McCanns and MWT on ITV 'This Morning' at 11.45 (21 Feb) VIDEO Added

Madeleine went for a wander?

Closing the patio doors and the gates (wasn't there two? One was a child gate?) after her?

Otherwise Kate would have noticed?

Does he know the actual details of case?

What a waste of space.

Not  been formally cleared in their daughters disappearance ""...


This is what they are complaining about I bet?

The McCanns are CONSIDERING TAKING  ACTION, so have they or haven't they? 



Why is talking freely about it restricted, oh that's right because the McCanns sue all and sundry! 


What a load of rainbow droppings!

So, she just walked off then. Simple as that!
Everything the McCann's and gang have said about Thursday evening is wrong. There they all were checking the bedroom, Maddie's down the Tapas, no wonder they missed her!
I mean, it's so obvious!

Thanks @Hideho for the video.
And thanks everyone, good luck with whatever you do, nice to have "met" you all, enjoyed your company over the last year. 
Don't forget to turn the lights out.

So it was warm and the patio door was insecure? Does he mean it was open? (as opposed to 'not locked')

And he thinks Madeleine wandered. So, what happened next? It's very unlikely she wouldn't have been found over the next day or two with so many people out looking for her.

And, who opened the window and the shutters?

MWT thinks Madeleine wandered off on her own? 
Oh dear Mark, be very careful 
Not what the McCanns say..

So here on this morning Mark Williams Thomas concluding"Hearsay"as factual evidence spoken by the parents of Madeleine McCann in their statements,"where were you when Madeleine and Sean cried"the night before Madeleine disappeared?
Jayne Jensen and Anne Wiltshere,did they know Kate McCann(Apart from playing Tennis),they changed apartments in the time of being on vacation,early May 2007?
On one of the threads,Jayne Jensen rings the same Swansea number that Kate had phoned,but Two and a half hrs elapsed between these phone contacts(Wrong Number)?
There is also contact with an Estate agent in Portugal 2 May 2007,Peter Dodwell?
Mark Williams Thomas, claims credit for uncovering an unsavoury character after he had died,but his experience in detective work couldn't unmask him whilst he was alive,do not forget where(MWT)had worked for and resigned to proceed with his"New Career",who are yet to conclude on Operation stGrange?
No mention of the dogs,Eddie,Keela or Martin Grimes detective work whilst procuring actual spoken word as Gospel on the ITV network?

Are segments on This Morning with a guest really only 5 minutes normally?
Or do you think that the Mccann's were aware they were about to be discussed so decided to get their legal teams on the phone to This Morning and threaten them. Hence all this 'for legal reasons, can't be discussed' business. It does look make the Mccann's look stupid shutting down debate. How many other murder / 'loss' investigations have these sort of restrictions on them with regard to discussing them. 

Saying that... Mark's theory that she 'wandered around' is just a step away from 'having an accident / Goncalo' theory. 
Mark also didn't mention abduction theory for a change and left it open ended.

Snipped from a letter CMOMM sent in 2013:

ex- Surrey PC.     Mark Williams-Thomas.

Bringing the Force, and the Service, into Disrepute.

Mark Williams-Thomas’  name crops up in various places.  He bills himself as an “expert in Child abuse”, and refers back to his service in the Surrey Police, when it seems he was a DC for a short time and a Family Liaison Officer, also for a short time. [3]

It is recorded that he was prosecuted for Blackmail, one assumes by Surrey Officers, and although acquitted left the Force in 1990 under circumstances which he has never explained.  From what we can gather he completed only 11 or 12 years service.  Strangely he claims to have been re-employed by Surrey Police as a DC for one year in 2009, and also claims to have worked whilst in the police on child protection variously for 12 years, and for 20 years.  [1]  [2]  [3]  [4]  [5]

He previously claimed that he single-handedly brought the Savile case to the notice of the public. He has pontificated on several other cases and has said that he is engaged in viewing Child Pornography on the internet “for research purposes”.   He has not made it clear that he is among the persons authorised to do so.   [5]

But one of his more damaging claims is that whilst he was in Surrey Police he ‘led’ a number of murder and national paedophile investigations. [3]   [6]

Surrey, like all other forces, operates along ACPO guidelines for the investigation of serious crime, allocating even “simple”  murders to DI or DCI, overseen by Det Supt, and that a National Paedophile enquiry would be co-ordinated by the DChSupt, reporting to the ACC Crime and would be on a joint Inter-force Liaison group specially set up for the purpose.

For Mark Williams-Thomas to represent that he, as a junior DC personally ”led” such enquires must cause the general public of Surrey to doubt whether they have been given a proper professional service.  This is potentially damaging for the image of Surrey Police and of the Service as a whole.

Whilst anyone is entitled to carve out a professional life after retirement or resignation, and fantasists may not commit offences by their statements - unless thereby they obtain pecuniary advantage -  his activities seem to be beyond acceptable, and it may be that the Surrey police should be invited to consider issuing some form of explanatory statement, perhaps in the form of a Press release, to be used at the appropriate moments, in which the true facts about his service and real experience were set out.  [7]

 It cannot be in the public interest, especially in the currently extremely sensitive areas of child sexual abuse and paedophilia, for a person to make bogus claims about his expertise, based on a series of false statements about his service as a Surrey Police Officer.  




References

1 http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-investigator-mark-[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jimmy-savile-investigator-mark- williams-thomas-1509838#ixzz2SuTADf4z]williams-thomas-1509838#ixzz2SuTADf4z[/url]

"As a police officer I worked in the area of child protection for 20 years". 

2 [url=http://hardcastleintel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/criminal-fraud-on-massive- scale.html]http://hardcastleintel.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/criminal-fraud-on-massive- scale.html[/url]

Let us look at just one of those who has driven the hysteria over Sir James Savile and who claims he "exposed " the truth in his TV tabloid show "Exposure" when what he actually did was present a series of claims.
Mark Williams-Thomas is described repeatedly as a "child protection expert". Even Australia's respected ABC program 4 Corners introduced him as such.
He has no justification for making the claim and offering himself up as an expert on how to protect children.
The truth about Mark Williams-Thomas is this  he was a uniformed police officer on the beat for 9 years with the Surrey Police.
He graduated to Detective Constable - a role he held for only nine months before he left the Surrey Police under unexplained circumstances.
No detective constable in any police force around the world conducts police investigations. Rather they are part of a team with an Inspector (at the least) overseeing an inquiry. A DC could be answering phones, chasing up addresses, sitting in a car with another officer watching a suspect.
Yet the media has blithely accepted Williams-Thomas exaggerated claim that implies he was a major investigator on a number of important cases including the jailing of celebrity Jonathan King who oddly, was not the subject of any investigation until after Williams-Thomas left the force.
It would be prudent not to ask Williams-Thomas former colleagues at the Surrey Police what they think of him taking all the credit for the team's hard work.
This eight-month former DC then popped up with a company "advising' on child protection, a subject of which he had no specific knowledge of apart from his own self appointed, non-existent qualifications.
Two companies he set up were closed down.

3 http://www.menspeakers.co.uk/speakerdetail.asp?speakerid=212

"Bringing with him his wealth of experience as hands on former Detective, Mark Williams-Thomas is able to provide a new dimension to many of the criminological problems facing today's society – for example, how the police investigate major crime and the risk management of sex offenders in the community.”   His expertise includes in particular risk management and assessment of offenders and he now owns his own Child Protection and Risk Management Consultancy - WT Associates Ltd. Prior to setting up WT Associates in 2005, Mark was a police Detective specialising in major crime. He worked on or was in charge of some of the largest paedophile and murder investigations in the country, as well as being was one of only 10 specialist Family Liaison officers during his time in the police. Mark is also completing a Masters in Criminology at the University of Central England."


4 [url=http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas- jimmy-savile?cmp=twt_fd]http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/24/mark-williams-thomas- jimmy-savile?CMP=twt_fd[/url]

He began his police career in Surrey in 1989, where he was a detective and family liaison officer. He launched the high-profile investigation into the singer and record and TV producer Jonathan King in 2000, leading to his conviction in 2001 for abusing boys, and led a local inquiry into paedophilia.
Williams-Thomas has described himself as a "doer" during his 11 years in the force and was once told by a superior that he was a "nightmare to manage". 

5  http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/mark-williams-thomas -ma-pg-dig
Child Protection Expert & Criminologist
TV Presenter/Media
September 2005 – Present (8 years)

Consultant
Child Protection Consultant
2005 – 2011 (6 years)

Detective
Surrey Police
Public Company; 1001-5000 employees; Law Enforcement industry
2009 – 2010 (1 year)

[? ? ?]

 6 [url=http://williams-thomas.co.uk/To Catch a Paedophile]http://williams-thomas.co.uk/To%20Catch%20a%20Paedophile[/url]

I've spent the past 18 months shadowing the officers of Scotland Yard's Paedophile Unit and, despite being a former detective with more than 12 years of experience in child protection, I've been horrified by what I've seen.
It's not just the appalling nature of the photographic images that so alarms me; it's the number of them.


 7 http://www.williams-thomas.co.uk
Mark Williams Thomas (M.A) - TV Presenter, Criminologist & Child Protection Expert
Mark is a former police detective who has far-reaching experience of working at the centre of high profile investigations.
During Mark's police service, he specialised in child protection and major crime and he is renowned throughout the UK's police forces as well as the national media for his expertise in these areas.       

[my emphases]

Get'emGonçalo wrote:So, if MWT's theory is correct then that means Kate forgave the abductor, and did her whooshing curtains amateur dramatics, jemmied shutters thingy for Oprah for nothing.

Will MWT now be Carter-Rucked?

... I agree, a subtle shift in the mainstream narrative and a clear implication that the parents' version of events is dubious. I think there must be off the record briefings and the media are planting the seed of doubt...

What's_up_doc? wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:So, if MWT's theory is correct then that means Kate forgave the abductor, and did her whooshing curtains amateur dramatics, jemmied shutters thingy for Oprah for nothing.

Will MWT now be Carter-Rucked?

... I agree, a subtle shift in the mainstream narrative and a clear implication that the parents' version of events is dubious. I think there must be off the record briefings and the media are planting the seed of doubt...

.......... but is this going to be in the direction of the theory that she wandered off and had an accident, instead of one that her parents were involved?

Can someone ask MWT what he thinks about Eddie and Keela?

In a moment of exquisite irony Philip Schofield reassured the viewers that the little toddler who was exploring what he described as "the dangerous environment of the studio" was safe because he had "20 pairs of eyes watching him".

I swear Scofield did an inaudible gulp as he realised the item up ahead.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:McCanns -'This Morning' Mark Williams-Thomas 'For legal reasons cannot go into specific details'?







McCanns and MWT on ITV 'This Morning' at 11.45

There's a thread on facebook https://www.facebook.com/ThisMorning/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf



This Morning
1 hr ·
This May will mark 10 years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann while on holiday with her family in Portugal, and all these years later, Kate and Gerry McCann are still fighting. Not only to find their little girl - but also to clear their own name. In the last few days they've revealed they're launching a new legal battle and former detective Mark Williams-Thomas is here with an update, in his latest instalment of 'Unsolved'.

1,325 comments already and the post has only been up for an hour!

Thankee kindly for the video - short and sweet like a donkey's gallop.

Not worthy of much attention but just a few random points..

a)  He claims to have been in Praia da Luz investigating/covering the case very soon after Madeleine was reported missing.  During his illustrious career, I note that his 'independent child protection consultancy firm' [?], WT Associates, was established in 2005.  It what capacity was he there - as an investigative journalist an ex-policeman or as WT Associates?  Who commissioned him - I doubt if he did it for nothing.

b)  Scofield suggests the litigation must have had an impact on the search.  This is taken straight from the McCann text book.

c)   Mark Williams Thomas, when expounding his theory of a wandering Madeleine, says that when in Praia da Luz he checked the back door (I presume patio door) and it was definitely faulty.  That's a new twist to the tale, or is he unaware of the case detail?

d)  The most interesting aspect of the interview - for legal reasons, no one is allowed to talk about the case !?!  Firstly, you can't stop the public talking about anything - it's not against the law to express an opinion.  So what exactly is the true purpose of this brief interview with someone who is not connected in any way (at least no in an official capacity) to a review or investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

I venture to suggest this is a pre-organised but veiled threat to silence the populace on the subject of Madeleine McCann once and for good.  Why else emphasis the 'not allowed to talk about it'?

Utter nonsense - what are they going to do, sue the entire planet?  Tick tock tick tock......

BlueBag wrote:Can someone ask MWT what he thinks about Eddie and Keela?

Oh come on " for legal reasons " he wouldn't be able to comment !! 

Eddie the Keela who ???    

suzyjohnson wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:So, if MWT's theory is correct then that means Kate forgave the abductor, and did her whooshing curtains amateur dramatics, jemmied shutters thingy for Oprah for nothing.

Will MWT now be Carter-Rucked?

... I agree, a subtle shift in the mainstream narrative and a clear implication that the parents' version of events is dubious. I think there must be off the record briefings and the media are planting the seed of doubt...

.......... but is this going to be in the direction of the theory that she wandered off and had an accident, instead of one that her parents were involved?

Who knows but I do think he's questioning their version of events,  albeit in a very saccharine way. From this position it at least opens up the possibility that there wasn't an abduction and there was a cover up. I do believe that Maddie was a spirited child and she may have woken up on the night of May 1 and tried to get out,  unsuccessfully. I think that this is one of a number of possible scenarios and I'm leaning towards it because the alternatives are much darker - I do think this is a positive media shift in the right direction though...

Verdi wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:McCanns -'This Morning' Mark Williams-Thomas 'For legal reasons cannot go into specific details'?







McCanns and MWT on ITV 'This Morning' at 11.45

There's a thread on facebook https://www.facebook.com/ThisMorning/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf



This Morning
1 hr ·
This May will mark 10 years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann while on holiday with her family in Portugal, and all these years later, Kate and Gerry McCann are still fighting. Not only to find their little girl - but also to clear their own name. In the last few days they've revealed they're launching a new legal battle and former detective Mark Williams-Thomas is here with an update, in his latest instalment of 'Unsolved'.

1,325 comments already and the post has only been up for an hour!

Thankee kindly for the video - short and sweet like a donkey's gallop.

Not worthy of much attention but just a few random points..

a)  He claims to have been in Praia da Luz investigating/covering the case very soon after Madeleine was reported missing.  During his illustrious career, I note that his 'independent child protection consultancy firm' [?], WT Associates, was established in 2005.  It what capacity was he there - as an investigative journalist an ex-policeman or as WT Associates?  Who commissioned him - I doubt if he did it for nothing.

b)  Scofield suggests the litigation must have had an impact on the search.  This is taken straight from the McCann text book.

c)   Mark Williams Thomas, when expounding his theory of a wandering Madeleine, says that when in Praia da Luz he checked the back door (I presume patio door) and it was definitely faulty.  That's a new twist to the tale, or is he unaware of the case detail?

d)  The most interesting aspect of the interview - for legal reasons, no one is allowed to talk about the case !?!  Firstly, you can't stop the public talking about anything - it's not against the law to express an opinion.  So what exactly is the true purpose of this brief interview with someone who is not connected in any way (at least no in an official capacity) to a review or investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

I venture to suggest this is a pre-organised but veiled threat to silence the populace on the subject of Madeleine McCann once and for good.  Why else emphasis the 'not allowed to talk about it'?

Utter nonsense - what are they going to do, sue the entire planet?  Tick tock tick tock......

Lest you forget https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13499-carter-ruck-to-sue-everyone

This theory of MWT isn't new, he's spouted this nonsense before. It must be on here somewhere.

Who knows - maybe Mark Williams-Thomas discovered something when investigating the dangers of 'the dark side of the web' or when scraping chewing gum off pavements.

Surely he must have some business association with Jim Gamble past or present.

Courtesy of PeterMac:

Few thoughts

M W-T

1. It is NOT a new theory
2  Kate specifically says she considered it, and rejected it
3 There is no “evidence’ for it
4 There is ‘evidence’ against it.

I put “evidence" in quotes, for obvious reasons
Do not suppose that what follows is in any way supported by any credible evidence. It is based purely on what the various people have said.

The idea that Kate and Gerry would support this is not credible, since it would immediately prove that everything they both said about doors, gates, patio curtains, windows, shutters, whooshing curtains, and so on was demonstrably false.
It would leave only a tiny window of opportunity.
It must happen after GM and JW finish talking, say 9.15 / 20, and after Tanner has passed them. (Tannerman incidentally also becomes irrelevant, even if he existed - another reason the McCanns will never let this stand)
And it must happen before, say 9.55 - the time Kate leaves the pool reception
Between those outside times are further visits by parents ROB and MO to their own children, and allegedly to the McCanns’ apartment
They went out together but back separately thus making three further passes of the apartment, and JT returns, making 4.

Allowing 3 minutes for each pass - since we must count the time from the reception to the top of the road, and a little more for hearing gates open and close and patio doors sliding open and closed, that takes a further 12 minutes off the window.
A small child escaping will not do it so silently. 

Deducting the 12 minutes from the 30 minutes we are left with 18.
But this is NOT one block of 18 minutes. It is 4 separate blocks, each of a vanishingly small 4 or 5 minutes.

In that time Madeleine has to
wake
get out of bed,
search round the apartment for her parents
call out ?
pull open the patio curtain 
pull open the patio door
close the curtain
close the door
Open the child safety gate at the top of the stairs- (learning at night in the dark how to operate the child-proof locking mechanism - normally designed to be beyond the intellectual or motor ability of a 3 year old )
Close it behind her, operating the lock again
go down the stairs
Open the gate onto the street
Close it behind her
Escape into the night, rather than walking down to the Tapas bar, or be scooped up by the swarthy garlic monster, and go off without shouting or remonstrating.
And be seen by no one.

All this requires a sense of purpose, determination, and direction which is unusual for one so young

Anyone who has tried to get a 3 year old ready for play group also knows that this takes a significant finite time, even when an adult is doing the doors, curtains, and gates,

It is therefore not supported either by the ‘evidence’ given by the McCanns or the Tapas 7, nor by any other genuine evidence, or reasonable deduction.


It is therefore entirely in line with everything else M W-T has said about this case !

Thought I had read something similar on here about MWT theory

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7547-the-mark-williams-thomas-thread?highlight=Mark+Williams+Thomas

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:McCanns -'This Morning' Mark Williams-Thomas 'For legal reasons cannot go into specific details'?







McCanns and MWT on ITV 'This Morning' at 11.45

There's a thread on facebook https://www.facebook.com/ThisMorning/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE&fref=nf



This Morning
1 hr ·
This May will mark 10 years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann while on holiday with her family in Portugal, and all these years later, Kate and Gerry McCann are still fighting. Not only to find their little girl - but also to clear their own name. In the last few days they've revealed they're launching a new legal battle and former detective Mark Williams-Thomas is here with an update, in his latest instalment of 'Unsolved'.

1,325 comments already and the post has only been up for an hour!

Thankee kindly for the video - short and sweet like a donkey's gallop.

Not worthy of much attention but just a few random points..

a)  He claims to have been in Praia da Luz investigating/covering the case very soon after Madeleine was reported missing.  During his illustrious career, I note that his 'independent child protection consultancy firm' [?], WT Associates, was established in 2005.  It what capacity was he there - as an investigative journalist an ex-policeman or as WT Associates?  Who commissioned him - I doubt if he did it for nothing.

b)  Scofield suggests the litigation must have had an impact on the search.  This is taken straight from the McCann text book.

c)   Mark Williams Thomas, when expounding his theory of a wandering Madeleine, says that when in Praia da Luz he checked the back door (I presume patio door) and it was definitely faulty.  That's a new twist to the tale, or is he unaware of the case detail?

d)  The most interesting aspect of the interview - for legal reasons, no one is allowed to talk about the case !?!  Firstly, you can't stop the public talking about anything - it's not against the law to express an opinion.  So what exactly is the true purpose of this brief interview with someone who is not connected in any way (at least no in an official capacity) to a review or investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

I venture to suggest this is a pre-organised but veiled threat to silence the populace on the subject of Madeleine McCann once and for good.  Why else emphasis the 'not allowed to talk about it'?

Utter nonsense - what are they going to do, sue the entire planet?  Tick tock tick tock......

Lest you forget https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13499-carter-ruck-to-sue-everyone

Shiver shiver quake and quiver! 

Can they afford such reckless behaviour - working quietly behind the scenes pro-bono?

Time Mr Schofield grew a pair again.
 
Obviously a different Philip Schofield from the one who was prepared to wave a copy of the Elm Guest House list under David Cameron’s nose a few years back and try to question him about it.
 
For legal reasons? What a load of ----!

Doug D wrote:Time Mr Schofield grew a pair again.
 
Obviously a different Philip Schofield from the one who was prepared to wave a copy of the Elm Guest House list under David Cameron’s nose a few years back and try to question him about it.
 
For legal reasons? What a load of ----!

That was different. He was only the Prime Minister. This is the McCanns.

BlueBag wrote:Can someone ask MWT what he thinks about Eddie and Keela?

Mandela Effect.  They don't exist anymore in the current reality. 

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Doug D wrote:Time Mr Schofield grew a pair again.
 
Obviously a different Philip Schofield from the one who was prepared to wave a copy of the Elm Guest House list under David Cameron’s nose a few years back and try to question him about it.
 
For legal reasons? What a load of ----!

That was different. He was only the Prime Minister. This is the McCanns.

Is it ONLY the McCanns? 

Does anyone else think that they are being  pampered "guided" to question the SC authority?