that and the notorious page 129 of Kate's bewk.

I feel ill as I type this but if this is what it is all about then let's say I wouldn't be exactly surprised." snipped from above post by MarkWillis

But also please consider that this is perhaps what they, Team Mc Cann, would like you to think.
There are people who want the truth to be hidden at all costs. They will certainly be aiming that we are discussing plenty of red herrings. They will be feeding us lots of red herrings so that we spend time discussing them and being distracted by them.. How do we tell what is a red herring and what isnt ?

So if this really was about M being abused at the age of three whilst on holiday and dying from it - do you realy think all these people would have hidden it and made sure it remained hidden? I dont - not for one minute. all imo
Yes, I do believe they would hide it, it's not something you'd want anyone to know is it?
Look at the Westminster Inquiry. May made certain she delayed; 1st by appointing a blatantly unsuitable person: 2nd she did the same again; Thirdly delayed by the forthcoming election.
Why did Blair slap a D-notice on Op Ore? That was a rhetorical question btw.
It is an entirely plausible theory although I grant you, the Mcs et al are masters of deflection, like the neglect-and-check nonsense we all swallowed for way too long.

But do you think Rachel, Fiona, Jane Kate and anyone else in the know amongst the 60 guests would club together and hide the fact that a 3 year old had been sexually abused...by one of them? Obviously if Madeleine had been sexually abused and died, the perpetrators would have needed it to be covered up but what I am saying is, do you really think that all of the guests/ friends / parents would cover it up?

If so, that implies that it was done with their permission..is that what you're thinking?

by aiyoyo 24.04.15 16:16

MRNOODLES wrote:That's the problem if the Smiths past any random person and invented the carrying child bit. You have a random innocent person drawn in, to contradict another person's statement.

Either the sighting was genuine (a random guy carrying his child) or it was a total fabrication.
I can't see it being half-half - half this, half that.

The head-scratcher that Rich Hall has illustrated and laid out so well in his latest film is the fact, you have three separate sitings of a 'person' with near as damn it, the same description. At least 2 or all 3 are cobblers, unravel the origin of who made them up, the case is crackerble.

That is the truly oddest bit - head scratcher bit indeed.
Ya, what are the chances of that ? Slim I'd say, virtually freaky.

Also, I find it strange that M Smith was keen to point out to Mr Hall the exact relationship between him and Murat. But further probing by Mr Hall he refuses to make further contact.

What are the chances of Smith hearing about Hall videos' hot from release?
Again, I'd say the chance is very slim; freaky if coincidence.
Unless he follows forum and became aware through it - very unlikely - or you'd think he'd have communicated his connaissance level of Murat sooner. More likely a malicious TB-dissenter, hot on the heels of TB on the topic of Smithman, bearing a grudge against TB and wishing to get even with him, snitched to MS, mistaken in her 'do-gooder' belief she's fighting justice for the Smiths (and at the same time hoping to get TB into a spot of bother). I tend to the belief he heard from an anti-TB.

The strange bit is not why he made contact to provide clarification, but why he communicated at all, because he didn't seem bothered by rest of the contents.

by roy rovers 24.04.15 17:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:The problem with conspiracy theories is the impossibility and logistics of keeping all the actors silent after the event. Take the theory that the Apollo moon landings were faked...It would have directly involved thousands and even more thousands of others would be 'in the know'.
Point taken and agreed re the Apollo moon landings.

But, how many were involved or were 'in the know' about (Sir) Jimmy Savile?

How many were involved or were 'in the know' about (Sir) Cyril Smith?

How many were involved or were 'in the know' about, say, Lord Brittan?

And what is the common denominator in all the above?

The rape and abuse of young children.

Some of the top people who do this are devious, manipulative, and powerful - and they 'control what comes out in the media'.

Yes but these were conspiracies of silence not active conspiracies to pervert the course of justice.
I think the T9 are involved in a conspiracy to conceal the truth about what happened to MM but how wide does the conspiracy stretch? I doubt Rupert Murdoch is in on it. IMO he just wants to sell newspapers - firstly with the abduction story and no doubt later with another story that he is sitting on waiting for the public mood to change so that he can profit from that too.

by Angelique 24.04.15 17:27

HelenMeg

You wrote: "If so, that implies that it was done with their permission..is that what you're thinking?".

I am assuming you are talking about the molestation?

Then it was without their permission IMO. It may have been done and they may have had no choice about covering it up.

by Google.Gaspar.Statements 24.04.15 17:49

Angelique wrote:HelenMeg

You wrote: "If so, that implies that it was done with their permission..is that what you're thinking?".

I am assuming you are talking about the molestation?

Then it was without their permission IMO. It may have been done and they may have had no choice about covering it up.

Do you honestly believe that if whatever happened to Madeleine was without their permission that they would then be seen laughing, smirking, joking within days? Really? Because if they can be that heartless then, imo, they can be heartless enough to let whatever happened to Madeleine be done with their permission.