Leave No Stone Unturned

Don't know if this belongs here or elsewhere, so please move if necessary.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Euripides - Greek dramatist [circa. 485 - 406 BCE]


Leave No Stone Unturned .... the McCann campaign has used this phrase since the beginning, the time they claimed their daughter Madeleine was stolen from her bed on the night of Thursday 3rd May 2007, almost as though it's theirs by right, coined by their own tragic circumstances.

Not so I fear, the phrase has been in existence since before their preferred religion, Roman Catholicism was founded.  Yet they use the phrase as though by right of ownership, as they use their circumstances to claim unprecedented suffering at the loss of a child - not so I fear.  They have no claim above all mankind apart from perhaps being the most unbelievably well protected nobodies ever known throughout history.

This is the foremost reason for the continued pursuance for justice in the name of Madeleine McCann,  the little three year old innocent child who has been so badly abandonded by her family, friends and the UK establishment.

Forum member and I hope I can say forum friend, PeterMac, maintains the view that every aspect of the case of missing Madeleine McCann should be scrutinized to the ninth degree, leaving no stone unturned, to bleed it dry until there is nothing left to ponder.  I can't say I necessarily agree with this view because it opens the doors to crazy theorizing but who am I to contest the wisdom of a former UK police superintendent?  

So to the point of this thread.  Members, old and new alike, are invited to raise any issue or question they have on any topic whatsoever without fear of being off topic.  Issues raised can be thrashed out by interested parties until all avenues have been exhausted - who knows, as PeterMac maintains, something new might come to light to change the course of research.  No theory throughout history is set in stone, the stone needs to be turned over and over to find what lurks beneath.  

If any particular topic takes off pointing towards something worthy of notice and possible development to alter the conclusions of past research, then a new thread can be introduced to isolate from this general thread, or merged with an existing thread that would benefit from further input.

As said above, the thread can also be used for members old and new to pose questions or make a point that isn't the topic of an existing active thread.

Please make use of this new opening.  As PeterMac suggests - leave no stone unturned.

Hi, I would like to know if there was any evidence uncovered that showed that Gerry knew Robert Murat before the events of the day of the reporting of the disappearance. Im just remembering the comment GMc made when asked if he knew him..his reply was something like ..no comment.

I don’t believe any evidence was ever found, but why use seven words when a simple ‘no’ would have answered the question and put it to bed.
 
@ 34 secs
 
‘Did you know Robert Murat?’
 
‘I’m not going to comment on that’
 
 
I think that he didn’t want to outright lie and say ‘No’ as it could easily have come out if that was not the case, but the ridiculousness of this reply to a direct question just led the vast majority of people to believe that he did know RM beforehand.

I grew up in Luz and was a child when Madeleine 'disappeared' (but never met Robert Murat). I visited Salsalito numerous times and spent much of my life in Portugal with these family friends. I have a belief that the blue eyeshadow picture taken of Madeleine was taken at Salsalito, and without certainty, I recognise the blue shadow as having been associated with Ralph's wife. Is there any further information on this?

lunav3 wrote:I grew up in Luz and was a child when Madeleine 'disappeared' (but never met Robert Murat). I visited Salsalito numerous times and spent much of my life in Portugal with these family friends. I have a belief that the blue eyeshadow picture taken of Madeleine was taken at Salsalito, and without certainty, I recognise the blue shadow as having been associated with Ralph's wife. Is there any further information on this?

I would also like to add that Salsalito was renowned for being for 'adults only' and I have heard it been only suitable for 'over 14 year olds' yet I attended the premises hundreds of time as an actual child.

lunav3, firstly a very hearty to you!

I hope you don't mind, I've moved your first two posts over here because I consider your comments to be of great interest.  It's so helpful to have the benefit of first hand knowledge of any aspect that might move the forum's primary purpose forward, to develop theories so to speak, with informed commentary.

I too read a long while ago that at one time the Salsalito accommodation was designed for adult clientele only.  You say ..

"I visited Salsalito numerous times and spent much of my life in Portugal with these family friends. I have a belief that the blue eyeshadow picture taken of Madeleine was taken at Salsalito, and without certainty, I recognise the blue shadow as having been associated with Ralph's wife."

This is particularly interesting considering the question as to the provenance of the 'make-up' image, the subject of much concern and controversy.  I guess it depends how old you were at the time but you'd think if there was anything 'adult only' going on, you would have realised?

Please feel free to elaborate on your family connection and your visits to Salsalito - if you can of course.  Your contribuition will be wlecomed by many I'm sure, anything to finally resolve the question of the inappropriate image of Madeleine McCann with make-up.

Verdi wrote:lunav3, firstly a very hearty to you!

I hope you don't mind, I've moved your first two posts over here because I consider your comments to be of great interest.  It's so helpful to have the benefit of first hand knowledge of any aspect that might move the forum's primary purpose forward, to develop theories so to speak, with informed commentary.

I too read a long while ago that at one time the Salsalito accommodation was designed for adult clientele only.  You say ..

"I visited Salsalito numerous times and spent much of my life in Portugal with these family friends. I have a belief that the blue eyeshadow picture taken of Madeleine was taken at Salsalito, and without certainty, I recognise the blue shadow as having been associated with Ralph's wife."

This is particularly interesting considering the question as to the provenance of the 'make-up' image, the subject of much concern and controversy.  I guess it depends how old you were at the time but you'd think if there was anything 'adult only' going on, you would have realised?

Please feel free to elaborate on your family connection and your visits to Salito - if you can of course.  Your contribuition will be wlecomed by many I'm sure, anything to finally resolve the question of the inappropriate image of Madeleine McCann with make-up.

Not at all! 

Nothing upon my visits appeared to be 'inappropriate' to me. The premises is (or appears to be) entirely family-friendly but includes a bar (inappropriate for children maybe?). The background of the picture actually resembles (for me, but also recognised in the Salsalito case files) the entrance to the B&B.

lunav3 wrote:The background of the picture actually resembles (for me, but also recognised in the Salsalito case files) the entrance to the B&B.

Hello again lunav3!

If I'm reading you correctly, could you possibly upload the picture from the Salsalito case files in order to enable members to understand your point?  Alternatively, if you could just post the case file link and I will upload for you.

Thanks.!

NB:  I don't suppose you've got any family photographs of Salsalito have you.  That would really be useful !

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

Have you perchance ever read this..

Vanity Fair:  Unanswered Prayers

It is part of the odd dynamic of this story that when I phone Sally Eveleigh, Murat’s cousin, who also lives in Praia da Luz, her first remark is that she cannot utter a syllable about Murat without the O.K. of her British press agent, the famously rambunctious Max Clifford. And when his blessing is secured, her second is: “Wonderful, darling, see you shortly. Robert can’t talk to you, because he’s an arguido. But we’ll have a bit of a party, won’t we?”

When I arrive at her massive house, lined with rosy tile and Moroccan rugs, Sally greets me in floor-length blue voile trimmed with pretty stones. And the party includes Murat: five feet 10 inches, dark-haired, wearing beige trousers, serving us tea, wine, and cigarettes.

“All I can say,” says Murat, “is that I am innocent. There is no way I was at the resort that night. Full stop. I was in my mother’s kitchen until one a.m. Yes, we are a kitchen kind of family. I spent the night at the house.” As an arguido he cannot reveal more. But he does drive me around and point out the major landmarks of the case. “That’s the apartment from which Madeleine vanished,” he says. “That’s my mother’s villa.” The police ransacked the place four months ago and came up with nothing.

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

Can you throw any light on the veracity of this glossy Vanity Fair article?  In particular, reference to Max Clifford?

NB:  I see you're online - could you provide the link I asked for or upload the picture/s yourself ^^^?  Thanks!

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

Photo 3 shows the entrance. It is there where I can draw a resemblance of how the light may have shone in a photograph, but its only speculation. 

I knew nothing previously of her connection to Clifford, but all I know about him is negative.

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

By not answering the question, he answers the question.

pics of that villa plus make up pic give me the heebie jeebies

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

Have you perchance ever read this..

Vanity Fair:  Unanswered Prayers

It is part of the odd dynamic of this story that when I phone Sally Eveleigh, Murat’s cousin, who also lives in Praia da Luz, her first remark is that she cannot utter a syllable about Murat without the O.K. of her British press agent, the famously rambunctious Max Clifford. And when his blessing is secured, her second is: “Wonderful, darling, see you shortly. Robert can’t talk to you, because he’s an arguido. But we’ll have a bit of a party, won’t we?”

When I arrive at her massive house, lined with rosy tile and Moroccan rugs, Sally greets me in floor-length blue voile trimmed with pretty stones. And the party includes Murat: five feet 10 inches, dark-haired, wearing beige trousers, serving us tea, wine, and cigarettes.

“All I can say,” says Murat, “is that I am innocent. There is no way I was at the resort that night. Full stop. I was in my mother’s kitchen until one a.m. Yes, we are a kitchen kind of family. I spent the night at the house.” As an arguido he cannot reveal more. But he does drive me around and point out the major landmarks of the case. “That’s the apartment from which Madeleine vanished,” he says. “That’s my mother’s villa.” The police ransacked the place four months ago and came up with nothing.

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

Can you throw any light on the veracity of this glossy Vanity Fair article?  In particular, reference to Max Clifford?

NB:  I see you're online - could you provide the link I asked for or upload the picture/s yourself ^^^?  Thanks!

As for what this article says about Sally, it portrays her personality and temperament accurately. She was protective of Robert, and was horrified by the accusations. It seems unsurprising that it was at Salsalito when this 'information' was solicited. The rumours of Murat and Madeleine, and the subsequents about supposed beastiality indecencies meant I was not allowed on the premises if there was knowledge that he was there.

lunav3 wrote:As for what this article says about Sally, it portrays her personality and temperament accurately. She was protective of Robert, and was horrified by the accusations. It seems unsurprising that it was at Salsalito when this 'information' was solicited. The rumours of Murat and Madeleine, and the subsequents about supposed beastiality indecencies meant I was not allowed on the premises if there was knowledge that he was there.

Yikes !!!

Apart from what appears to be the ocre coloured exterior of Salisito and the background of the Madeleine image (if that's the implication here), do you/did you have reason to believe Madeleine McCann had at any time been a visitor - does it even seem possible to you?  If so, why would she have been there, was it with one or both her parents?  Was she/they invited by the Eveleighs?  Was she/they there accompanied by Robert Murat?

I find it very hard to believe that Madeleine McCann was at the Salisito establishment at any time, at least not without some concrete reason to make me think otherwise.
Sorry for asking so many questions - you can't just turn up on CMoMM with such intriguing information and get away with it .

Apologies, I never meant to come across as if I was inculcating in anyone a conspiracy, I posted in the original forum only because I had made the connection about them and the building complex Mr. Eveleigh's family's construction company had built, in which the  Krokowski's were said to have resided, and where the haplotype DNA of Tanner & Murat were found. And/or the confusion about the convenient story of the Eveleigh's beach bar and their correct account of the Krakowski's whereabouts.

I didn't know where to post and was wondering if anyone else thought why they might have had a reason to have met the McCann's prior to Madeleine's disappearance? Or why she may have been there? If the McCann's knew Robert Murat before the disappearance, might they have been in Robert's mother's house/Robert's cousin's house at any stage and why?

I agree, its barely speculative at best. Personally, I can't conceive of any possible reason why they might have been there, but I can't conceive of what possible reason Murat would have such an unstable account and yet such an involvement with the McCann's directly either. I said in my initial post I had never met Murat, my mother tells me today that we have met numerous times when I was a younger child, only when he was made a suspect were my parents concerned about his presence. 

Why did he change his story so many times about the night that Madeleine went missing & why won't he reveal where he drove for 700 km between the 12th-15th May? I came with more questions than answers, apologies!

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

I didn't mean to imply you were intending to incite a conspiracy theory.  As I said, the information you gave in your original post was bound to arouse curiosity - especially as no other has ever been in a position to comment by direct association.  Well done for that!

Apropos of your [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] comments, in fairness, you didn't make that the focus of your original post, the readers are not clairvoyant, it's understandable that there might be a misunderstanding.

Still, now you've made yourself clear, perhaps members might be able to or wish to comment on your musings.



Meanwhile if you have any further information as to your knowledge of Salsilito and it's inhabitants - I'm all ears!

holiday camp for peterfiles

What Happens to a Dead Body in the Ocean?

By Tanya Lewis - October 28, 2014

When a dead body decomposes in the ocean, scientists know little about what happens to it. To find out, some researchers performed an unusual experiment that involved dropping pig carcasses into the sea and watching them on video.

Lots of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], whether due to accidents, suicides or from being intentionally dumped there, but nobody really knows what happens to them, said Gail Anderson, a forensic entomologist at Simon Fraser University in Canada who led the unusual study.

Anderson and her team got a chance to find out, using the Victoria Experimental Network Under the Sea (VENUS), an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that allows scientists to take video and other measurements via the Internet. With that equipment, all they needed was a body. [[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]]

"Pigs are the best models for humans," Anderson told Live Science. They're roughly the right size for a human body; they have the same kind of gut bacteria, and they're relatively hairless, she said.

In the study, published Oct. 20 in the journal [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Anderson and her team used a remotely operated submarine to drop three pig carcasses into the Saanich Inlet, a body of salt water near Vancouver Island, British Columbia, at a depth of 330 feet (100 meters).

The researchers monitored what happened to the pig bodies using the live VENUS cameras, which they could control from anywhere with an Internet connection, and sensors that could measure oxygen levels, temperature, pressure, salinity and other factors. At the end of the study, the scientists collected the bones for further examination.


It didn't take long for scavengers to find the pigs. Shrimp, Dungeness crabs and squat lobsters all arrived and started munching on the bodies; a shark even came to feed on one of the pig corpses.Scavengers ate the first two bodies down to the bones within a month, but they took months to pick the third one clean.


The third body likely took so much longer due to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the researchers found.
The Saanich Inlet is a low-oxygen environment, and has no oxygen during some times of the year, Anderson said. When the researchers dropped the first two pigs into the water, the oxygen levels were about the same, but when scientists dropped the third body in, the levels were lower.


The big scavengers (Dungeness crab and shrimp) need more oxygen to smaller creatures like the squat lobsters. But the smaller animals' mouths aren't strong enough to break the skin of the pigs. So as long as the carcass entered the water when oxygen conditions were tolerable, the larger animals would feed, opening the bodies up for smaller critters and the squat lobsters, Anderson said. But when oxygen was low, the larger animals didn't come, and the smaller animals couldn't feed.

"Now we have a very good idea of how bodies break down underwater," Anderson said. This kind of research helps solve mysteries such as the "[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]" found wearing running shoes that have washed up along the West Coast in recent years. In fact, it's quite normal for ocean scavengers to gnaw off feet, and the running shoes simply make the body parts float, Anderson said.

Knowing how bodies degrade in the ocean can give rescue divers a sense of what to look for, as well as manage the expectations of family members of those lost at sea, Anderson said.

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

Whilst we await news from companies house on total transparency past and present - the future of the fund, a reminder of it's birth..

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

One might say the immaculate conception!

'Incorporated on 15th May 2007' - just twelve days, that's less than two weeks, after the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  Rumour has it, the fund was primarily established to finance an (I'm careful not to say the) ongoing search for Madeleine - a search supplementary to the case investigation so diligently pursued by the Portuguese police from the time and day they were alerted on the night of 3rd May 2007.

Well, so far - eleven and half years later, there's been little or no evidence of an independent search undertaken by the McCanns or any of their team bar the hiring of a few very dodgy private detective agencies to create sightings ranging from the the shores of Britain across the great divide as far as the Antipodes.

Very astute of Team McCann to know that little Madeleine wouldn't be found, thus requiring a limited company to finance an ongoing search, an indefinate search.  All part of the campaign strategy - the wider agenda I guess.

Makes yer think dunnit?

A bit more perspective on the timeline:
 
GM second interview on Thursday 10^th May.
No second interview in files for KM, but she was in Portimao as well on 10^th as she signed an authority for a DNA swab.
 
The company was then set up over the weekend and ready for signatures by the following Tuesday (15^th). The original 'objects' clause and later amendment were as follows:
 
Signed Tuesday 15^th May 2007 and then filed at Companies House 20^th June 2007
  
3        The objects of the Foundation are
 
            3 1 1              To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
 
            3 1 2              To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice


          3 1 3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family; and
 
 

            3 2                If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.


.............................................................


The objects were later amended to drop off the:
 
            3 1 3 To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family; and
 
bit.
 
Circulated to Directors 29^th November 2011 and then signed and filed at Companies House 17^th December 2011
 
Objects
 
2B       The objects of the Foundation are
 
            2B 1 1              To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
 
            2B 1 2              To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice
 
   
            2B 2                 If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Flossy wrote:If this isn't an abduction I don't believe that multiple people could be involved in a cover up. The more people you have involved the more likely it is that the truth will surface.

Not again! That old chestnut, must be the 1001st time new members here have come up with that one.

It's been said time and again...

(a) That the history of hoaxes and cover-ups the world over is laden with large groups of people who have managed to keep dark and dirty secrets under wraps for long periods of time. Jimmy Savile?

(b) That in this case all that was necessary for an abduction hoax to be perpetrated was an agreement between the Tapas 9, one or two crèche nannies and certain staff from Mark Warner, and

(c) that no way would 50-plus PR staff (including the Head of the government media spin unit), lawyers, consular and embassy staff, secret service agencies, police officers, criminal profilers, staff from MI5, Special Branch, Control Risks Group and CEOP, counselling agencies, Mark Warner managers and others descend on Praia da Luz within the first week unless this was a high-level, government-organised cover up.

Get real  


.

Tony Bennett wrote:Not again! That old chestnut, must be the 1001st time new members here have come up with that one.

Quite so, it makes you wonder if folk come here and comment just to be contrary. 

It's a bit like saying .... 'I can't believe abuse is possible - a parent couldn't possibly do such a thing'.

The severity of the crime is the key, not mawkish sentimentality. 

There is only one very serious crime that could possibly explain the level of protection we have witnessed in this case and that seed was sown by the McCanns themselves from the very beginning.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Flossy wrote:If this isn't an abduction I don't believe that multiple people could be involved in a cover up. The more people you have involved the more likely it is that the truth will surface.

Not again! That old chestnut, must be the 1001st time new members here have come up with that one.

It's been said time and again...

(a) That the history of hoaxes and cover-ups the world over is laden with large groups of people who have managed to keep dark and dirty secrets under wraps for long periods of time. Jimmy Savile?

(b) That in this case all that was necessary for an abduction hoax to be perpetrated was an agreement between the Tapas 9, one or two crèche nannies and certain staff from Mark Warner, and

(c) that no way would 50-plus PR staff (including the Head of the government media spin unit), lawyers, consular and embassy staff, secret service agencies, police officers, criminal profilers, staff from MI5, Special Branch, Control Risks Group and CEOP, counselling agencies, Mark Warner managers and others descend on Praia da Luz within the first week unless this was a high-level, government-organised cover up.

Get real  


.

Agreed Tony, then there's also the superinaudibles

How many people worked at Bletchley Park during WWII ?  How many knew about it ?  How many betrayed it ? (Even to their own families.)
The late Baroness Trumpington had one of the best cover stories.   She told inquisitive young officers that she worked in the department which decided on Medals and Awards . . .

How many people have ever admitted they were spooks ?  Either for 5 or 6.
How many genuine members of the SAS have ever said they were.  

How many people know the truth about Dr Kelly, or Mike Todd, or Dunblane ?
In every case LOTS.