Death before May 3rd media reaction

by Phoebe 14.05.17 11:09

Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

by dartinghero 14.05.17 15:19

Phoebe wrote:Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

None of the detail of anything alternative has been reported on that I have seen and as you say, "alternatives" automatically have other words attached (in the manner of "pregnant Cheryl" for so long in the DM laughat

).

I think it will be a while before the alternative date theory hits the mainstream because it automatically suggests certain other things - it's kind of a part of the theory that it wasn't an abduction, a sub theory if you like. I think more people are seeing the "alternatives" now though - courtesy of here, RDH etc.
It would be interesting to have a thread where we could note what our friends/family/acquaintances who don't go on cmomm etc think. Specifically, it would be interesting to know what "alternatives" are filtering through and overlap with the research on here.

by **sharonl** 14.05.17 18:12

Phoebe wrote:Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

Exactly. It must have been of great importance to anyone involved in a cover-up that they convinced us all that, as the media keep telling us, "Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar".

I believe that a number of witnesses were later planted to back up the May 3rd story and mislead the investigation. ie, stop the PJ from asking too many questions about the previous days.

Although it seems to some that Smith was an independent witness who pointed the finger at Gerry, to me it appears that this was a deliberate plot to get the PJ, and the public, to focus on May 3rd, and boy has that worked in their favour. Smith was never a risk to Gerry because Gerry had his alibis for May 3rd, firstly chatting with Jez Wilkins and then being present at the tapas bar. But how clever it was to get Smith to claim that he saw a man almost identical to Tannerman and then distance himself from the McCanns by saying that it may have been Gerry that he had seen. This completely fooled the investigation and caused confusion. Without Smith, the PJ may well have looked more closely at the McCanns activities in the earlier days of that holiday. Remember Smith had a meeting with Brian Kennedy and he failed to return to Portugal to testify. A very cunning and deceptive move imo.

by Rob Royston 14.05.17 19:20

sharonl wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

Exactly. It must have been of great importance to anyone involved in a cover-up that they convinced us all that, as the media keep telling us, "Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar".

I believe that a number of witnesses were later planted to back up the May 3rd story and mislead the investigation. ie, stop the PJ from asking too many questions about the previous days.

Although it seems to some that Smith was an independent witness who pointed the finger at Gerry, to me it appears that this was a deliberate plot to get the PJ, and the public, to focus on May 3rd, and boy has that worked in their favour. Smith was never a risk to Gerry because Gerry had his alibis for May 3rd, firstly chatting with Jez Wilkins and then being present at the tapas bar. But how clever it was to get Smith to claim that he saw a man almost identical to Tannerman and then distance himself from the McCanns by saying that it may have been Gerry that he had seen. This completely fooled the investigation and caused confusion. Without Smith, the PJ may well have looked more closely at the McCanns activities in the earlier days of that holiday. Remember Smith had a meeting with Brian Kennedy and he failed to return to Portugal to testify. A very cunning and deceptive move imo.

Almost as cunning and deceptive as your comment. When I read through it I was asking myself, "How did I not see it like this before?"
Then I looked again and realised why. You keep referring to Smith but it was not just Smith, it was Mr & Mrs Smith and another seven family members. As far as I can deduce at least four of them have given statements to the police, in Portugal and back home in Ireland.

by **sharonl** 14.05.17 19:54

Rob Royston wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

Exactly. It must have been of great importance to anyone involved in a cover-up that they convinced us all that, as the media keep telling us, "Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar".

I believe that a number of witnesses were later planted to back up the May 3rd story and mislead the investigation. ie, stop the PJ from asking too many questions about the previous days.

Although it seems to some that Smith was an independent witness who pointed the finger at Gerry, to me it appears that this was a deliberate plot to get the PJ, and the public, to focus on May 3rd, and boy has that worked in their favour. Smith was never a risk to Gerry because Gerry had his alibis for May 3rd, firstly chatting with Jez Wilkins and then being present at the tapas bar. But how clever it was to get Smith to claim that he saw a man almost identical to Tannerman and then distance himself from the McCanns by saying that it may have been Gerry that he had seen. This completely fooled the investigation and caused confusion. Without Smith, the PJ may well have looked more closely at the McCanns activities in the earlier days of that holiday. Remember Smith had a meeting with Brian Kennedy and he failed to return to Portugal to testify. A very cunning and deceptive move imo.
Almost as cunning and deceptive as your comment. When I read through it I was asking myself, "How did I not see it like this before?"
Then I looked again and realised why. You keep referring to Smith but it was not just Smith, it was Mr & Mrs Smith and another seven family members. As far as I can deduce at least four of them have given statements to the police, in Portugal and back home in Ireland.

I am not sure that's quite correct. Yes there were other members of the family, but some of them were just young children. Even so, only three of these gave statements, and after they returned to the UK and after Rob Murat was arrested. In addition to that, Martin Smith met up with Brian Kennedy and failed to return to Portugal to testify. Compare Smiths description of the man he saw to that of Tannerman, virtually identical.

by Liz Eagles 14.05.17 19:54

Rob Royston wrote:
sharonl wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Now that the flurry surrounding the 10th anniversary and 14th birthday is over it is interesting to note what was absent. All claims that the abduction fable is untrue automatically attract adjectives such as "shocking" and "outrageous" yet I found no reference in the latest rash of reportage to what must surely be the most "shocking" of all hypotheses - that Madeleine's death occurred before May 3rd. This forum and films by Richard D. Hall have been openly exploring this possibility yet the media seems determined to ignore this development, concentrating instead on purple-clad women and "links" to burglar alarms in Oxidare. This can only mean the theory of something having happened before the 3rd is such a threat that it is too dangerous to even mention.

Exactly. It must have been of great importance to anyone involved in a cover-up that they convinced us all that, as the media keep telling us, "Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd whilst her parents dined at the nearby Tapas bar".

I believe that a number of witnesses were later planted to back up the May 3rd story and mislead the investigation. ie, stop the PJ from asking too many questions about the previous days.

Although it seems to some that Smith was an independent witness who pointed the finger at Gerry, to me it appears that this was a deliberate plot to get the PJ, and the public, to focus on May 3rd, and boy has that worked in their favour. Smith was never a risk to Gerry because Gerry had his alibis for May 3rd, firstly chatting with Jez Wilkins and then being present at the tapas bar. But how clever it was to get Smith to claim that he saw a man almost identical to Tannerman and then distance himself from the McCanns by saying that it may have been Gerry that he had seen. This completely fooled the investigation and caused confusion. Without Smith, the PJ may well have looked more closely at the McCanns activities in the earlier days of that holiday. Remember Smith had a meeting with Brian Kennedy and he failed to return to Portugal to testify. A very cunning and deceptive move imo.
Almost as cunning and deceptive as your comment. When I read through it I was asking myself, "How did I not see it like this before?"
Then I looked again and realised why. You keep referring to Smith but it was not just Smith, it was Mr & Mrs Smith and another seven family members. As far as I can deduce at least four of them have given statements to the police, in Portugal and back home in Ireland.

I'm non-plussed as to why you state Sharonl's comments are cunning and deceptive. We're all adults on this forum and able to make up our own minds. Sharonl's opinion is just that, an opinion.

That Smith sighting sure does scratch at the skin and to me it doesn't ring true. Whether I share Sharonl's opinion of the honesty/dishonesty of the Smith sighting is of little consequence other than I too find the Smith sighting dubious and would like to see it investigated and validated.

One would hope that the PJ and Operation Grange would investigate without fear or favour.

by Guest 14.05.17 20:41

Is it common practice for the UK media to be influenced by social media when reporting on an active criminal investigation?

I don't recall ever seeing such an instance - surely it would be shambolic!

by Liz Eagles 14.05.17 20:47

Verdi wrote:Is it common practice for the UK media to be influenced by social media when reporting on an active criminal investigation?

I don't recall ever seeing such an instance - surely it would be shambolic!

I have no idea Verdi, right now I'm going to make a pot of coffee before I watch Grantchester, wishing I were 30 years younger and married to the most handsome vicar on the planet big grin

by Phoebe 14.05.17 22:03

Verdi wrote:Is it common practice for the UK media to be influenced by social media when reporting on an active criminal investigation?

I don't recall ever seeing such an instance - surely it would be shambolic!

They were influenced enough by what Brenda Leyland was saying to send Martin Brunt to doorstep her live on camera and to keep airing that encounter repeatedly. Therefore, I would assume that the answer to your question, when it comes to this case, is yes, given that Brenda R.I.P. was commenting on an "active criminal investigation". U.K media is also evidently influenced enough to give column space to Synnott's "research" on social media trolls.

by Guest 14.05.17 23:27

Phoebe wrote:
Verdi wrote:Is it common practice for the UK media to be influenced by social media when reporting on an active criminal investigation?

I don't recall ever seeing such an instance - surely it would be shambolic!
They were influenced enough by what Brenda Leyland was saying to send Martin Brunt to doorstep her live on camera and to keep airing that encounter repeatedly. Therefore, I would assume that the answer to your question, when it comes to this case, is yes, given that Brenda R.I.P. was commenting on an "active criminal investigation". U.K media is also evidently influenced enough to give column space to Synnott's "research" on social media trolls.

You are missing the point.