Re: Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence?

by **Tony Bennett** 08.03.16 14:11

whatsupdoc wrote:
If Madelene was used as a stand-in for Madeleine, it just shows that...

Er, has it actually been established as a fact that another girl called Madalene (or similar), who was of similar age as Madeleine McCann, was definitely present in Praia da Luz that week?

Just checking...and asking...

If not, then are we not in danger of proceeding with rather too much speculation based on an apparent absence of facts?

by Guest 08.03.16 14:26

I actually find it pretty disturbing that photos of this family/their daughter have been thrown around, and even her school has been linked. The only 'proof' I have seen referenced is handwriting similarity, which is very loose in itself, and the fact that a girl known to the Naylor family had the name Madalene (one of her mother's middle names incidentally).

And from this people have extrapolated microchip conspiracies, premeditated infanticide, premeditated abduction, complicity from a large network of people, backup plans after accidents etc etc...

It's pretty dangerous for young Madalene having all this information about her out there. People have made light of how realistic a planned abduction of a young girl would be, well by advertising her like this, the risk for her goes up, does it not? Seems irresponsible to me to put a child in danger for the sake of a theory.

If there was a microcosm example of how this case gets taken in bizarre directions without evidence, this would well represent the macrocosm.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.03.16 14:31

April28th wrote:I actually find it pretty disturbing that photos of this family/their daughter have been thrown around, and even her school has been linked. The only 'proof' I have seen referenced is handwriting similarity, which is very loose in itself, and the fact that a girl known to the Naylor family had the name Madalene (one of her mother's middle names incidentally).

And from this people have extrapolated microchip conspiracies, premeditated infanticide, premeditated abduction, complicity from a large network of people, backup plans after accidents etc etc...

It's pretty dangerous for young Madalene having all this information about her out there. People have made light of how realistic a planned abduction of a young girl would be, well by advertising her like this, the risk for her goes up, does it not? Seems irresponsible to me to put a child in danger for the sake of a theory.

If there was a microcosm example of how this case gets taken in bizarre directions without evidence, this would well represent the macrocosm.

This is very much my point, thank you.

To which I would add, though, that if there is any hard evidence that another child of about 3 or 4 called Madeleine, or similar, was actually in Praia da Luz, let them say so.

But if no-one can, then we had better be very careful about any further speculation about who a 'substitute Madeleine' could have been.

by Rogue-a-Tory 08.03.16 15:38

Verdi wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:Confused.

The other Madeline was called Rider so where does Naylor's daughter fit in as a sub?
No-one has suggested that EN was the sub. Kiko, for one, has suggested that it was her friend, Madelene R.

Which might explain the Maddie/not Maddie controversy.
That and to clarify the Mrs Fenn evidence - anyone that might challenge whether what was heard was 'Where's daddy' or 'Where's Maddie'
Or if indeed Mrs Fenn heard anything at all - there isn't any evidence to back-up to her story is there? *

I didn't say Mrs Fenn actually heard anything. I referred to her evidence and it was certainly presented as evidence.

by Abracadaver 13.03.16 5:21

Estelle wrote:I have never been impressed with Pat Brown's version and assumed Amaral had not had time to become aware of actually when Madeleine died or needed to stick with what was found in his investigation.

If I recall correctly, didn't he say something along the lines of he was taking the route he did and focussing on the accidental death theory within the 'timelines' they were given - as they felt it would be the easiest to prove with the evidence available, to ensure a conviction in court?

Estelle wrote:
Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:But doesn't that mean that there was some kind of planning about what was to become of Madeleine prior to the holiday?

Plus the McCanns were supposedly skint prior to the holiday so I'm wondering what kind of offer Gerry could have made, if not financial.
Yes IMO it must have been premeditated.

The thought has certainly crossed my mind too. It is quite a stretch to get there, but...

if this is true...

Gaspar Statements wrote:
I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like ?she?, referring to Madeleine, ?would do this?.

When he mentioned ?this?, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

and this is true...

PJFiles wrote:
A search of the local section of the child abuse shows (for Gerry McCann) a registration number of 19309 in the CATS system.

and if this is true...

KaOssis, Dogman (and others) wrote:
(Paraphrasing to be safe) - the repulsive nature of the 200,000+ sickening images (allegedly) discovered following Operation Ore, stored on the personal computer of a certain sneering cardiologist who bears a striking resemblance to some awkward looking identikit images the McCanns suppressed for years...

(yes - I know, I know, smithman isn't real) - but those photo fits sure are a Mc(un)Canny likeness.

and if this is true...

https: //mobile. twitter. com/rothleypiliow

"Bro. Gerry McCann was installed as a top rank Sovereign Grand Inspector General 33° Freemason at 13:30 on Friday 13 July 2007. Pure coincidence of course."

(Do we actually have any concrete proof anywhere of Gerry's alleged freemasonry, or is it all strictly rumour?)

then that's a lot of 'ifs' - but (and here's that word again) if this whole sordid cover-up should happen to go all the way to the top of the Establishment, and be linked in any way with certain high profile "Westminster Rings" we've heard a lot about, that all kinds of powerful players are moving heaven and earth (and probably hell) to try to keep the lid on?

Then perhaps a few more pieces fall into place on the jigsaw puzzle, and a picture begins to emerge regarding just exactly what was the true nature of this potential alleged "swingers" holiday? There were a lot of young children there. And we're led to believe that most of them weren't being bathed exclusively by their own parents.

It is the scenario I would least want to be true, yet it is the one thing for me that really explains the sheer levels of political, legal, and financial support they've received. Phenominal levels. Fawned over by the rich and powerful, with the command to give “all possible assistance to the McCann couple” coming directly from Downing Street. There must've been some serious sh*t on the line for the way they have been shielded and protected.

The only difficulty I have with offering up/presenting this, being that it's the most outlandish and 'conspiracy theorist' sounding of all the theories out there, which Gerry has no problem with people purporting. Even if it turned out to be something very close to the truth - if we're wanting to open people's eyes to the actual evidence and the sheer lunacy of the alleged 'abduction' theory - banging on about evil masonic murderous death-cults and child sacrifices, probably isn't going to cut the mustard. We'd just turn most people off, and be considered a laughingstock.

Easy to see why Gonçalo Amaral went for a simple, easy to believe 'accidental death'.

by Rob Royston 13.03.16 17:08

Estelle wrote:Can anyone explain to me why Gerry McCann would try to forge the signature of another girl (Elizabeth Naylor) into the creche six times that week when it is the parent's responsibility to do so?

What would Gerry's motivation be to do that? I have seen the father's signature and it is nothing like what Gerry signed and it alters each day.

What would be the motivation of the girl's parents be to allow him to do so?

Would you allow another parent to sign your child into a creche six times? I know I would not allow it.

Dewi Leonard has posted another Tweetlonger a few days ago about the contact he made with RN,

"I had a strange reaction, when I rang Robert Naylor and told him of my discovery, that Gerry McCann had signed his daughter into creche on several occasions. (This news will come as a blow to those who try to insist that the handwriting in both cases (EN and MM) is not the same). Mr Naylor did not at any point dispute that Gerry had taken his daughter to creche. Wouldn't you think, that he would protest vehemently "Don't be so stupid, man, I took my own child to creche!" But no. He didn't say any such thing. Just asked me who I was, who I worked for, and finally said "Anyway, I've spoken to the CID (sic) about it". How very telling!"

I'm fairly convinced that Dewi Leonard has this right but I'm not sure that he is right when he says that Madeleine died on the 29th April 2007.

Regarding what the motivation was that persuaded RN to do this, the unlikely scenario is that Gerry made a deal with RN on the day of arrival whereby RN's daughter's friend would go to crèche in place of his daughter Madeleine and he would be there to sign them both in every day.
It would seem to me that things were planned to be acted out as they were as part of an elaborate hoax abduction, the question that needs to be addressed is, What happened to Madeleine, is she still alive and are we being fooled about the dogs, or did she die, accidentally or deliberately?

by whodunit 13.03.16 17:34

Pat Brown wrote:Quote: The theory of some kind of sexual assault of Madeleine resulting in death also requires that the evidence of Madeleine falling and dying behind the sofa be ignored. Either the dogs are right and Maddie ended up behind the sofa or the dogs are wrong and Maddie was never behind the sofa. It makes no sense that if Madeleine were to die by some manner other than accidental that anyone then hid her body behind the sofa. If you believe the dogs, you must believe in an accident.

This is quite a shocking failure of logic coming from a so-called criminal profiler.

The dog alerts behind the sofa do not prove Maddie accidentally fell and died behind the sofa. All it proves is that at some point her dead body rested there for at least 90 minutes.

Obviously, the dogs are right and Maddie's body was behind the sofa at some point. HOW she died is not proven by the fact of her presence behind the sofa.

The theory of a sexual assault of Madeleine is suggested by the fact that her body was removed and remains concealed to this day.

The theory that Madeleine's death was accidental is contravened by the fact that her body was removed and remains concealed to this day.

The theory that Madeleine's death was accidental is contravened by the fact that her parents didn't cry out to authorities for help or to report the alleged accident, which they were obligated to do.

Would the presence of sedatives in Maddie's body be enough for her parents to remove and conceal her body? Why should it? They're both doctors. Prescribing or administering sedatives to their own child is not a jailable offense as far as I know. It might have proven a bit embarrassing, but certainly not enough to motivate parents to remove and conceal the dead body of their child who had accidentally fallen off a sofa and died. [something my kids and grandkids have all done numerous time without dying]

What would be enough to motivate parents to remove and conceal the dead body of their child? Pat Brown seems utterly incapable of 'going there' which is not a very good recommendation for her skills as a profiler.

by Verdi 13.03.16 20:35

@whodunit wrote: This is quite a shocking failure of logic coming from a so-called criminal profiler.

Amen to that! Besides she was not appointed by the Portuguese or UK police to assist the investigation into MBM's disappearance in the capacity of a profiler - she is working on the same premise as the rest of us. How then can she presume to be an authority on the case?

As far as I'm aware, Richard D Hall's documentaries have been based on extensive research undertaken by a number of tireless contributors, people who have spent hours and weeks and months and years studying every minute detail of the case in pursuit of justice for little Madeleine McCann who so frequently gets lost in the incessant battle of egos.

Kate McCann seems to think that she alone (well almost) can 'proactively' (?) investigate and solve the case of her daughters disappearance by trawling through the translated files, looking for that missing piece of the jigsaw - or picking up on something that's been overlooked. Arrogance aside, her attitude is nothing short of risible, same applies to the American criminal profiler. She's at liberty to spout an opinion about the case, as we all are, however she's in no position to set herself up against Richard D Hall and the many people that have assisted with the production of his documentaries.

by Guest 14.03.16 15:05

Abracadaver wrote:
and if this is true...

KaOssis, Dogman (and others) wrote:
(Paraphrasing to be safe) - the repulsive nature of the 200,000+ sickening images (allegedly) discovered following Operation Ore, stored on the personal computer of a certain sneering cardiologist who bears a striking resemblance to some awkward looking identikit images the McCanns suppressed for years...

(yes - I know, I know, smithman isn't real) - but those photo fits sure are a Mc(un)Canny likeness.

Haven't been able to get that out of my head. Can you corroborate that story, as I've not heard it before? Links via pm if its sensitive.

by **Jill Havern** 14.03.16 15:14

April28th wrote:
Abracadaver wrote:
and if this is true...

KaOssis, Dogman (and others) wrote:
(Paraphrasing to be safe) - the repulsive nature of the 200,000+ sickening images (allegedly) discovered following Operation Ore, stored on the personal computer of a certain sneering cardiologist who bears a striking resemblance to some awkward looking identikit images the McCanns suppressed for years...

(yes - I know, I know, smithman isn't real) - but those photo fits sure are a Mc(un)Canny likeness.

Haven't been able to get that out of my head. Can you corroborate that story, as I've not heard it before? Links via pm if its sensitive.

http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2012/01/did-jim-gamble-sanitize-gerry-mccanns.html

by Guest 14.03.16 17:25

Thanks Jill. I'd read about the empty file before but never heard the conviction. If that could be confirmed that'd be it for them!

Pat Brown versus Richard Hall on Madeleine McCann: Which One is Ignoring the Evidence?