Re: Norwegian ex-military detective claims to have solved Madeleine case

by crusader 29.06.24 9:41

The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 12:10

Hi deepeepee.

You posting that reference to the lisbon treaty has reminded me that GA called himself "a simple official". I find this incredibly offensive. Hes lost everything chasing these offenders. theres not many that would do that. There is absolutely nothing simple about him. Should he ever read this, I would respectfully suggest that he desists immediately from using this term and instead tries "exceptional". It is far more appropriate.

by Paddingtom 29.06.24 13:20

crusader wrote:The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

Most think dodgy handshakes are involved in all this. The other thing I find interesting is that consecutive governments have tried to cover this up. Started with TB, GB, DC/NC, TM,BJ, RS and will be KS too....

which suggests its not party political. The last time I can remember some scandal reaching across all the parties was old Jimmy.

perhaps you should ask what do they do?

by Ladyinred 29.06.24 14:02

Paddingtom wrote:Hi deepeepee.

You posting that reference to the lisbon treaty has reminded me that GA called himself "a simple official". I find this incredibly offensive. Hes lost everything chasing these offenders. theres not many that would do that. There is absolutely nothing simple about him. Should he ever read this, I would respectfully suggest that he desists immediately from using this term and instead tries "exceptional". It is far more appropriate.

He is a modest man and if that is how he describes himself, then it is his decision.

Maybe something got lost in translation.

by deepeepee 29.06.24 16:57

crusader wrote:The question is, why are the McCann's being protected, who are they and what do they know.

Seems to me that finding the answers to those questions would be the key to getting any kind of justice for Madeleine. its probably what makes this case so bizarre.
It surely goes beyond a cover up of an simple accident/crime. There are much more serious crimes that happen every day and they get nowhere near the amount of involvement from huges sectors of UK society and many other people.

My gut feeling is that so much has gone in to not solving this mystery (for whatever reason) that it is extremely unlikely that it will ever be resolved.

Ordinary (i.e. everyday) corruption is endemic in the so called justice system but here we are in a different level of corruption.

Sorry if that is a grim assessment but I can't see it any other way.

I would love to be proved wrong though, of course.

by Shash T 29.06.24 17:51

Jill Havern wrote:
Bluebagthepirate wrote:How do the dogs and the hire car fit into this?
Again, I haven't read the first part of the book...but there's a chapter on the dogs starting page 462, and the Huelva Plan starts on page 476.

But from what I understand from reading the last Volume, the McCanns hired the car then went on their trip to Huelva first to clock up mileage, then secretly retrieved the body from the 'sudden impulse' hiding place, then took her in the bag to one of the locations on the Hill. I think the clocking up of the mileage was to detract from their activities on the Hill. If the PJ thought they were hiding a body, it's a hell of a big space to look.

But I don't know for sure, cos I haven't read the first bit of the book.

If I'm wrong, then Peter will correct me.

Does the F D explain how the Mc's were able to secretly retrieve the body and secretly bury her on the hill without the P J or journalists noticing?

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.24 19:50

The McCanns had made a point of doing a photoshoot very early on of them jogging up the hill - and counting how long it took them - thereafter the PJ and journalists didn't think anything of them jogging up there all the time...it was just something they usually did as an activity, so they were left alone.

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

by Shash T 29.06.24 19:55

Thank you, Jill, for replying.

by Cake Lover 29.06.24 21:39

No wonder they didn't go searching, their time was spent on plotting and planning.

by **Jill Havern** 29.06.24 21:53

I don't think they were officially under suspicion at that point anyway, were they? It was the end of May when they hid the body, and they weren't made arguidos until September.

by **sharonl** 29.06.24 23:03

Correct me if I am wrong but I seem to recall someone, maybe Goncalo Amaral, saying that they suspected them from a very early stage but played along with them for a while until they bult up more evidence.

by **Jill Havern** 30.06.24 4:15

Yes, you're right...according to 'Truth of the Lie', things were already not starting to add up on the morning of 4th May and he also wrote about tapping all their phones.

https://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-3.html

by Shash T 30.06.24 12:46

I've posted a couple of times already and they seem to have been whooshed into the ether! If they turn up, my apologies for repeating myself.

So my news is that I have given in and bought the book/brick!

In my previous posts I tried to explain my difficulties and the remedy. (Me several hours later getting my daughter's help!) However, having slept on it, I will assume it's just me not being very computer savy and save you all the details.

I can't wait for the brick!

by **PeterMac** 30.06.24 15:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I have read the book three times
Brutally chopped it into three chunks in an attempt to overcome it
Annotated it, copied it, quoted from it, argued over it
Lain awake at night struggling to find the fatal flaw in the logic
But eventually decided that because of its length it needs serious editing.
A Précis in fact.
So after another sleepless night and several hours at the keyboard this morning,
Here it is.

SHE DIED

THEY LIED

********
Hope that helps

by Cake Lover 30.06.24 15:31

Have you put yourself through all of that to be unimpressed with the book? It's a shame if that's the case.

by **PeterMac** 30.06.24 15:59

Cake Lover wrote:Have you put yourself through all of that to be unimpressed with the book? It's a shame if that's the case.

Au contraire

It is almost incontrovertible proof of both, to a standard and in such detail that it would take a good (or unscrupulous) Defence lawyer
to insert even a reasonable doubt into either statement.
and remember that the defence has no witnesses.
There is no one who can supply a contrary scenario, no one who has ever, even after 17 years
to been able to explain how IT could have been done.
Not anyone,
Not Mendax Maximus Mitchell, nor Inventitative Journalist Clarke-Kent.
Every important aspect of their original story was destroyed within hours,
much of it in the clear sight of those watching the TV news that morning, (though not, strangely, of Clarke who was there)
And the second story was destroyed shortly after its invention, as were subsequent iterations.

The book does two things. It lists and details their lies,
AND then goes further, in part 3 to detail an impressive single handed CROP operation,
which produces unexpected results

by Cake Lover 30.06.24 16:03

Good. It might get things moving, and lure a few people into big mistakes.

by **Jill Havern** 30.06.24 16:18

Thank you Peter...this is so exciting! celebrate

by kaz 30.06.24 19:17

Nobody wants to find a dead cat - by Miri AF (substack.com)

A very plausible and interesting theory .

by Paddingtom 01.07.24 7:28

Jill and I have discussed my post no. 611 and she has put my mind at rest about revealing too much.
At this stage in the story, it probably doesnt matter.

So I have made a decision to give you a clue as I know it can be frustrating not knowing.
However, can I suggest that it may be a good idea to just say youve twigged what Im saying rather than announcing it, just incase and also to allow others to do their own detection? perhaps there is an appropriate emoji so we know youve worked it out?

Also please remeber, it is my guess that it is a porky....Ive tried to verify it, but Im whistling in the wind so this may all be completely pointless but I dont want to sway you either way, you must make up your own mind... can you capture some information or is there nothing to see here

But if you enjoy a mystery, see if you can see what Im talking about on page 783. .

by kaz 01.07.24 18:36

kaz wrote:Nobody wants to find a dead cat - by Miri AF (substack.com)

A very plausible and interesting theory .

Wrong place. Wrong time. Apologies

by Honesty 02.07.24 5:05

Paddingtom wrote:Hi Honesty,

Bernt does not feel the Smith sighting matters. He thinks it was probably a random. He is aware of all the theories and goes with the Random. He says GM wouldnt be so stupid to wander around PDL with a corpse.

He says tghe Smiths photofit was suppressed for years because it looked too much like gerry but feels that the Smiths could have been influenced by all the pictures of GM everywhere....very possibly....

He aslo says it was pointless carrying a decoy. I 100% disagree. There was an enormous point. To show an abductor and abductee on cctv. and also to setup the inference that they escaped by sea which links nicely with Sagresman turning up. Just my opinion. ps..he also says the CCTV at Estrela de Luz was not working, which to me is a bit irrelevant. The mccanns wouldnt have known it wasnt working and Goncalo id on record as saying hes devastated that his officers didnt get to the tape before it was overwritten......not, it was broken.....that it was overwritten. so it would appear it was working, but even if it wasnt, the mmccanns woiuldnt know that and wanted to get the abductor on cctv walking towards the beach. The more I test my theory, the more Im convinced its right. humble arent i? he he,

Thank you, Paddington. That's very interesting. If it's not spoiling it for others, where does he think the body was kept until it was 'disposed' of, to use GM's term.

by Bluebagthepirate 02.07.24 6:13

I disagree about a child being carried about for cctv.
You would see gerry on it as it appears he wasn't in disguise.
I know you think the pictures would be fuzzy but again I disagree as gerry would have no idea about the quality of each cctv camera.
It doesn't make sense and is unnecessary with Tannerman in the frame.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 7:38

Hi Honesty,

I think the information about where Bernt thinks she was temorarily stored is already out there. You know those raised tombs in graveyards. well you can slide the lids off. Bit morbid but they were desperate.

Hi Bluebagthepirate. Youre perfectly entitled to disagree...youre in good company.

I think it was Silentscope that told us Gerry had changed clothes during the evening...perhaps he spilt a drink on himself or perhaps he wanted to be wearing different clothes to the cctv.? just a thought.

Im trying to rember back to 2007 how good the quality of cctv was then and I really cant. All I can see is the Bulger case which was earlier and cctv might have improved. It is just my belief that it wasnt that great back in those days. maybe a change of clothes would be all that was needed?

Also, Im suspecting that Tannerman was only invented in order to distract the police from the disasterous smith sighting. i.e. to send Tannerman in a completely different direction and completely different time so they could say they were not the same person.

Ive tried to imagine a scenario where Tannerman was always going ti be used to send the police in the correct direction, but Im struggling to see how that could have worked although it would have been very useful.

For me it makes enormous sense for Tannerman to be the first clue....i.e. he went that way. Then CCtv captures him on his way to the beach. Then Sagresman takes the rap.

But until I can work that out, my belief is that Tannerman only came about because they wanted to keep the police away from the Smith sighting.

But like I say, you must make your own mind up.

by Bluebagthepirate 02.07.24 7:55

I don't even think it's certain the Smith sighting was that night.

When did they come forward?

by Bluebagthepirate 02.07.24 8:18

So the theory is that Gerry, after unexpectedly bumping into Jez walks around the streets by some bars in the hope of being caught on cctv of unknown fuzziness whilst hoping not to unexpectedly bump into other people by bars then change clothes and leave them on the bed?

I'm thinking not because it makes no sense whatsoever.

by crusader 02.07.24 8:22

If Madeleine died earlier in the week, what was the point of the Tannerman sighting.
There would be no reason to send the police in another direction.
It's overly complicated, the Smiths are the only people independent witnesses to see someone with a child on 3rd May.
If it was to try to show Madeleine was still alive on 3rd, job done.

by Paddingtom 02.07.24 8:27

Ah, I think that is one thing everyone agrees on. It was definately 3rd because some members of the smiths were going home the next day so remembered it and also the pub had a receipt for their drinks for 3rd.

Ive just looked at google earth again and I really cant imagine that Tannerman could have always been intended. He had to be a last minute invention to negate the smith sighting.

I dont know how to load the earth image to show everyone. so I will just have to explain as best I can.

The smith sighting was SW of 5A The most straightforward way to get there (and likely not be seen) was by turning left out the front door of 5A then straight across the dogleg junction. Past Estrela de Luz and then a southerly heading towards the smiths.

It would be pointless for the abductor to come out the back patio doors and then walk up the side of 5a and then turn left across the front of it. Far easir to go out the front door to start with. (or the window if you want to go down that route)

now then, there is no way an observer at the entrance to the tapas area could see him. The only way I can think that he would be seen would be from the apartments overlooking the dogleg junction.

I dont know what apartments they all had. If one of them had a dogleg junction apartment then maybe he was going to be seen from there. otherwise I can only think that he was invented to negate smithman.

Also, at this point I think serious minds were involved and I do not think all these plans were concocted by GM. I think it went far higher than that and they were used to having to come up with solutions to problems.

Does anyone know the occupants of the apartments overlooking the dogleg junction? R.1 de Maio?

Crusader, the point of Tannerman was to send the police in the opposite direction because having been seen by the smiths, they had to abandon plan A. the smiths could identify GM.

If tannerman was always intended, it could only have been to point the police towards the cctv.

by crusader 02.07.24 8:44

We know the Smiths saw someone with a child, so why would they need to abandon plan A, they didn't need to mention Tannerman once Gerry? had been seen by the Smiths.
This is their mistake in my opinion, they didn't have to prove anything, that was the police job.
All they had to do was say Madeleine had been abducted, nothing else.
The Smith sighting was either to try to prove an abduction or it was someone with their own child.

by Cake Lover 02.07.24 8:57

Perhaps the McCann's went overboard, and invented too much?

Latest topics