"The Madeleine McCann Case and Occam's Razor"

@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!

@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  

@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!

@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.

@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.

@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'.

@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.

@aiyoyo wrote:

@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.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Why would the police reopen a case that was already shelved just to spend over £10million to cover it up?

@aquila wrote:

@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?

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

@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.

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

@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.

@larsnelson wrote:

@Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Why would the police reopen a case that was already shelved just to spend over £10million to cover it up?

Good point GGS.
Glad you changed your avatar my hubby thought the last one was a bit noncy.

@Verdi wrote:

@aquila wrote:

@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?

If I had all the answers aquila and the wherewith-all to do something, I wouldn't be wasting time moaning about everything and anything on this forum.  I'm also realistic enough to know that the problem of child abuse can never be entirely eradicated but I can't see any reason why it can't be curtailed, even one tiny life is worth the effort!

Prevention is always better than cure so a good starting point IMO is in the home environment.  There seems to be so much wrong in the general attitude towards parenting these days, children need and deserve consistent love, care and attention, if I may use an expression I don't generally appreciate, it's their right!  Children are not an extension to a parents ego, not a substitute for lost youth, they are little people with a whole life ahead.  They need guidance and discipline and a happy safe environment to live.

The answer is not giving them a shilling to go play on the railway line or shutting them up in the bedroom to amuse themselves.  They need time and attention.  Take them out at the weekends as a family to experience the real world, not the artificial world of technology, get the air round their gills, teach them to be creative using the natural world to inspire.  More importantly teach them self respect, respect for others, tolerance, self worth, individuality and teach them to be street wise without frightening them to death with tales of goolies lurking on every street corner.

I think also some form of media censorship would be beneficial to society.  Not reverting back to the austere doctrine of hypocritical Victorian values but more in line with modern day living.  What is considered acceptable these days, a few years ago would be classified as hard porn.  I switched the TV on the other day at about 7.00 pm to record something, there was some comedy showing where two guys were ripping the guts out of a body and eating it.  One was munching away at a rather suspicious sausagey looking thing "is that his **** you're eating..."  I switched off at that point, bit too near dinner for my liking.  What with that and these pop stars (in name only) cavorting about like cheap trash it's hardly a good example to children is it?  Please don't give me all that carp about the watershed and using the switch, unfortunately all this stuff is easily accessible by kids, even on the bottom shelf magazine department.

It used to be Bill and Ben but now it Britney and Beiber, I know which I prefer and it's not the latter.  This brings me to encouraging children to be sex objects, even if only by dressing them in mini versions of the young trollops that dominate the media.  If parents didn't succumb to the temptation of sexualising their kids, the market would dry up very rapidly and kids might actually revert to being kids who, in addition to all my other moans, should be allowed to develop at their own pace, after all you wouldn't force feed your child if it wasn't hungry would you?  Why encourage kids to be teenagers before their time or teenagers to be adults?

Bet you wish you never asked.

@HelenMeg wrote:

@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?

@PeterMac wrote:As someone else posted, I can't now remember who or where

IF abandoning 3 children all under the age of 4 for 5 nights in succession,
in a cold and dark and unlocked apartment, out of eyesight and earshot
in a foreign country, in a small village where you fear there may be burglars and paed*****
is their DEFENCE

What the hell is the Crime ?