NEW VIDEO!! - Exposing McCanns BIG LIE to the UK Public - ABDUCTION! (Re-upload with better quality)

NEW VIDEO!! - Exposing McCanns BIG LIE to the UK Public - ABDUCTION!


Please consider  SHARING to allow UK Public to not only see the details in the files, but also to understand why it's taken 9 years!

Let me know if you are unable to view the video and I will upload to Dailymotion.

Newly uploaded with a better resolution and minus the unfortunate spelling at 0.26 



VIEW THIS VERSION.... (the link for the following video is : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQKFAQnFLdI )

Thanks Lizzie, another great video.

Here's the link to YouTube... makes sharing easier. Thanks to HiDeHo. I'll put it on my Twitter.

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

PS  Just to let you know Lizzie, the resolution on YT is only 240p so it's difficult to read a lot of it.

Thanks...

Yes there were lots of technical difficulties which unfortunately I was unable to resolve.  Movie Maker is renowned for being unstable and as I am using Windows 8 (impossible to use the Movie Maker on that version) I have downloaded WMM 2.6 and also WMM 6.0.  Both of them have serious glitches and not compatible (usually) to move between the two.

I had the choice of 6.0 that frequently does not show pictures or music when in 'Play' mode (as well as other issues) or 2.6 which stops and has to be rebooted after a few changes in editing (hence I have it set to save every 1 min) but although easier to deal with, chooses to not allow me to save the working copy video to computer.  Not very helpful after about 20 hrs of working on a vid

I therefore had to screenshot record, hence it was in a low resolution for me to be able to do that and then I have to convert from 200MB .AVI to an 18MB .WMV. 

Its all part of the challenge but as long as the main text is viewable the graphics can be viewed separately for anyone that wishes to view them in more detail.

Hopefully the summary of each graphic is viewable and the video gets the info across.

Many apologies for the frustration to watch, but the best I could do.

I cannot use my working copy on any other Movie Maker and I am so familiar with all the little tweaks of those movie makers that I dont have time to learn the intricate edits of some of the better versions. .

You may note also that I didnt use 'Transitions'    (For good reason)  

Maybe with a miracle, my WMM6 will accept the working copy and save it with a good resolution :)

ETA: UNBELIEVABLE!  WMM 6.0 ha accepted the working copy and is downloading to pc right now (only 640 resolution...I didnt want to push it) so fingers crossed and will upload as soon as I can :)

THANKS for bringing the issue up.  At 3.30am when I completed the vid I did not make the effort to try.  Without your input I may never have thought of it again :)

You might want to correct one of the written pages that has the word, 'PUBIC' instead of 'PUBLIC.'
Just an observation, not a criticism.

Thanks kaz :)  Yes an unfortunate word to spell incorrectly but NEW VERSION uploaded and corrected.  ALWAYS appreciate input :)

Hope its more acceptable as I'm not doing any more to it this morning 

Just checked your video, HiDeHo, and it's in 480p and looking good with everything readable. Thanks for persevering.

whatsupdoc wrote:Just checked your video, HiDeHo, and it's in 480p and looking good with everything readable. Thanks for persevering.

I appreciate being told if anyone has a problem seeing it so I can fix if its possible... Somethings are just not possible and with the struggle using WMM there are tradeoffs.  All vids have their own set of problems and with this one I didn't use transitions... Annoying, but would have added too many more hours lol Real time stats show me 700 views so far :)

HiDeHo...I noticed the new version has a different link so I've tweeted the new link.

I watched your latest video today on utube and I was not disappointed! In my opinion it is def one of your best to date. You cover so many facts in the case in such a easy and simple way for anyone to take in.
You got me interested in the MM case through your videos and made me look further, that's why am here now. Thanks Lizzie your a credit for your tireless work in making people aware of the true facts of this very sad case.

DENNISSALLY wrote:I watched your latest video today on utube and I was not disappointed!   In my opinion it is def one of your best to date.  You cover so many facts in the case in such a easy and simple way for anyone to take in.  
You got me interested in the MM case through your videos and made me look further, that's why am here now.  Thanks Lizzie your a credit for your tireless work in making people aware of the true facts of this very sad case.  

Why so?  What aspect in particular, for you, makes this video the best to date?

Certainly it brings together aspects of the case that have been denied public awareness but it's nothing new to the seasoned observer.  Personally, I'm not so sure it can be claimed that the McCanns tried to suppress public knowledge of the PJ files released for public consumption.  For anyone interested in the case the PJ files were/are readily readable on the internet (quite out of the McCanns control) - in short, why should the UK press report in detail about a specific case under Portuguese jurisdiction?  Regrettably that's not how the press operate - generally they report on the here and now, it's what sells the papers.  They wouldn't survive very long if they reported day after day on the same story.

Undoubtedly the UK press were/are controlled (Clarence Mitchell et al) as regards the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance but it can't be automatically said that the McCanns were in a position to prevent the populace from reading the PJ files.  An impossible task I might suggest!  Agreed, the McCanns used the strong arm of the law to silence specific individuals, newspapers etc but that was confined to specific quotes and claims about aspects of the case - not the PJ files per se.

The UK media misrepresented the case from the word go.  Reportage was all based on sensationalism, media manipulation (Clarence Mitchell et al) and anonymous interference - that is wrong purely and simply.  However, thanks to the people who genuinely care about Madeleine McCann's fate, the truth will never be allowed to go away.  IF the McCanns (courtesy of public money donated to the fund) truly had the PJ files translated, they were very foolish - did they think they would discover something that wasn't translated free gratis and for nothing by Madeleine well-wishers?

What do you think?

Firstly do I have to explain every opinion I have in minute detail? I viewed the video I enjoyed it and it gave me new ideas to look up. What problem do you have with that?
My name is Sally and I don't know how to change that but am sure you will tell me.
If I feel the need to share why the video gave me a new train of thoughts to look up for my own benefit then when I have looked them up I might or I might not share my thoughts.
I have my opinion and you will not change it unless I decide you can!

Verdi wrote:

DENNISSALLY wrote:I watched your latest video today on utube and I was not disappointed!   In my opinion it is def one of your best to date.  You cover so many facts in the case in such a easy and simple way for anyone to take in.  
You got me interested in the MM case through your videos and made me look further, that's why am here now.  Thanks Lizzie your a credit for your tireless work in making people aware of the true facts of this very sad case.  

Why so?  What aspect in particular, for you, makes this video the best to date?

Certainly it brings together aspects of the case that have been denied public awareness but it's nothing new to the seasoned observer.  Personally, I'm not so sure it can be claimed that the McCanns tried to suppress public knowledge of the PJ files released for public consumption.  For anyone interested in the case the PJ files were/are readily readable on the internet (quite out of the McCanns control) - in short, why should the UK press report in detail about a specific case under Portuguese jurisdiction?  Regrettably that's not how the press operate - generally they report on the here and now, it's what sells the papers.  They wouldn't survive very long if they reported day after day on the same story.

Undoubtedly the UK press were/are controlled (Clarence Mitchell et al) as regards the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance but it can't be automatically said that the McCanns were in a position to prevent the populace from reading the PJ files.  An impossible task I might suggest!  Agreed, the McCanns used the strong arm of the law to silence specific individuals, newspapers etc but that was confined to specific quotes and claims about aspects of the case - not the PJ files per se.

The UK media misrepresented the case from the word go.  Reportage was all based on sensationalism, media manipulation (Clarence Mitchell et al) and anonymous interference - that is wrong purely and simply.  However, thanks to the people who genuinely care about Madeleine McCann's fate, the truth will never be allowed to go away.  IF the McCanns (courtesy of public money donated to the fund) truly had the PJ files translated, they were very foolish - did they think they would discover something that wasn't translated free gratis and for nothing by Madeleine well-wishers?

What do you think?

Thank you DENNISSALLY.  Each time I do a video, it is a passionate excercise in patience and enormously time consuming so I HAVE to believe in it or it would be impossible to accomplish.  However, some videos have more satisfaction , once completed, than others.  It often depends on the topic.

Although it was one of the 'faster' ones to accomplish it covered a topic that I feel very passionately about.  So much so that I base my facebook group on it.  For that reason I was very happy with it.  It seemed to tick all the boxes I was looking to accomplish.  I don't need acknowledgement, though its nice to receive, as I have my own rating for each video, and I love what I do so I am very proud of the outcome, as I am this one.

The same goes for criticism.  I welcome it but would never allow it to detract from my judgement of each video. I dont rely on outside applause or criticism to affect how I feel about it.

I'm afraid we disagree on the content Verdi but I think we are allowed 

When I created the focus of my facebook group, along with the videos, it was not entirely meant to focus on discussions. I wanted to reach the UK Public. Forums like this are by far the best option for discussions.  Before the quiet time, we were getting 100 newbies a day and it was/is our job to keep ONLY to the files and give appropriate links so people could learn and decide for themselves.  I encourage those that believe the McCanns are innocent and welcome their questions as they were previously unaware of the DETAILS in the files, and some didnt know the files existed.

100 or more newbies a day...that is a lot of people learning about the content of the files.

I base all my videos on topics from the files and the facts from the case and with approx 7,000 views a day, the links are to the Banned video and my facebook group giving us an unknown amount of viewers regardless of discussions.  Each of them learning the content of the files with the vast majority from UK.

Its the UK public (and Madeleine) that motivates me to continue.

I have hear often, the 'argument' that the UK public can read the files if they wish as most are on the internet.

My belief is that the vast majority of people in the UK, although interested in the case would not consider it of importance to Google about the case online and certainly anyone finding the files wouldnt have the slightest idea what they were about.

Most people rely on the Media for info and we all know what details they are reading.

This video explains WHY they may not have known the details about the dogs etc.

From what I have seen the McCanns are very much involved in trying to stop the UK seeing the details of the files and it's not always about money.

They stopped Tony from discussing with the six key demands.  That wasn't about money.  Tony was a threat and they needed to stop him, meaning he is now the only person in this world that cannot discuss the dogs etc. THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO SEE THE DETAILS OF THE FILES.

Their latest effort of threatening to sue anyone that sells Goncalo Amaral's book. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO SEE THE DETAILS OF THE FILES.

They didn't sue Tony or Goncalo because they were lying about the details from the files.  Contempt of Court and Damages was maybe their only option.

They banned Pat Brown's book on Amazon.  No money to be made from that but exposing the info from the files they needed to curtail.

They hired Hanover to change public perception from hostility to sympathy and to do that had to remove the articles with negative info from the files.

They threatened to sue bloggers that posted all or part of Goncalo's book.  They don't want anyone reading the book because it explains the truth from the files...

Gerry left Lisbon abruptly, claiming work commitments when 50 negative news articles about the case from witnesses Ricardo Paiva and Tavares de Almeida and within just a few days there was not ONE news article about the McCanns, even though the hearing had only just completed a day or so before.  Did he leave to put a stop to the media reports about the content of the files... the dogs etc?

Whether they paid for the files or not...it SHOULD be of help for their supporters to scrutinise and help in the search.  The fact is that they do not allow their supporters on the Official site to even discuss the investigation... Red flag for me.

Of course there is lots more but I do not believe they are all money motivated...

As Kate is claimed to say,.. something like 'What will my mother say if she finds out'...

A little like what will UK public (that until now rely ONLY on media for their updates) say if they find out?

I have no problem with anyones opinion, but a credible opinion must be based on knowledge and right now the vast majority of the UK public do not have the time or the motiation to seek info about Maddie on the internet...

Thats where WE come in and why I run my group as I have explained above...

I believe that the thing the McCanns fear the most is for that portion of the UK public that dont know the files exist, never mind the content...to learn the TRUTH of the investigation...

I think we all know that public opinion will change dramatically, as it does when we get so many newbies who are shocked when they learn about the dogs...

Our effort may be one person at a time but we ARE making a difference

Jill has accomplished an enormous amount with this forum  and all her other blogs and should be very proud and with 7,000 approx views a day on the videos (5 million lifetime) that is something I am proud of and worth the effort, whether some people like my videos or not.

Good post, HiDeHo.   I think your videos have helped thousands of people who have only seen TV and read "newspapers".

DENNISSALLY wrote  In my opinion it is def one of your best to date.  You cover so many facts in the case in such a easy and simple way for anyone to take in.  
You got me interested in the MM case through your videos and made me look further, that's why am here now.  Thanks Lizzie your a credit for your tireless work in making people aware of the true facts of this very sad case. 

Verdi wrote     Certainly it brings together aspects of the case that have been denied public awareness but it's nothing new to the seasoned observer.
Personally, I'm not so sure it can be claimed that the McCanns tried to suppress public knowledge of the PJ files released for public consumption.

Stating the obvious, Verdi, Sally is a newcomer, not a seasoned observer. She stated her opinion with a limited knowledge of the case. I think the McCanns did try to suppress public knowledge of the PJ files by not challenging the details in the PJ files but  have gone to court claiming distress caused etc.  The Abduction claim was instantly thrown out of court when the Judge asked for proof and the lawyer said it was the McCanns who said it. I think that was the case Tony B. was involved in.

Basically, if it doesn't agree with the abduction scenario, the McCanns want it covered up.

DENNISSALLY wrote:Firstly do I have to explain every opinion I have in minute detail?  I viewed the video I enjoyed it and it gave me new ideas to look up.  What problem do you have with that?

Of course not - certainly not for my benefit.  No problem at all.

I was just curious to know why you thought it the best HeDeHo video to date, sorry if I offended you.

whatsupdoc wrote:
Stating the obvious, Verdi, Sally is a newcomer, not a seasoned observer. She stated her opinion with a limited knowledge of the case.  

With respect [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I mean no disrespect to HiDeHo, her tireless work in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance is to be admired.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] said she thought this latest video was the best ever - from those few words I assumed, wrongly it would seem, that she had seen all videos produced by HiDeHo.  I only wondered why she thought it better than the rest.

If she doesn't choose to elaborate that's her prerogative, I've no problem with that.

Is it actually factual to state the McCanns wished Tony Bennett to go to prison?

Yes, I thought that they claimed that they didn't want him sent to prison, only to stop saying things they didn't like.

Sentencing Bennett to three months’ jail, suspended for a year, Mr Justice Tugendhat said:

“I am sure that you intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done.

“The claimants have suffered injury to their reputations and feelings by the repetition of the allegations which you have repeated in breach of your undertakings.

“You were deliberately flouting the undertakings, and the apology that you offered when giving your evidence was insincere.

“I am sure that you appreciated the seriousness of what you were doing, not least because you trained to be a solicitor.”

He added that the McCanns’ aim in bringing the case to court had not been to punish Bennett but to stop him repeating the harmful claims.

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

My guess is, the McCanns figured Mr Bennett would swiftly back-off not being able to afford legal fees to challenge them in court.  Same tactic they tried with
Mr Amaral and the various newspapers they sued by way of out of court settlement.  The last thing the McCanns want is to be before the beak!

It's my opinion the last thing the McCanns want is anyone imprisoned. This would do their reputations a whole heap of damage.

aquila wrote:Is it actually factual to state the McCanns wished Tony Bennett to go to prison?

I don't think it is.

Again, just for the record:

1. On 27 August 2009 Carter-Ruck wrote to me and accused me of having libeled them, especially in a book I had written about Madeleine's disappearance

2. After several weeks of exchange of letters, I was given an ultimatum: agree to our 16 conditions terms, or we will sue you for libel.

3. Being sued for libel would almost certainly have ruined me financially. If only one sentence, one phrase, one word even was deemed by a court to be libelous, I would have faced the nation's 'most feared' (their words) libel lawyers in court. I has little practical alternative but to agree to their terms.

4. The McCanns did issue libel proceedings - on 25 November 2009, the same day incidentally that CMOMM was launched. At the same time, they agreed to 'stay' i.e. to not proceed with their libel actions, so long as I complied strictly with all 16 undertakings I gave, to meet their demands.

5. By 1 December 2011 the McCanns decided I had broken some of the undertakings and served me with court papers asking for me to be committed to prison for 'contempt of court'.

6. So technically HideHo is correct but equally Any Dean is correct to say that they made one or more public statements saying: "We do not want him imprisoned; we just want him stopped".

7. On Court on three days in February 2013 Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that there were at least twelve instances where I had broken my undertakings and, after I made an on-the-record apology to the McCanns in court, he sentenced me to three months in jail, suspended for one year.

8. If it was proved in court that I had breached any of the undertaking again, Justice Tugendhat explained that the procedure was that the contemnor of he court would be taken direct from the court by police van to Pentonville Prison where I would sever my three-month sentence.

9. In late May 2013 I concluded an agreement with Carter Ruck that their costs claim against me would be reducued from well over £300,000 to £27,500.

10. As it has been alleged by many very bad people who pretend to be McCann doubters that this large reduction meant I must have 'sold out' and 'agreed to work with the McCanns', let me take this opportunity to state once again that whilst they made a large concession in terms of my costs, I was required on my side to withdraw two separate appeals against Justice Tugendhat's ruling that were due to be considered by the Appeal Court later that year. The final 'deal' was a compromise between two warring parties.

11. I paid £12,500 costs up front and the rest (£15,000) in instalments over 10 years. So far I have made 39 payments of £125 a month (£4,875). I have 81 payments of £125 to make, the final one being due in May 2023 when I'll be 75. Of course I had to cover my own costs in the proceedings which totaled several thousand pounds, which included taking twice legal advice but not actually being represented by a solicitor throughout the proceedings.

12. Several bad people on the internet (some of them former members here) claim that I have been paid by the McCanns to undermine the 'Smithman' sighting. That's completely untrue

13. A support group was launched to help with my costs: The Campaign for Oppressed Libel Defendants (C.O.L.D.). So far it has raised over £2,000 for me, for which I am very grateful.

14. Anyone with a generous heart can make a donation to them via BACS, here are the details:
            

Paying by BACS to the account of
C.O.L.D.

LLOYDS TSB BANK
Dover Branch
PO Box 1000, ANDOVER, BX1 1LT
Sort 77-63-20
Account No 79880268
BIC  LOYDGB21H33

For people like myself who attended the Contempt of Court trial it was a masterclass in bullying/law is for those who can afford it.

The McCanns were not present (the McCanns don't do courtrooms unless it's in Lisbon to talk about loss of appetite, pain, suffering and the discrediting of blood/cadaver dogs with hitherto impeccable reputations) but there were four tiers of Carter Ruck's finest present and active in the court - literally four tiers - they sat in a pecking order on the benches.

It was an easy ride for Carter Ruck and yet they brought out all four tiers to shut Tony Bennett's mouth and let the press see them in their finery.

Another day in 'law' for Carter Ruck. Another day of being paid to close down freedom of speech. Hell, Gerry McCann wanted the UK media gagged too. Who paid for Carter Ruck?

Come on Carter Ruck, who exactly paid you?

Who did you send your invoices to?

Hi Aquila,don't suppose the parents used the "Find Madeleine Fund" to off set these legal expenses against Mr Bennett do you, after all that was what the fund was set up for?

willowthewisp wrote:Hi Aquila,don't suppose the parents used the "Find Madeleine Fund" to off set these legal expenses against Mr Bennett do you, after all that was what the fund was set up for?

I have no idea, however Carter Ruck have intimated they have worked pro bono for the McCanns and yet at Tony's trial they submitted the most enormous amount of money for costs and then withdrew those costs/absorbed them somehow.

I'd like Carter Ruck to state who they billed.

There's a cat in hell's chance.

Tony Bennett wrote:

aquila wrote:Is it actually factual to state the McCanns wished Tony Bennett to go to prison?

I don't think it is.

Again, just for the record:

1. On 27 August 2009 Carter-Ruck wrote to me and accused me of having libeled them, especially in a book I had written about Madeleine's disappearance

2. After several weeks of exchange of letters, I was given an ultimatum: agree to our 16 conditions terms, or we will sue you for libel.

3. Being sued for libel would almost certainly have ruined me financially. If only one sentence, one phrase, one word even was deemed by a court to be libelous, I would have faced the nation's 'most feared' (their words) libel lawyers in court. I has little practical alternative but to agree to their terms.

4. The McCanns did issue libel proceedings - on 25 November 2009, the same day incidentally that CMOMM was launched. At the same time, they agreed to 'stay' i.e. to not proceed with their libel actions, so long as I complied strictly with all 16 undertakings I gave, to meet their demands.

5. By 1 December 2011 the McCanns decided I had broken some of the undertakings and served me with court papers asking for me to be committed to prison for 'contempt of court'.

6. So technically HideHo is correct but equally Any Dean is correct to say that they made one or more public statements saying: "We do not want him imprisoned; we just want him stopped".

7. On Court on three days in February 2013 Mr Justice Tugendhat ruled that there were at least twelve instances where I had broken my undertakings and, after I made an on-the-record apology to the McCanns in court, he sentenced me to three months in jail, suspended for one year.

8. If it was proved in court that I had breached any of the undertaking again, Justice Tugendhat explained that the procedure was that the contemnor of he court would be taken direct from the court by police van to Pentonville Prison where I would sever my three-month sentence.

9. In late May 2013 I concluded an agreement with Carter Ruck that their costs claim against me would be reducued from well over £300,000 to £27,500.

10. As it has been alleged by many very bad people who pretend to be McCann doubters that this large reduction meant I must have 'sold out' and 'agreed to work with the McCanns', let me take this opportunity to state once again that whilst they made a large concession in terms of my costs, I was required on my side to withdraw two separate appeals against Justice Tugendhat's ruling that were due to be considered by the Appeal Court later that year. The final 'deal' was a compromise between two warring parties.

11. I paid £12,500 costs up front and the rest (£15,000) in instalments over 10 years. So far I have made 39 payments of £125 a month (£4,875). I have 81 payments of £125 to make, the final one being due in May 2023 when I'll be 75. Of course I had to cover my own costs in the proceedings which totaled several thousand pounds, which included taking twice legal advice but not actually being represented by a solicitor throughout the proceedings.

12. Several bad people on the internet (some of them former members here) claim that I have been paid by the McCanns to undermine the 'Smithman' sighting. That's completely untrue

13. A support group was launched to help with my costs: The Campaign for Oppressed Libel Defendants (C.O.L.D.). So far it has raised over £2,000 for me, for which I am very grateful.

14. Anyone with a generous heart can make a donation to them via BACS, here are the details:
            

Paying by BACS to the account of
C.O.L.D.

LLOYDS TSB BANK
Dover Branch
PO Box 1000, ANDOVER, BX1 1LT
Sort 77-63-20
Account No 79880268
BIC  LOYDGB21H33

£125 per month is a hefty burden.