Re: NEWSFLASH - The late Sir Clement Freud, resident of Praia da Luz and friend of the McCanns, exposed as a serial paedophile, Lady Freud apologises, Operation Grange to investigate McCann-Freud links (Daily Telegraph 14 Jun 2016)

by canada12 18.06.16 18:48

ShuBob wrote:It had to have been hand-delivered [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's what I'm thinking.

by MayMuse 18.06.16 18:53

ShuBob wrote:Did the owner of the villa also live there at the time CF was renting it? I fail to see why Gerry will call him instead of CF directly. Unless they were acquianted as well

Have no idea but a scenario could be that Phillip Wright advertised the villa to rent. Perhaps GM contacted to enquire about renting the villa? Or perhaps he knew him prior, I don't know other than the calls are logged in the files.

It could have gone like this

"Hi this is Gerry McCann the father of the girl who was "abducted" we need to rent a larger private villa to escape all the media attention as we need privacy and noticed your advert when putting out our missing posters"

"Sorry the villa is already rented out to a Clement Freud but will mention to him about your situation and the Media intrusion"

"Thanks that I'd be great"

Call again (he phoned twice in one week) "hi it's Gerry here,did you mention to CL that we need to rent the villa as its position is perfect for the privacy we seek since our daughter was "abducted" and the media hounds as I'm working on a blog you know and the Mrs loves to run up that hill"

"Oh yes indeedy, but Mr Fraud will be using it for the summer so no can do, he did say he was sending a letter to invite you both over"

"That's great cos we haven't been here to enjoy ourselves and could do with a little light refreshment"

Hence the eating, drinking jolly in nightshirts was had by all, leaving them feeling "better"??? Good ol gramps! big grin

OR
Just another fabrication and name dropping???
OR
Something more odd ?

My own thoughts etc. spin

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

by Liz Eagles 18.06.16 18:57

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

Do you honestly think for a nano-second that the McCanns were searching for rental properties in PdL with the army of advisors surrounding them?

by MayMuse 18.06.16 19:00

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

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!

by Liz Eagles 18.06.16 19:02

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

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!

I understand the sarcasm (it's hard to resist sometimes).

by ShuBob 18.06.16 19:10

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

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!

Lol

But you wouldn't be surprised if the reason Gerry gave for the calls closely matched your scenario, would you spin

by MayMuse 18.06.16 19:15

aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!
I understand the sarcasm (it's hard to resist sometimes).

I've refrained for too long big grin

And it's the weekend big grin

And brain is scratched enough with trying to find connections and some sense of it.

The fact is the telephone records show that the number listed belongs to Phillip Wright who apparently owns the villa and rents it out; GM called him twice in early July and then in September.

The "story" of CF inviting them over is "odd" the more I look at it, they received a letter which is quite formal, they did not know who he was initially yet felt comfortable enough to eat, drink and be referred to as a nymphomaniac catholic depressed or words to that effect ? I would have been appalled!!! No mention of Madeleine in this cosy get together, no further explaination of the advice he gave them? What advice could he have offered on the "situation they found themselves in" ? What was he the pyjama police? big grin

Yet Gerry had called the owner of the villa, not once but three times. Why?

Something's fishy
IMO

by MayMuse 18.06.16 19:18

ShuBob wrote:
MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!
Lol

But you wouldn't be surprised if the reason Gerry gave for the calls closely matched your scenario, would you

I don't believe a word that comes out of GM's mouth to be honest! nah

by whodunit 18.06.16 19:19

MayMuse wrote:
aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!
I understand the sarcasm (it's hard to resist sometimes).
I've refrained for too long And it's the weekend

And brain is scratched enough with trying to find connections and some sense of it.

The fact is the telephone records show that the number listed belongs to Phillip Wright who apparently owns the villa and rents it out; GM called him twice in early July and then in September.

The "story" of CF inviting them over is "odd" the more I look at it, they received a letter which is quite formal, they did not know who he was initially yet felt comfortable enough to eat, drink and be referred to as a nymphomaniac catholic depressed or words to that effect ? I would have been appalled!!! No mention of Madeleine in this cosy get together, no further explaination of the advice he gave them? What advice could he have offered on the "situation they found themselves in" ? What was he the pyjama police?

Yet Gerry had called the owner of the villa, not once but three times. Why?

Something's fishy
IMO

Well then, the telephone belongs to the villa so he wasn't necessarily trying to reach Wright.

From info in this thread we are given to understand that CF was in residence in July and again in September. Which apparently means he traveled 'round to PDL for a couple of weeks every 2 months. Which if you count backwards....

by canada12 18.06.16 19:33

I think that the mention of a "letter" is important. It's provides physical proof of an invitation - Exhibit A, shall we say.

What if there was a suspicion that Kate and Gerry's DNA or fingerprints might have been found in CF's villa?

What if they had been there sometime earlier - say before May 3?

What if they really needed to come up with a fast explanation for their DNA and fingerprints to be there, just in case the forensics people decided to pay a visit?

Voila - a written invitation - Exhibit A - inviting them round (quickly - before next Wednesday).

So Gerry and Kate trot round to CF's villa and enjoy some strawberry vodka.

If the forensics people show up any time after that date, of course they will find Kate and Gerry's fingerprints and DNA. But they will have no way of knowing when those findings were deposited.

by **Nina** 18.06.16 19:43

Wow, how very clever.

by MayMuse 18.06.16 19:45

whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!
I understand the sarcasm (it's hard to resist sometimes).
I've refrained for too long And it's the weekend

And brain is scratched enough with trying to find connections and some sense of it.

The fact is the telephone records show that the number listed belongs to Phillip Wright who apparently owns the villa and rents it out; GM called him twice in early July and then in September.

The "story" of CF inviting them over is "odd" the more I look at it, they received a letter which is quite formal, they did not know who he was initially yet felt comfortable enough to eat, drink and be referred to as a nymphomaniac catholic depressed or words to that effect ? I would have been appalled!!! No mention of Madeleine in this cosy get together, no further explaination of the advice he gave them? What advice could he have offered on the "situation they found themselves in" ? What was he the pyjama police?

Yet Gerry had called the owner of the villa, not once but three times. Why?

Something's fishy
IMO

Well then, the telephone belongs to the villa so he wasn't necessarily trying to reach Wright.

From info in this thread we are given to understand that CF was in residence in July and again in September. Which apparently means he traveled 'round to PDL for a couple of weeks every 2 months. Which if you count backwards....

Well perhaps we will never know but GM also phoned a property company as well as removals and storage???
Apparently his son has said he was in the Uk in the May, so I wonder if OG are to investigate if this is the route that's going to be taken, as I cannot see how an eighty year old can be linked to Madeleine being "taken from her bed"???

So let's say it was CF who answered ? Was this call logged prior to the visit? Without looking again I do not recall the date of the "merry meet"
If it was long before the letter ( again date) then there is some explaining to do, if not then there is still some explaining to do nah

where is the letter? Was it casually disposed? Was there a mention of this meet/communication in Kate's diary???

spin

by NickE 18.06.16 19:52

To clarify Gerry´s phone calls to "Casa Colina".

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

Gerry´s phone records:

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

by MayMuse 18.06.16 19:54

NickE wrote:To clarify Gerry´s phone calls to "Casa Colina".

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

Gerry´s phone records:

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

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

Here is a link to a list of calls also from his phone:

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

by whodunit 18.06.16 19:55

MayMuse wrote:
whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

NO

It's tongue in cheek as the whole episode is diabolical!
I understand the sarcasm (it's hard to resist sometimes).
I've refrained for too long And it's the weekend

And brain is scratched enough with trying to find connections and some sense of it.

The fact is the telephone records show that the number listed belongs to Phillip Wright who apparently owns the villa and rents it out; GM called him twice in early July and then in September.

The "story" of CF inviting them over is "odd" the more I look at it, they received a letter which is quite formal, they did not know who he was initially yet felt comfortable enough to eat, drink and be referred to as a nymphomaniac catholic depressed or words to that effect ? I would have been appalled!!! No mention of Madeleine in this cosy get together, no further explaination of the advice he gave them? What advice could he have offered on the "situation they found themselves in" ? What was he the pyjama police?

Yet Gerry had called the owner of the villa, not once but three times. Why?

Something's fishy
IMO

Well then, the telephone belongs to the villa so he wasn't necessarily trying to reach Wright.

From info in this thread we are given to understand that CF was in residence in July and again in September. Which apparently means he traveled 'round to PDL for a couple of weeks every 2 months. Which if you count backwards....
Well perhaps we will never know but GM also phoned a property company as well as removals and storage???
Apparently his son has said he was in the Uk in the May, so I wonder if OG are to investigate if this is the route that's going to be taken, as I cannot see how an eighty year old can be linked to Madeleine being "taken from her bed"???

So let's say it was CF who answered ? Was this call logged prior to the visit? Without looking again I do not recall the date of the "merry meet"
If it was long before the letter ( again date) then there is some explaining to do, if not then there is still some explaining to do where is the letter? Was it casually disposed? Was there a mention of this meet/communication in Kate's diary???

NOBODY took Madeleine 'from her bed' much less CF. If he had anything to do with it, the poor wee child was brought to him. If they can somehow pin this crime on CF, 'this crime' being murder not abduction, then they will have to contend with the fact that the McCs were responsible for disposing of their child's corpse and of covering for the perpetrator. [read the indictment of the Ramseys for an exact parallel] The next question is: why would the parents do that if someone else was responsible for the killing? The bitter, unimaginable answer to this question suggests itself.

The date of the merry meet was I think July 4 or 5. Another one KM documented in her bewk was in September, the day the McCs were made arguido.

by whodunit 18.06.16 19:59

canada12 wrote:
NickE wrote:To clarify Gerry´s phone calls to "Casa Colina".

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

Gerry´s phone records:

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

So what I see here is that on the night Madeleine disappeared - May 3 - at 9.19pm - Gerry called Peter Wright at the villa that he rented out to CF? Am I reading this correctly?

No, these dates are in July and September. What was the exact date in September the McCs were made arguido?

by MayMuse 18.06.16 20:02

That is their "story" not mine.

So Madeleine was taken to him?
And cadaver odour was found in 5a, that's suggesting that she was taken from one property to another?

Pfft!

Where is the invitation letter CF sent to them ?
Where is the mention of this communication in Kate's diary?

I do not believe that CF had anything to do with Madeleine's demise.

IMO

by NickE 18.06.16 20:05

whodunit wrote:
canada12 wrote:
NickE wrote:To clarify Gerry´s phone calls to "Casa Colina".

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

Gerry´s phone records:

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

So what I see here is that on the night Madeleine disappeared - May 3 - at 9.19pm - Gerry called Peter Wright at the villa that he rented out to CF? Am I reading this correctly?

No, these dates are in July and September. What was the exact date in September the McCs were made arguido?

September 8, 2007

by MayMuse 18.06.16 20:05

I think it was the 6th/7th September as they made their arguido statement ?

by whodunit 18.06.16 20:06

MayMuse wrote:That is their "story" not mine.

So Madeleine was taken to him?
And cadaver odour was found in 5a, that's suggesting that she was taken from one property to another?

Pfft!

Where is the invitation letter CF sent to them ?
Where is the mention of this communication in Kate's diary?

I do not believe that CF had anything to do with Madeleine's demise.

IMO

Why pfft?? Was she not moved FROM 5a to 'another property'?

by MayMuse 18.06.16 20:11

No proof she was moved to a "property"

I just do not believe that CF had anything to do with her demise!

We are supposed to believe that this "meet" was to make up for a "media intrusion" do you not find it odd that it was not (if it happened at all) to offer some comfort/solace for their missing daughter?

Again we are seeing "media" before "Madeleine"!!!! aaagh

IMO

by Liz Eagles 18.06.16 20:16

You'll have to excuse my beliefs then. I believe that everything to do with Madeleine's demise is shrouded in paedophilia.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.06.16 20:21

NickE wrote:
whodunit wrote:
canada12 wrote:
NickE wrote:To clarify Gerry´s phone calls to "Casa Colina".

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

Gerry´s phone records:

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

So what I see here is that on the night Madeleine disappeared - May 3 - at 9.19pm - Gerry called Peter Wright at the villa that he rented out to CF? Am I reading this correctly?

No, these dates are in July and September. What was the exact date in September the McCs were made arguido?
September 8, 2007

CORRECTION:

They were made arguidos on Friday 7 September.

According to 'madeleine', by Kate McCann, p. 252 (hardback): "Gerry wasn't back from his interrogation until 1.30am. Like me, he was officially declared an arguido at the start of the proceedings..."

That seems to be 4 or 5 days after the last two 'phone calls

by whodunit 18.06.16 20:22

aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:That is their "story" not mine.

So Madeleine was taken to him?
And cadaver odour was found in 5a, that's suggesting that she was taken from one property to another?

Pfft!

Where is the invitation letter CF sent to them ?
Where is the mention of this communication in Kate's diary?

I do not believe that CF had anything to do with Madeleine's demise.

IMO

Why pfft?? Was she not moved FROM 5a to 'another property'?
No proof she was moved to a "property"

I just do not believe that CF had anything to do with her demise!

We are supposed to believe that this "meet" was to make up for a "media intrusion" do you not find it odd that it was not (if it happened at all) to offer some comfort/solace for their missing daughter?

Again we are seeing "media" before "Madeleine"!!!!

IMO
You'll have to excuse my beliefs then. I believe that everything to do with Madeleine's demise is shrouded in paedophilia.

Same.

No other motive strong enough to conceal her corpse.

MayMuse, where do you suggest she was moved to, the moon? Regardless, she was moved FROM 5a TO somewhere else. If this could be done under strict secrecy, then it is also possible that she was moved FROM another property TO 5a.

by MayMuse 18.06.16 20:34

aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:That is their "story" not mine.

So Madeleine was taken to him?
And cadaver odour was found in 5a, that's suggesting that she was taken from one property to another?

Pfft!

Where is the invitation letter CF sent to them ?
Where is the mention of this communication in Kate's diary?

I do not believe that CF had anything to do with Madeleine's demise.

IMO

Why pfft?? Was she not moved FROM 5a to 'another property'?
No proof she was moved to a "property"

I just do not believe that CF had anything to do with her demise!

We are supposed to believe that this "meet" was to make up for a "media intrusion" do you not find it odd that it was not (if it happened at all) to offer some comfort/solace for their missing daughter?

Again we are seeing "media" before "Madeleine"!!!!

IMO
You'll have to excuse my beliefs then. I believe that everything to do with Madeleine's demise is shrouded in paedophilia.

I don't have to excuse anyone beliefs or opinions as I would not expect anyone to excuse mine.
I did not say that I do not believe paedophillia had anything to do with it, I said that I did not believe he had anything to do with her demise or death or as in he killed her to be blunt and then was moved back to her parents apartment, placed behind the sofa where cadaver odour and blood was found ? And the McCanns were okay with that? No, whatever happened to their daughter they are culpable & should be brought to task IMO

Careful,or OG might have just found their "patsy"?????? In this cloud of pervert(s)ing the course of justice!
And that would not be just for Madeleine.
IMO

by whodunit 18.06.16 20:40

MayMuse wrote:I don't have to excuse anyone beliefs or opinions as I would not expect anyone to excuse mine.
I did not say that I do not believe paedophillia had anything to do with it, I said that I did not believe he had anything to do with her demise or death or as in he killed her to be blunt and then was moved back to her parents apartment, placed behind the sofa where cadaver odour and blood was found ? And the McCanns were okay with that? No, whatever happened to their daughter they are culpable & should be brought to task IMO

Careful,or OG might have just found their "patsy"?????? In this cloud of pervert(s)ing the course of justice!
And that would not be just for Madeleine.
IMO

I didn't say he did either but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

We can't go eliminating things that are possible until we have more information.

And whatever happened the McCanns may not have been 'ok with it' but they sure 1. participated in covering it up by removing her corpse and 2. enjoyed the benefit of the UK establishment protecting SOMEBODY who had something to do with whatever happened. The entire UK establishment didn't jump into action on behalf of their little ol' selves.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.06.16 20:49

Like others, who are mostly posting on a new Clement Freud thread, I have some suspicions about the long article all about Vicky Haynes in the Daily Mail today. I'm posting in this thread, though, as I'd much prefer all the Clement Freud-related material to be on the one thread.

The sudden and repeated emphasis in the article on a paedophile ring in Praia da Luz does seem surprising, but at least for those who think Madeleine's reported disappearance is connected to a paedophlile ring, there are some grounds for that belief emerging yet again.

One thing I noted in the article was another connection to Royalty.

Of Vicky Haynes, in the article by Rebecca Hardy. she writes:

"She has, she says, enjoyed a 'privileged life', that has included sprawling homes, horses and cocktail parties with Prince Charles".

I believe Carol Tranmer also had contacts inside or close to the Royal circle.

One other thing I noted was this:

"I wouldn't be at all surprised, when the police investigate Freud and his connections in Praia da Luz, if they find he knew something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann".

The journalist then asks her: Does she think Freud was part of a ring?

She answers: "Of course, he was a great friend with Rolf Harris, shared an office with Cyril Smith and had a villa right there for 25 years - an area where a number of paedophiles were living and where Madeleine disappeared".

Surely this is of much more than a little interest. She has told us, in terms, that:

1. Freud wasn't a lone retiree just quietly cooking himself meals in his villa and swimming in his pool. He had, the article states: 'Connections in Praia da Luz'. How many connections? Who were they? Were they also paedophiles? What sort of company does a serial paedophile keep, one wonders? People like Rolf Harris and Cyril Smith for starters, it seems.

2. 'A number of paedophiles were living in Praia da Luz'. OK, really? How does she know this? How many is 'a number'? Maybe she also knows the identity of these paedophiles?

3. She said: 'If police investigate Freud and his connections in Praia da Luz, they might find he knew something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann'. Well, that's a very funny way of putting it, since Freud has been dead for 7 years. But is she saying that there are those alive in Praia da Luz today, possibly paedophiles, who 'know something about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann'? I think she is. So how much does she actually know herself, I wonder?

by MayMuse 18.06.16 20:52

whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
aquila wrote:
MayMuse wrote:
whodunit wrote:
MayMuse wrote:That is their "story" not mine.

So Madeleine was taken to him?
And cadaver odour was found in 5a, that's suggesting that she was taken from one property to another?

Pfft!

Where is the invitation letter CF sent to them ?
Where is the mention of this communication in Kate's diary?

I do not believe that CF had anything to do with Madeleine's demise.

IMO

Why pfft?? Was she not moved FROM 5a to 'another property'?
No proof she was moved to a "property"

I just do not believe that CF had anything to do with her demise!

We are supposed to believe that this "meet" was to make up for a "media intrusion" do you not find it odd that it was not (if it happened at all) to offer some comfort/solace for their missing daughter?

Again we are seeing "media" before "Madeleine"!!!!

IMO
You'll have to excuse my beliefs then. I believe that everything to do with Madeleine's demise is shrouded in paedophilia.
I don't have to excuse anyone beliefs or opinions as I would not expect anyone to excuse mine.
I did not say that I do not believe paedophillia had anything to do with it, I said that I did not believe he had anything to do with her demise or death or as in he killed her to be blunt and then was moved back to her parents apartment, placed behind the sofa where cadaver odour and blood was found ? And the McCanns were okay with that? No, whatever happened to their daughter they are culpable & should be brought to task IMO

Careful,or OG might have just found their "patsy"?????? In this cloud of pervert(s)ing the course of justice!
And that would not be just for Madeleine.
IMO

I didn't say he did either but it certainly can't be ruled out as a possibility. As Sherlock Holmes would say, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

We can't go eliminating things that are possible until we have more information.

Would there not be a scent trail towards that way, the tracker dogs initially brought in did not go that far? If I recall it seemed they went in circles and stopped short of the supermarket.

Madeleine, I believe died in 5a after which she was moved to her place of "rest", I do not believe she was transported around from property to property.

I do believe at this time that CF had nothing to do with Madeleine's demise, I do believe that this is what "others" want us to think! Just my believable or unbelievable thoughts. howdy

by whodunit 18.06.16 21:06

1. Who are these 'others'?

2. Generally speaking, when mounting a distraction from the truth 'they' don't use a 'Sir' as the fall guy. Fall guys are the people who are used to distract from the truth about 'Sirs'.

That being said, I doubt CF is THE answer to this whole mystery. He's a crack in the door.

by Guest 18.06.16 21:32

@TonyBennett: I believe Carol Tranmer also had contacts inside or close to the Royal circle.

That's where my minds been a wandering - only haven't had the opportunity to wander very far at present.

NEWSFLASH - The late Sir Clement Freud, resident of Praia da Luz and friend of the McCanns, exposed as a serial paedophile, Lady Freud apologises, Operation Grange to investigate McCann-Freud links (Daily Telegraph 14 Jun 2016)