'ROGUE OF THE DAY'

Sir Richard Branson - Billionaire

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



Knighted in March 2000 for 'services to entrepreneurship' - roughly translated means being a power crazy hypocritical capitalist that strives to take over just about every corner of the market at home and abroad

Affectionately known by me as Tricky Dicky
Patron of 'Missing People Charity' - the place that harbours Kate McCann as 'an ambassador'

Owner of the exclusive Kensington Roof Gardens, loaned to the McCanns to host a money raising function

Owner of Virgin airlines who flew Gerry McCann club class to the US of A in July 2007

Pledged/donated (depending  which report you read) 100,000 quid to pay the McCanns legal bills and/or to swell the reward on offer (again depending which report you read)

Owner of Necker Island and Moskito Island (ironically part of the British Virgin Islands), exclusive retreats for the wealthy and influential

More skeletons in the closet than Benjamin Franklin

All round bad egg

This thread needs to brought to a halt now, as far as I can see it makes no inroads to the ultimate aim of this forum.

tnb wrote:This thread needs to brought to a halt now, as far as I can see it makes no inroads to the ultimate aim of this forum.

I beg to differ. There are so many VIPS ( so called) involved in this case. There has to be a reason, a link.

Cmaryholmes wrote:

tnb wrote:This thread needs to brought to a halt now, as far as I can see it makes no inroads to the ultimate aim of this forum.

I beg to differ. There are so many VIPS ( so called) involved in this case. There has to be a reason, a link.

Are you suggesting so called VIP's were involved in the death (albeit accidental) and occultation of Madeleine? If so please post a verifiable link.

Not at all. I would suggest that the Mccanns had an unusual level of support from 'VIPs', which raises many questions.

Cmaryholmes wrote:Not at all. I would suggest that the Mccanns had an unusual level of support from 'VIPs', which raises many questions.

I agree, they did have an unusual level of support from certain individuals, but your claim they are involved is beyond me. Some may say their support was truely altruistic, while others, myself included, seen it as nothing more than a promotional scam to suit their own ends, namely, prosperity and social standing. Now think about it, if the McCann's were convicted tomorow? What would these individuals say? "I thought I was doing the right thing at the time"
I will now bow out of this thread as I see no logic in it, but just to lighten the mood a little....I heard Richard Branson dropped a pound coin last week....it hit him on the back of the neck. BOOM BOOM!!

Lady Catherine Meyer CBE

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

Lady Catherine 'my husband stole my children' Meyer with humanitarian Bob Geldof KBE

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Tuesday 8th May 2007..

As we were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair, in her final days as wife of the prime minister (her husband Tony would announce his resignation two days later and leave office the following month). She was
kind and helpful. She told me it was amazing but encouraging that Madeleine was still the first topic on the news every night.


This was only five days the same again.’ She mentioned that a friend of hers, Catherine Meyer, was the founder of PACT – Parents and Abducted Children Together – and said she would get in touch with her on my behalf. Doubtless I asked Cherie if there was anything the British government could offer the Portuguese in the way of resources to assist or expedite the search for Madeleine. It wasn’t my intention to make her feel ncomfortable by asking this, and I’m sure I didn’t. We were just so desperate I couldn’t let the opportunity go by.
---------


Lady Catherine Meyer - founder of the charity Parents and Abducted Children Together (PACT!)

Married to Sir Christopher Meyer KCMG - former British ambassador to the US of A, former ambassador to Germany and former chairman of the Press Complaints Commission (2003-2009).

In October 1997, she married Christopher Meyer on the eve of his departure to Washington to become British Ambassador to the United States. During their five and a half years in America, she campaigned against international parental child abduction alongside a number of American parents in a similar situation with Germany.

In the UK, Meyer instigated adjournment debates in the House of Commons on her case and the issue of parental child abduction in general across frontiers. In 2005, the Parliamentary Ombudsman upheld her complaint of maladministration against the then Lord Chancellor's Department with regard to the handling of her case.

Since 2003 and her return to the UK from America, she has broadened PACT's mission to embrace children who go missing for any reason. This has led to close cooperation with the Home Office, the police, CEOP and other charities.

On 25 May 2011, International Missing Children's Day, the Home Office announced major changes to child protection services in the UK, in particular the passing of responsibility for missing, abducted and exploited children to the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency (CEOP). This was the culmination of a ten-year lobbying campaign. Meyer's role was recognised in the Home Office press release<sup>.

[Wikipedia]






[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]</sup>

Wow  after only 5 days she's receiving calls from the PM's wife but not only that KM is asking the government if there's any resources to aid the Portugese. Surely this is unheard of after such a short time??
JohnyT

Dave Edgar

Cheshire resident Dave Edgar was a retired police Detective Inspector. The Cheshire businessman Brian Kennedy, who was responsible for managing the McCanns’ controversial private investigation, appointed him in November 2008 to lead the investigation. This followed the debacle of the previous investigation led by rogue and crook Kevin Halligen, who will appear on ‘Rogue of the Day’ before long. Edgar didn’t look for Madeleine but was paid to carry out his master’s directions. His initial task was to ‘beef up’ a TV documentary released by Channel 4 in May 2009, which simply regurgitated, uncritically, the McCanns’ claims that Madeleine had been abducted. He was wheeled out during the documentary to proclaim the McCanns ‘totally innocent’. When the documentary shed light on a major contradiction between two key witnesses, he calmly brushed this aside by saying: ‘You always get discrepancies when witnesses try to remember the same event’. Throughout his work for the McCanns, he was noted as promoting any old line that suited the moment. Thus, when the McCanns were promoting an especially unlikely story that Madeleine had been abducted by a Victoria Beckham-lookalike on a yacht bound for Australia, Edgar threw caution to the wind and calmly told a TV press conference: “The person seen by Jane Tanner on the night Madeleine disappeared might have been a woman, not a man”. At this point, his rapidly vanishing credibility slumped right down to zero.

Carter-Ruck


Why did so many solicitors, including "The most feared Libel Lawyers in the world"  fail to ask any penetrating questions before going to the High Court, leaving the hapless Mrs Martorell to admit that she was simply repeating what she had been told by the two principle suspects in the case ?

When she admitted she had no evidence to support her affidavit even Tugandhat J mused on the record about the possible legal situation if it were ever shown that Madeleine had not been abducted.

Why have all the professionals involved in this case believed everything, without apparently making proper enquiries, or as with the accountants and solicitors of the Fund, doing Due Diligence on the fraudsters who have serially stolen money from the fund ?

And why have they never sought to get the money back ?

His Right Reverend Paypalness Benedict XV1

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

A very personal hands-on visit to Vatican City by Gerry and Kate McCann..





Has any other parent of a missing child (missing for less than a month) had the privilege of a ceremonious visit to the Vatican and an audience with a Pope?

They didn't have a private audience with the Pope.

They attended the weekly outdoor Papal audience along with tens of thousands of others.

They had seats near the edge of the "walkabout" route (in the VIP section probably) and as the Pope passed by they were briefly introduced and the Pope blessed a picture of Madeleine that was handed to him.

It was all over in a few seconds.

The Pope walked about a bit more, had similar exchanges with many other people and was then off for lunch.

The PR was milked for all it was worth.

Ah yes "Rome was preparing itself " wasn't it Kate 

Verdi wrote:His Right Reverend Paypalness Benedict XV1

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

Has any other parent of a missing child (missing for less than a month) had the privilege of a ceremonious visit to the Vatican and an audience with a Pope?

@ Verdi       I am very glad that, so early in this thread, someone has added the evil Pope Benedict XVI to the new 'Rogue of the Day' feature. If you hadn't have done so, I would have done mysef at the earliest opportunity.

He is most certainly an 'A list' rogue, and he gave great succour and encouragement to the McCanns, lending his superstardom to their cause back in May 2007, almost elevating it to a divine cause. Clarence Mitchell claimed personal credit for arranging this trip with R.C. Archbishop Cormac Murphy O'Connor (who I think may have been Irish?).

This also gives me the opportunity here to give a link to a brilliant 80-minute documentary released on 21 December last year onto YouTube - unfortunately minus the segments that the Vatican ordered Google to ut out before they would allow it back on YouTube. Here is the link:

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

I am recommending it because this is a film of real, professional quality. It features the main men who brought out the outrageous systematic cover-up of child sexual abise by hundreds of thousands of homosexual priests - much of it covered up personally by Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI both when he wasa Cardinal in Germany and as Pope.  It also gives a couple of graphic, authentic accounts of how, in a couple of instances, these homosexuals and paedophiles set about the initial corruption of their victims - and then apply brutal threats to keep their victims silent. If any member or guest here has been abused, watching these two individuals (one female, one male) recount their personal histories will no doubt be painful and bring back awful memories, with tears of sympathy and anger.    

I would like to make a couple of points. Near the beginning of the film, the narrator deals with the issue of why nearly all this wicked, industrial-scale abuse of children takes place in the Roman Catholic Church and not in Protestant churches. The reason is simple; it's because the Roman Catholic system is wholly contrary to the Biblical Christianity rediscovered in the Reformation. It is a deeply anti-Christian, anti-Biblical system, and I join with those who wrote the Preface to the Authorised Version, when they presented it to King James I in 1611. They referred to the Popes (plural) as 'The Antichrist' and 'The Man of Sin'.

There's one small issue I have with the film. It was made after Pope Francis was elected Pope, and they seem to think he might bring a brighter future to the utterly discredited institution of the Papacy.

I very much doubt it

Sorry about that - got stuck in the posting process.  To continue, read on..

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

NB:  Who's going to have the patience and guts to take on the Clarence Mitchell profile - not me!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

Ray Wyre

Ray Wyre and his wife made friends of the McCanns and in January 2008 invited them over for the day. In her book on the case, Kate McCann wrote adoringly of the ‘delicious banoffee pie’ made by Mrs Wyre. In the days after Madeleine was reported missing, and without any special evidence available to him, Ray Wyre wrote articles for leading British newspapers proclaiming his ‘certainty’ that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile. But actually, Wyre might well have been a paedophile himself. Because his name appears on the notorious ‘guest list’ of visitors to Elm House, the West London guest house where various celebrities and politicians were provided with young boys for sex. Wyre’s ‘claim to fame’ was as Director of the Gracewell Centre for the treatment of sex-offenders. But he himself was a sex-and witchcraft-obsessed psychologist who ran conferences promoting the widespread practice of ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ scares - for which he received much public criticism.

Yes!

Remarkable as it may seem, the amazing Ray Wyre was not only...

* the world's greatest expert on sex offenders
* the inventor of his unique 'masturbation satiation' technique
* the creator of at least three three-year-long Ritual Satanic Abuse scares, one in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland
* the employer of 'Sally', his long-term volunteer who routinely sent love letters to over 200 serial killers and notorious murderers, including Ian Brady
* a serial sex- and witchcraft-obsessive
* a guest at the paedophile guest house, Elm House, in west London, and
* friend of the McCanns...

...but also one of the nation's top poker gamblers:
   
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

Ray Wyre

Ray Wyre and his wife made friends of the McCanns and in January 2008 invited them over for the day. In her book on the case, Kate McCann wrote adoringly of the ‘delicious banoffee pie’ made by Mrs Wyre. In the days after Madeleine was reported missing, and without any special evidence available to him, Ray Wyre wrote articles for leading British newspapers proclaiming his ‘certainty’ that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile. But actually, Wyre might well have been a paedophile himself. Because his name appears on the notorious ‘guest list’ of visitors to Elm House, the West London guest house where various celebrities and politicians were provided with young boys for sex. Wyre’s ‘claim to fame’ was as Director of the Gracewell Centre for the treatment of sex-offenders. But he himself was a sex-and witchcraft-obsessed psychologist who ran conferences promoting the widespread practice of ‘Satanic ritual abuse’ scares - for which he received much public criticism.

This may be of interest, but it's a long read.   It's from the Criminal  Justice Bll, recorded in the April 1991 Hansard

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

As it's a long article it will be beneficial to post an abstract that's relative to this thread

Snipped
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I agree with what the right reverend Prelate has just said. He has been right in identifying one of the major problems which the prison service has at the moment. A very substantial number of sex offenders have to be held and there is the increasing size of the Rule 43 population. One of the elements in the Strangeways situation was the venomous attacks which were made on Rule 43 prisoners in Manchester. Therefore, there is no doubt in my view that this is an issue which deserves high priority from the Government.
I had the opportunity of visiting the Gracewell Clinic quite recently. I was very impressed by what is being done there. I recognise that the clinic rightly charges substantial fees for those who go there. Notwithstanding it runs at a deficit. The cost of its therapy programme is infinitely greater than the total cost of any service that it can provide for any particular probation service. I was impressed both by the quality of the staff and some of the offenders who were there. They were quite open as to the offences for which they had been convicted by the courts. They had committed offences of considerable seriousness. Undoubtedly. if the Gracewell Clinic had not existed the offenders would have been sent to prison for very substantial periods.
I do not want to make any ambitious claims on behalf of the clinic. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David, in saying that it is a great pity that no member of the Government has visited the Gracewell Clinic. I recognise the pressure on Ministers. I know that it sounds as though one is being unreasonable when one makes a complaint of this kind. The fact is that the entire project has been founded by a single individual. He has put into this clinic hundreds of thousands of pounds of his own money. Unless the clinic has some form of support from public funding in the future, there is a real risk over a period of time that the Gracewell Clinic might not exist. That would be a tragedy so far as our criminal justice system is concerned.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   


There is a lot more information there, but I will leave those who have the time and patience to read it at their leisure  :wink4:

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

A short extract from the above link:


A CLINIC for sex offenders where four Roman Catholic priests are being treated at a cost of pounds 450 a week each to their diocese has abandoned plans to run a therapy centre for sexually abused children next door.
The proposal by the Gracewell Institute in Birmingham was dropped this month after Baroness Faithfull, a former trustee, refused permission for her name to be given to the planned unit.

Couldn't make it up, could you?

Just to come back for a moment to an earlier 'Rogue of the Day - Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor.

The Guardian article below explains how the Vatican ordered cuts to his book; they didn't like his comments about how the church had dealt with the homosexual paedophile priest, Michael Hill:

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

This article by the National Secular Society questions why the Crown Prosecution Service abandoned its prosecution of Cardinal O'Connor, given that he had allegedly committed a criminal offence by not reporting his concerns about Hill to the police:

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

Below, Cardimal O'Connor gives his pathetic excuses for having done nothing about Hill for decades:    

Statement by Archbishop Cormac Murphy-O'Connor regarding the case of Father Michael Hill, dated 19 July 2000: Fr Michael Hill, a priest of Arundel and Brighton diocese, was convicted in 1997 of indecent assaults on children and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. Following that conviction I made a statement on 9 May 1997 to express my sadness and my concern for those who had suffered through his actions, and to offer them whatever care and pastoral support the diocese is able to offer. My primary reaction throughout has been one of distress and concern for the victims who have been so scarred by the abuse of a priest. Although care and pastoral support are available to the victims I know that nothing can undo the damage that has been done. This is my greatest sadness. Questions were also raised in some media reports at that time about what the diocese, and I as the bishop, had known about Fr Hill's actions prior to his conviction. To set the record straight, I wrote an article in the 'Catholic Herald' in May 1997. In the light of similar questions being raised now, I restate below the position as explained in that article, expanded in one or two places. In some media reports the implication has been drawn that I was aware at the time of the offences of Fr Hill that have since come to light and responded by moving him from parish to parish. This is simply not true. After Fr Hill had completed a normal term at Merstham, he was appointed to Godalming. Following a period of disagreement and unrest in the parish (wholly unconnected with any question of child abuse) I realised that this was not a good appointment and in January 1981 moved him to Heathfield. I have stated openly and clearly that some issues regarding Fr Hill's behaviour were raised with me prior to 1983. My reaction was to challenge him and require him to undergo assessment and counselling. It was only in 1983 that allegations of a specific and more serious nature were made and I immediately took action: removing Fr Hill from the parish, and ensuring he received further professional assessment and later therapy. In the light of the assessment I withdrew his license to work in a parish and for 18 months he worked in a commercial office. The advice I had received in 1983 included an option that he might work in some restricted pastoral role outside of a parish. In 1985 I decided to follow this option and he was offered an industrial chaplaincy. Of course it is true to say that if the strict procedures for child protection that are now in place in Arundel and Brighton Diocese had been in operation then, the matter would have been handled differently. I maintain that with the facts then known to me the decisions made at that time in his regard were not irresponsible. Proceeding from this particular case, I would like to make two comments. First of all, it is always quite difficult to look back over 20 years or so and to recall attitudes to child abuse that were common-place at that time. With hindsight, what still surprises me is the amount of genuine ignorance that there was, not only among bishops and priests, but also in society at large, including the medical profession, about the compulsive nature of child abuse. To my knowledge no direction or instruction on this matter was given in seminary formation at that time, and doctors and psychiatrists to whom I have spoken have also admitted their comparative ignorance, at that time, of these issues. This is not to excuse but rather to explain the inadequate measures taken in times past, not only for child protection but also for truly confident and accurate assessment by professional people. It is now clear that child abuse is not rarely encountered in the community at large and this distressing fact is now more openly recognised. The second point I want to stress is to renew my endorsement of the very strict guidelines for child protection which were issued by the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales in 1994. The procedures introduced in the Dioceses are a recognition that the Church accepts its responsibilities in this area and is determined that any inadequate reaction in the past will not be repeated in the future.
The full text of the Bishops' Conference document: 'Child Abuse - Pastoral and Procedural Guidelines 1994 - click on: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I met Michael Hill a few times in the 1980s.

He was chaplain at Gatwick.

He used to see off the handicapped groups that were travelling to Lourdes.

He is one of the three Catholic priests I met that ended up in prison for child abuse, the other two were parish priests - both in Birmingham.

Part of my decision to no longer be a Catholic.... part... that and knowing a lot about the real history of the Church.

BlueBag wrote:I met Michael Hill a few times in the 1980s.

He was chaplain at Gatwick.

He used to see off the handicapped groups that were travelling to Lourdes.

He is one of the three Catholic priests I met that ended up in prison for child abuse, the other two were parish priests - both in Birmingham.

Part of my decision to no longer be a Catholic.... part... that and knowing a lot about the real history of the Church.

That's very relevant.
The fact Kate went to the Vatican to see Benedict, of all the popes, this german one is by far the creepiest and has been linked to child sex crimes. This could be reason he stepped down from Papacy without having to die first.

Tony Bennett wrote:Responding to Irish Catholic Priests & organised sex abuse in conjunction with Political elite & Elm House

Imo, McCanns offered their daughter up for a ritual sacrifice. They could be members of a much large group, that might even extend beyond the UK to the US, and more specifically to Washington. All members of the group benefit from the sacrifice - such as gaining political power (its how politicians control the electorate and why they're voted for by an "unaware and complicit citizenry", or they gain wealth and status - such as professional status as medical doctors or actual wealth such as via millions of pounds worth of donations). These groups are bound by silence or face death. They believe in spells and magic and consider themselves "enlightened" or more knowledgeable compared to the hoi polloi or general population. They are offered high powered positions in government, military intelligence, the BBC and media (as journalists, actors, presenters, Hollywood), and are also working in social services, schools and anywhere else vulnerable children (eg orphans) are seen.


That's why, to decipher the puzzle that is this case, one must first disregard anything, and I mean anything said by members of this group. This includes the creche workers, the t9 and other British guests, some who must have been high ranking masons (Director of steel company, MoD doctor, City bankers & financiers, IVF research). The testimony of the cleaner on the afternoon of Sunday 29th April, though is likely very truthful, may not be accurate as we do not know if she saw Madeleine or another similar girl. If it was her, then I'd say Madeleine was dead shortly thereafter or by the evening. This was same time Murat made plans to return to Luz from UK and got on a plane that same day at midnight (was this flight pre-booked?).


I believe the free-masonic group needed to simulate the abduction of a pre-school girl, the daughter of a GP and a heart specialist, even though she was to be sacrificed before her 4th birthday, possibly on arrival in Portugal. The latter would explain lack of DNA evidence, no toothbrush etc). As sick and risky as it sounds, I do think an abduction had to be simulated on the same day an alleged abduction was reported. I say this because free-masons use "spells" or formulae to tell a lie and, ultimately and more importantly, to prevent exposure. Keep in mind at all times, that their main aim is to prevent exposure at all costs - the penalty for this in their circles is death. So, though she was possibly dead by night of Sunday 29th April 2007, the "abduction" was not scheduled until 2/3 days later on night of Thursday 3rd May. The cadaver dogs indicate that the corpse was kept in the apartment for some time, but perhaps for these 3 days (?), during which time rigor mortis would have set in. 

Gerry was then to "take out" the corpse to a location along the beach road, as described in Smith Sighting. There, he could have met Murat who had a car, and possibly took the corpse to another location locally, possibly his own home, but likely somewhere Murat as a local, knew would be well-hidden. Could even have been Freud's home, but this is speculation based on Kate's alleged dream, where the rocky hilltop was (reportedly?)opposite Freud's beach house. Perhaps she was merely indicating two separate events: a burial and Freuds involvement. As I said, this is pure speculation, but I am inclined to think that Gerry was aided by Murat in hiding the body, possibly locally that night.( Also, at this point in time, I don't know if this connection with the dream and Freud is fabricated by media).
Other reasons for this hypothesis, relate to Mr Peter Hyatt's witness statement analysis: Kate repeatedly says her daughter was "taken" rather than she was "kidnapped". This is clearly a euphemism probably because she is lying...but why? 
I conclude that she is still telling the truth because Madeleine was "taken out" of the apartment by someone - but the masonic magic trickery - to make a big lie become the apparent incontrovertible truth - is that, the person  doing the "taking" was Gerry. Madeleine was possibly already dead by then. 
The Smithson sighting also alludes to a feeling the carried child was very cold because normal measures to cover a child such as a blanket/slippers, were not taken, that the man carrying her seemed uncomfortable (much heavier and stiffer than usual), and lastly that her arms were hanging stiffly at her sides as the Smithsons were expecting the child to be hugging the parent or have arms around his neck (as can be seen in footage when Gerry carries the twin off the plane). Apart from the Smithson Sighting being witnessed by a large number of people at exactly the same time (what luck!), they further bolstered the sighting by saying the man in question looked like Gerry and had his body movements. I don't think any members of the McCann ring, would admitted to this. In fact, they would have muddied the waters by giving falsified details in order to dis-inform the Police.
Gerry then (allegedly) walked along to a hidden cove possibly to meet Murat, because the risk of him being seen walking to Murat's house was much riskier (he later refused to comment on whether he knew Murat at all), and perhaps Murat would also advise against this strategy or even strongly protest at such an idea. Murat had a car and may even have had "disposal experience" so knew how to avoid cadaverine (surgical gloves, gown?) from being left in car/home. Likely, body was hidden elsewhere, though. This part of the story is muddy and can only be clarified by Gerry and possibly also Murat.

When the initial media attention died down, McCanns decided the coast was relatively clear, or as clear as it would ever get, and so decided to collect the body from its unknown location for burial on 28th May 2007 This is same day they hired a car from Faro airport. Then, possibly just drove north, beyond Lisbon to farmland and mountains, until they found a "nice spot" that was secluded and would not attract attention. Why would they take such a risk and not just allow a third party to get rid of body? maybe because neither Murat nor an unknown aide wanted any further involvement; or that Kate wanted to see Madeleine for last time and give her a "proper" burial. I think its this emotion that almost led Kate to confess to police while Gerry was  in Washington, because she wanted Police to retrieve her daughter's body so she could return to UK with it for a church burial.  (Also, note how in the video appeal, Kate appeals to the alleged "abductor" and how Gerry visibly winces - may be its because he feels Kate is referring to him). May be Kate was "controlled" by a paedophile ring into giving her daughter to them - there are cases of this, where single mothers have been led to allow controlling boyfriends to sexually abuse their toddlers. I've heard circumstantial evidence of some free-masons offering their babies for sacrifice before a birthday, such as 4th birthday.


The above is based on what I have read about free-masonic ritual abuse, about the McCann case, based on intuition and video statement analysis of the McCanns and based on personal knowledge of how free-masons tell lies (including the British MSM): As Det. Amaral well knows - there has to be some truth to the lie. 
That is, Kate did not actually lie - Madeleine had actually been "taken" from the apartment that night. But not at all in the way people imagine was an abduction simulated!. It could be this act that kept the lie in place for so long. As with all free-masonic lies, it can be just one small crack in the spell, that brings it all crashing down. In the Mccann case, if this happens the British State will either scapegoat the McCanns or have them suicided. Wonder how many others in this conspiracy will have to be suicided off to stop them from "blabbing"?

Also, note that in 2008, Irish (catholic) actor Liam Neeson, starred in film, "Taken" about a daughter being abducted for sex trafficking,  and was released just a year after McCanns were made arguidos (suspects). Peculiar still, that this film should also choose to use the same euphemism Kate chooses to use - "taken" instead of "kidnapped". The latter being the normal parlance for UK English speakers.
Was this film used to programme the masses into thinking both terms were interchangeable or similar? when actually they' re not? The thesaurus lists the following words under "kidnapped", and any of these words would've accurately described what allegedly happened: "abducted, seized, snatched, captured, stolen" or even "held for ransom, taken hostage".

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

Thank you Nina for this link. I have tweeted it on @RoadrunnerA
It is very specific. Wonder if this is really the child's last resting place. 

I've seen "dogs don't lie" quite a lot when reading about this case - how about "google doesn't lie". As, we usually find what we're looking for when we google for information.

Erroll Garner wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:Responding to Irish Catholic Priests & organised sex abuse in conjunction with Political elite & Elm House

Imo, McCanns offered their daughter up for a ritual sacrifice.

Imo, they didn't.

There is zero evidence for any such opinion.