Re: Important information from Joe Rider

by Guest 24.04.16 18:39

No and no.

As to 'at risk of what?', surely it is obvious that posting photos of young children carelessly increases the risk of them being targeted by sick people. Or of being stalked, or bullied at school etc etc. I would certainly not want my daughter being exposed to the world in that way and in the same position I'd take action too.

by whodunit 24.04.16 18:44

Ladyinred wrote:A young girl at risk of what?

Do you know, or have you met, the Riders?

I'd like to know this as well. Why are you fighting their battles for them? If this were my kid and this theory, if untrue, was causing a disruption in her life and invasion of the privacy of my family I'd sue the pants off the people proposing it and disseminating it. It is patently clear the Riders are aware of the controversy so why have they remained quiet, only to issue denials through a third party, a supposed stranger? A party who is also making claims, but is reluctant to provide proof, about statements allegedly made by the PJ.[statements which coincidentally clear the McCanns of involvement in a separate controversy]

by Guest 24.04.16 19:03

I have no interest in helping the mccanns whatsoever. That those photos were delivered in black and white/burned has never been said, it's just what people have assumed. And it doesn't clear up the fact they seemingly didn't give in all the photos, changed the date on the last photo before releasing it, etc etc. Maybe this is lost on you but it's important to have accurate information to disseminate, not assumption.

This thread is about Joe's statements not me. I'm unsure why you persist in making it about my intentions, you're just making a strawman argument to get away from conceding that this decoy child stuff is not backed up by a single piece of evidence.

Again, I follow evidence. And enough people have suffered as collateral through TM's actions, that I can help some victims out in this way is a good thing. It's called empathy.

I still can't understand how you can put an unsubstantiated theory ahead of the safety of a child and her family at large. This is real life not a soap opera.

by sami 24.04.16 19:04

April28th wrote:No and no.

As to 'at risk of what?', surely it is obvious that posting photos of young children carelessly increases the risk of them being targeted by sick people. Or of being stalked, or bullied at school etc etc. I would certainly not want my daughter being exposed to the world in that way and in the same position I'd take action too.

With respect, you have probably done more to bring this child into the public domain than kiko on Twitter. She is now being discussed at length and anyone who, prior to this thread, may not have read the Twitter account, is most certainly aware of her.

A reminder also - our children are most often harmed by those they know or those known to their family.

by Guest 24.04.16 19:30

With equal respect, this thread only covers this forum, the theory has mainly been put out on twitter. It's my hope that once it is resolved the conversation will end. I haven't posted photos or given links to schools. Or disseminated people's professions etc. And this thread can disappear in one click. So yes, medicine may cause bloating, but it works on the main problem and bloating can be worked off (excuse the metaphor, just came to me).

by aiyoyo 24.04.16 19:45

April 28th can't win can he? I take it its a he going by the name.

Either way why can't people appreciate he is just a messenger.
Is it useful to pick on the messenger?
Its apparent he has an issue with certain thing and took it upon himself to be proactive to get clarifications I don't see anything wrong with that.

If people have issue with him posting exchanges up on the board (which he was asked to BTW apparently) - citing it draws more attention to the issue and child as someone alleged up thread - why not simply ask him to take it behind the scenes to admin.
But that would defeat the purpose isn't it - if clarification info is kept in the dark from general memberships. It's important for us to acknowledge clarifications and to reflect accuracy as best as possible.

by MaryB 24.04.16 19:49

What is the point of posting all this stuff. If you have entered into a correspondence with this person then that's up to you. But I just can't see why you think it's an important matter. Sounds a bit like trouble stirring to me. Sorry if I've got it wrong.

by whodunit 24.04.16 19:58

aiyoyo wrote:April 28th can't win can he? I take it its a he going by the name.

Either way why can't people appreciate he is just a messenger.
Is it useful to pick on the messenger?
Its apparent he has an issue with certain thing and took it upon himself to be proactive to get clarifications I don't see anything wrong with that.

If people have issue with him posting exchanges up on the board (which he was asked to BTW apparently) - citing it draws more attention to the issue and child as someone alleged up thread - why not simply ask him to take it behind the scenes to admin.
But that would defeat the purpose isn't it - if clarification info is kept in the dark from general memberships. It's important for us to acknowledge clarifications and to reflect accuracy as best as possible.

I have no problem whatsoever with people being proactive and seeking clarifications.

But that's not what this is about. What April28th is doing here is seeking to unilaterally 'end the conversation' [put a stop to the speculation] based on a second hand denial by the interested party. He's not even posted screen shots of the relevant passages, merely copied and pasted and expected us to take it at face value. It's basically the same thing he was challenged about for his alleged communication with the PJ regarding the grey scale photos. When asked to produce the e-mails he refused apparently on the grounds that police communications with members of the public are somehow privileged.

Surely you can see how people would have a problem with this? When people DO take it upon themselves to be proactive and seek clarifications which they intend to publish, apparently with the express agenda to 'end the conversation' of the horrible meanies who keep talking about this theory, as opposed to a neutral stance aimed at getting to the truth, demands for transparency are not unreasonable.

by aiyoyo 24.04.16 20:02

MaryB wrote:What is the point of posting all this stuff. If you have entered into a correspondence with this person then that's up to you. But I just can't see why you think it's an important matter. Sounds a bit like trouble stirring to me. Sorry if I've got it wrong.

I, as a member, appreciate clarifications info any one has and care to inform the general membership.

by Guest 24.04.16 20:25

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Thank you for understanding where I am coming from.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Actually I said earlier in the thread that I have shown screenshots to a prominent member here. But since they haven't been online/posted, and I don't need this 'issue' buzzing in my ear all night, just click here.

I have obviously censored email addresses, as well as the only email I received from Sarah Fox as I haven't asked permission, however it was just a single line. And I have also censored my own profile photo as it is a picture of my daughter.

And there you have the extent of my contact with their family. Can we now stop shooting the messenger and focus on the innocent family suffering this theory?

by sami 24.04.16 20:27

aiyoyo wrote:
Is it useful to pick on the messenger?
Its apparent he has an issue with certain thing and took it upon himself to be proactive to get clarifications I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm not picking on the poster.

He/She expressed concern for the safety of a child - I would argue this forum has many more general interest readers than the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Twitter. I would also expect numbers of general visitors have increased over the past few days with the good news from Portugal. It follows therefore it is possible this girl is now known to many more readers than before.

If you are concerned about the safety of a child, then do not post about her on a public forum. Take the research gathered and discuss it behind the scenes with those who have already researched the topic and ask them to stop posting about it.

Otherwise post your research by all means but don't try to shut the conversation down on child safety grounds.

by aiyoyo 24.04.16 20:30

whodunit wrote:

I have no problem whatsoever with people being proactive and seeking clarifications.

But that's not what this is about. What April28th is doing here is seeking to unilaterally 'end the conversation' [put a stop to the speculation] based on a second hand denial by the interested party. He's not even posted screen shots of the relevant passages, merely copied and pasted and expected us to take it at face value. It's basically the same thing he was challenged about for his alleged communication with the PJ regarding the grey scale photos. When asked to produce the e-mails he refused apparently on the grounds that police communications with members of the public are somehow privileged.

Surely you can see how people would have a proble[/nm with this? When people DO take it upon themselves to be proactive and seek clarifications which they intend to publish, apparently with the express agenda to 'end the conversation' of the horrible meanies who keep talking about this theory, as opposed to a neutral stance aimed at getting to the truth, demands for transparency are not unreasonable.

Nothing is wrong with hoping to end speculation, if clarification is had that it (speculation theory) is wrong.
If posting up clarification is construed as seeking unilaterality "end the debate/speculation" that is pathetic. Surely you rather prefer truth over speculation wouldn't you?
If you have issue with him not screen shooting your demands that is a technical point - nothing do with the message. I don't know the solution. This technical aspect, perhaps best left to Admin to take up with April28th through PM.

There may be a moral reason not to provide screenshot. Posting up the other person's correspondence without that person express permission is breach of confidence/trust.

by Verdi 24.04.16 20:36

aiyoyo wrote:April 28th can't win can he? I take it its a he going by the name.

Either way why can't people appreciate he is just a messenger.
Is it useful to pick on the messenger?
Its apparent he has an issue with certain thing and took it upon himself to be proactive to get clarifications I don't see anything wrong with that.

If people have issue with him posting exchanges up on the board (which he was asked to BTW apparently) - citing it draws more attention to the issue and child as someone alleged up thread - why not simply ask him to take it behind the scenes to admin.
But that would defeat the purpose isn't it - if clarification info is kept in the dark from general memberships. It's important for us to acknowledge clarifications and to reflect accuracy as best as possible.

Up-page [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:

They aren't just looking at the forum though, there's Twitter as well (Kikoratton etc who first posted photos of their daughter and created the whole thing). And who knows where else needs monitoring, I stick to here/fb/twitter, but I know there are plenty of blogs and other forums.

My question, as with the previously so far unsubstantiated claim about the origin of the black and white/gray scale photographs included in the published PJ files, why make these claims on the forum before having a clear idea of the broad outcome? In this particular instance, the poster claims to have regular contact on twitter and facebook - why not thrash it out there and then bring any constructive or positive result to this forum? Why not quiz Kikoratton on twitter or facebook before embarking on a lone crusade to save the family concerned further exposure? Smacks to me of a mission of self glory.

If I remember rightly, Kikoratton has very recently been invited to comment on the forum on another issue but so far has declined the invitation. Perhaps if approached direct s/he might be more responsive.

by Guest 24.04.16 20:37

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. So on 21st April, three days ago, you emailed SF and informed her that the forum was discussing her family.

If you don't like what's being discussed here then why don't you find a forum that suits your sensibilities.

by Verdi 24.04.16 20:38

sami wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Is it useful to pick on the messenger?
Its apparent he has an issue with certain thing and took it upon himself to be proactive to get clarifications I don't see anything wrong with that.

I'm not picking on the poster.

He/She expressed concern for the safety of a child - I would argue this forum has many more general interest readers than the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Twitter. I would also expect numbers of general visitors have increased over the past few days with the good news from Portugal. It follows therefore it is possible this girl is now known to many more readers than before.

If you are concerned about the safety of a child, then do not post about her on a public forum. Take the research gathered and discuss it behind the scenes with those who have already researched the topic and ask them to stop posting about it.

Otherwise post your research by all means but don't try to shut the conversation down on child safety grounds.

Amen!

by Guest 24.04.16 20:40

Ladyinred wrote:@April 28th. So on 21st April, three days ago, you emailed SF and informed her that the forum was discussing her family.

If you don't like what's being discussed here then why don't you find a forum that suits your sensibilities.

It's one thread, I'm not that sensitive.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] There's nothing vainglorious here. Hence why I have repeatedly tried to get this back on topic and not about me.

by j.rob 24.04.16 20:40

whodunit wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:A young girl at risk of what?

Do you know, or have you met, the Riders?

I'd like to know this as well. Why are you fighting their battles for them? If this were my kid and this theory, if untrue, was causing a disruption in her life and invasion of the privacy of my family I'd sue the pants off the people proposing it and disseminating it. It is patently clear the Riders are aware of the controversy so why have they remained quiet, only to issue denials through a third party, a supposed stranger? A party who is also making claims, but is reluctant to provide proof, about statements allegedly made by the PJ.[statements which coincidentally clear the McCanns of involvement in a separate controversy]

I agree. They look like a well-educated, well-heeled couple (judging by the photo of them with their children somewhere on here - assuming that is the family). They could easily take legal advice and ensure that the privacy of their children is protected.

They could take legal advice to have false information removed from the internet if what has been said is lies and defamatory/libellous, surely?

I don't actually find Joe Rider's email that convincing. Is this genuine? Why would he give anything away at all to a complete stranger writing on a forum? Why state that it is only he who has been to Portugal?

There's too much information there, imo. Far too much.

A 'no comment' or 'my lawers are looking into it' would surely have been far more appropriate?

Why even claim that his daughter is not friendly with Elizabeth Naylor? It's no-one else's business who she's friends with. Why give out this type of information?

Strikes me as a very deliberate 'distancing' move. "We can't possibly have been there as my family have never been to Portugal, only me and that was only once. And furthermore my daughter is not friendly with Elizabeth."

Because it is on record that the Naylor family were staying at OC in Luz that week and their daughter went to the Mini Club.

Kiko's analysis of the creche signing-in records suggests that the same hand signed in the names of Madeleine McCann and Elizabeth Nyler. Irrespective of anything else - whether the kiko theory has any merit at all - I totally agree that the two names look to be written by the same hand. It would be too much of a coincidence statistically speaking for two parents in such a small cohort group to have identical handwriting, imo.

This slightly - actually more than slightly - reminds me of that email (or was it letter?) to Tony Bennett (assuming this is genuine) from Philip Edmonds - nephew of Margaret Hodge. Again, Edmonds gives too much information. Surely a 'no comment' from one of his lawyers would have been far more appropriate (and convincing).

Why on earth possibly prejudice a proper (ahem!) police investigation into the disappearance of a child by giving out information that should be in the hands of police to help them with their investigation? Edmonds, shouldn't, imo, have given out information to a member of the public that might influence the trial. (If, indeed that is what happened).

Also reminiscent, imo, of the correspondence that is on the internet between a member of Find Madeleine - ie a 'pro' and Martin Corlett. If indeed this actually happened.

The background to this is that barrister (and spy?) Michael Shrimpton mentioned several boats in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The document is (or was) widely available on the internet and I do believe that Shrimpton even has a web-site/blog? So we can take this document as fact - not true necessarily - but it is a fact that the Shrimpton report is there.

When Shrimpton's report was leaked, Special Branch in Gibraltar, according to the link below, checked out several boats including the Naomi Corlett, owned by Martin Corlett who lives near Luz and whose daughter is apparently a Sky News translator and anchor. (Gaynor de Jesus who was at school with Robert Murat.

What a small world it all is!

It would appear that, according to the link below, a poster who has/had a blog/forum for missing children (ETA: called FindMadeleine), contacted Martin Corlett to see if any of it was true. spin

The poster claims that he or she went to great lengths to establish if any of Shrimpton's claims were true, posing as someone looking for work. Martin Corlett responded, if the link is to be believed.

Interestingly, imo, although he dismisses Shrimpton as a crackpot, the lawyers would not pursue the matter beyond taking down relevant 'blogs' from the Daily Mail notice board. He states that legal advice was that to pursue the matter would 'result in nothing'. Martin Corlett is clearly a very wealthy man - owning a shipping company - so money would not be a problem. If he could have sued Shrimpton for defamation/libel and silenced him and taken down everything from the internet, then surely he would have done?

All they could do was remove the relevant blogs from the MSM - in this case the Daily Mail. Nothing else. I think that is very telling, if the link below is accurate of course! But surely if the Martin Corlett letter was a fabrication then he would have instructed his lawyers to take action and have it removed.

Of great interest, of course, that it was, apparently the Find Madeleine (in other words a 'pro' site) owner or a poster there who went to such very great lengths to establish if there was any truth in what Shrimpton had written in relation to Martin Corlett and his ships. Apparently, Martin Corlett even offered him a job on the spot!

It is also speculated, but I have no idea whether this is true, that Sergei Malinka worked as an organizer as expeditions (for Corlett Lines).

From link below:

"It is claimed on one website that mobile phone records exist which show that early in the afternoon of the day that Madeleine disappeared that Malinka's phone was used to contact a woman described as his wife supposedly aboard this same yacht. I have yet to see independent verification of this."

Martin Corlett's letter to the Find Madeleine blogger/site owner: (allegedly)

"When we first discovered this ridiculous association with this unfortunate mystery, we contacted our lawyers, who immediately had the Daily Mail remove the "blogs" from their notice board; however the lunatic that has come up with this present theory is untrackable, he is apparently well known in the journalist's world, and considered a "crackpot", I talked with our lawyers once again over this situation and they explained that to trace this "lunatic theorists" would cost considerable money, and result in nothing, they advised that eventually it would disappear.
At the time of the unfortunate mystery (as we who are conversant with the case refer to it) the R/S. Naomi Corlett had been in Africa for two years, and was at the very time of the "disapearance" the ship was at the use of the President of The Gambia and an American diving syndicate.
At the time of the unfortunate mystery (as we who are conversant with the case refer to it) the R/S. Naomi Corlett had been in Africa for two years, and was at the very time of the "disapearance" the ship was at the use of the President of The Gambia and an American diving syndicate. The article would only be of interest to people with no logic or common sense, the logistics involved plus the costs involved are extremely high, a ship of this size costs in the region of £2,000 per day to operate. However, back to the real world; I can create a position for a project manager for expeditions, we have the ships, equipment and accommadtion in places that no one can access, we want to carry out studies in marine biology / archeology, and bio-diversity, we are going to re-build the forteleza that we own and organise an archeological dig in the grounds, and last but not least we are going to 'retrace' the slave run from the whole of the West African coast to Brazil, the Caribbean, the US and Europe; if you have any colleages interested in this position, feel free to inform or contact.

Best regards

Martin Frank Corlett

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Navigation
[0] Message Index

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

by aiyoyo 24.04.16 20:54

sami wrote:

I'm not picking on the poster.

He/She expressed concern for the safety of a child - I would argue this forum has many more general interest readers than the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Twitter. I would also expect numbers of general visitors have increased over the past few days with the good news from Portugal. It follows therefore it is possible this girl is now known to many more readers than before.

If you are concerned about the safety of a child, then do not post about her on a public forum. Take the research gathered and discuss it behind the scenes with those who have already researched the topic and ask them to stop posting about it.

Otherwise post your research by all means but don't try to shut the conversation down on child safety grounds.

Sorry, some of your points are self defeating.
General interest readers moving figures evolving with time has nothing to do with topic on hand. The researcher theory is already on social media.

April28th was merely complying with Mod's request to inform Kiko outside of this forum because kiko is inactive member. He informed this forum he was going to do so through twitter, no one counsels him against it. So it's too late and hence a moot point.

It's precisely because of his concern not to victimise innocent child and family that clarification is posted in the open. Your point about taking it behind the scene with researchers so that researchers can stop posting about it, while seemingly sensible, is not going to address the point that general memberships and general readerships need to know the theory is not plausible through clarification had. I as a general member would appreciate to know.

by MaryB 24.04.16 21:01

My opinion is that it's trouble stirring. If somebody is concerned about a family's privacy why plaster it all over the internet. Sorry but not convinced.

by Guest 24.04.16 21:05

MaryB wrote:My opinion is that it's trouble stirring. If somebody is concerned about a family's privacy why plaster it all over the internet. Sorry but not convinced.

Read aiyoyo's post above.

And as I said this thread can disappear in a click, it's not necessarily here for eternity.

by aiyoyo 24.04.16 21:09

Ladyinred wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. So on 21st April, three days ago, you emailed SF and informed her that the forum was discussing her family.

If you don't like what's being discussed here then why don't you find a forum that suits your sensibilities.

I knew it.
It always come to this when dissenter is vocal.
The discussion topic is turned into discussion of the poster.
One word out of line and the proverbial hits the fan.

I don't like far fetched theory either. Should I call it quit before I get booted out, or would that over sensitive?

by whodunit 24.04.16 21:10

April28th wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Would you post the emails you sent to Mr.Rider, please.

Playa de Lux?
Sure thing, I'll quote mine below. Respectfully, I don't think typos are the important part of his emails.

Hi Joe,

Thank you for your reply - I'm happy to answer any questions you may have about my motivations, and I'm happy to be CC'ed in with your Police contact officer, it's reassuring actually.

I am personally researching the Madeleine McCann case and as a result I have noticed a lot of people who have been caught up in it as 'collateral'. Quite how your daughter's name ever came into this I am not sure. As I expressed in my previous email, I am very uncomfortable with the fact your daughter's photo was posted online in several places and her school mentioned, as to my mind that puts her at risk. It is highly irresponsible (old photo now or not).

I have expressed as much on the same forum - my username there is April28th, I expressed the same sentiments there that I have here; [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (page 3 if the link doesn't work).

My contact was simply hoping to get this nonsensical, sidetracking issue off the table and hopefully help you and your family escape this daft microscope.

If it is relevant information you need, I am someone who doesn't believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, I believe she died earlier in the holiday, not by the actions of her parents, but in a situation such that it had to be covered up. I don't think it was ever meant to become what it has. I also don't believe that your daughter was used as a decoy - as you rightly say, it's a ludicrous suggestion and as far as I can see has no basis in fact. Just 'same name must be true' - absurd.

As I said in my last email, I quite understand if you have been advised not to say anything. I'm not pushing for information,
be assured there's no need for caution with me - I'm just being altruistic as a matter of principle, being a parent myself. I won't/haven't share any private correspondence with you (or Sarah's previously), without your express consent. And I am, again, glad that .. has been CCed in to add surety to this promise.

If you'd like me to pass along any comments to the forum or wider on your behalf, please feel free to ask.

Hope you're well (and sorry if I waffled on here/caused any stress bringing it up),

- Ben
Hi Joe,

No problem at all. Should I present your email there (address removed obviously), or summarise what you've told me?

I'll not post anything without your prior confirmation. Hopefully this will clear up the issue, of course there will still be some with a 'he would say that' attitude, but with the added weight of having .. CCed (who I wont mention by name), these voices will be minority.

Anyway sorry I'm going on again, I'll pass on your comments in whichever form you prefer. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to help as well.

Regards,

- Ben

This is not the language of a person 'seeking clarification'. This is the language of an advocate with an agenda. You can literally see him teeing up Mr. Rider with softball questions, placing himself on his side and against the 'highly irresponsible' theorists. Thusly April28th gives him a platform to deny the 'questions' in peace with complete assurance that there will be no uncomfortable follow up questions. For contrast, see Tony Bennett's inquiry of Phillip Edmonds, which wasn't adversarial at all but a neutral request for information.

by MaryB 24.04.16 21:15

I'd not heard of this person till you posted about it on this thread. So much for protecting privacy. Sorry but it's nonsense. .

by j.rob 24.04.16 21:33

April28th wrote:I'd emailed her through her business. Yes, I mean their Police Contact Officer.

Interesting.....

Irrespective of the merits of not of the kiko theory, the child in question will know whether she was in or around Luz that week.

If it is true that she is friendly with the Naylor child, then the Naylor child will know too.

All of the children who were at Ocean Club that week - and especially ones that attended the creche/mini clubs will have some memories of that week that might be relevant to the investigation. Kate is on record somewhere saying that she was surprised (shocked?) to discover the twins had memories from that week.

This latest development with regard to Detective Amaral looks likely to blow this case apart, imo.

I don't know the extent of the scam but it appears to me that there are many layers and many players. If any of the players had children there that week then those children have been, unwittingly and through no fault of their own, caught up in an adult charade that appears to have been motivated by - what? Greed, politics, media spin.

The children are now at an age when they will be more than a little curious. Even the most cursory glance at the PJ files reveals how flimsy the TM version of events was. People are better educated now, imo and the internet holds a wealth of information.

I, for one, am going to be fascinated by how things play out now that the floodgates have truly opened...