Re: 50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you

by Judge Mental 02.01.11 16:27

listener wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:

Who's the Daddy now? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

Now where have we seen somebody reading about going on a bear hunt?

Was it Kate McCann's reading material, allegedly for Madeleine? A book which thankfully was not torn up for one of their timelines? thinking

by Sopheira_Charosi 20.01.11 13:51

Very interesting 50 facts.

Obrigada.

by Guest 20.01.11 13:53

Sopheira_Charosi wrote:Very interesting 50 facts.

Obrigada.

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

by butterfly23 01.10.12 22:41

should be a way of getting this list of facts into media- but , as it seems anyone who says anything that upsets the mccanns story gets sued...i imagine no papers would dare try to publish it !!! however- i do think if the mccanns claim their version of events was true...they would be glad to have this published so they could explain each & every one of them...thus dispelling all us doubters...!!! surely they would appreciate this chance to have the story back on the front page...??? would they not like to explain away the issues that are causing more and more people to wonder what the true story is & what really happened to their daughter !!!!?

by ChuckieD 02.10.12 13:51

40. Asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted, Dr Gerald McCann said: ‘It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.

This actually made me feel physically sick. I did not know he'd said this. Vile human beings.

by Amber 03.03.17 17:15

A brilliant piece of research !

In an interview, when Gerry McCann was accused of killing his child he responded with "find the body and prove we killed her."

"WE ?" Surely it should be "I?"

by JohnyT 03.03.17 18:39

Any links to that interview please as I would like to read it.
Thanks
johnyT

by Guest 03.03.17 19:44

This is a transcript from the interview with Ian Woods at Sky News

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.

by JohnyT 03.03.17 20:16

Thanks but I meant the comment that Amber put. I would like to read that transcript/interview.
JohnyT

by **sandancer** 03.03.17 21:51

melisande wrote:This is a transcript from the interview with Ian Woods at Sky News

IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you'd got to your overdraft limit and you'd gone beyond it and there was nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but, you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on.

"To put support mechanisms in place including our legal team "

Why at this early stage was a legal team required ??

"The response with the fund ......And once these were in place it helped us to focus on what we really needed to focus on ."

He fails to tell us what they really needed to focus on ?

Surely that focus should have been on one thing , finding their daughter ?

Are a legal team and a fund necessary to gain focus ?

by Alba1 19.05.17 19:58

In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?

by **Jill Havern** 19.05.17 21:31

Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?

Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

by **Tony Bennett** 19.05.17 21:33

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?
Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

A CATS (Registration of Child Abuse: Case Administration and Tracking System) file, numbered 19309, was found when background checks of the McCanns were made. It has never been made public on what precise date that file was opened, and why.

Operation Task was the operation set up by Leicestershire Police to deal with the UK arm of the Madeleine McCann investigation back in May 2007. It is said that to complement Operation Task, a Case Administration and Tracking System (CATS) file was set up, “in case any investigation by Childrens or Social Services was needed”.

It is said by some that the file on the McCanns, CATS 19309, once contained material which has since been removed.
AFAIK there is no evidence that this is the case, but then again there is no absolute proof that this didn’t happen.

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

by Guest 19.05.17 21:46

Tony Bennett wrote:

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

You would hope the Gasper statements triggered some kind of action since?

I'm sure they followed it up?

Surely?

by Guest 19.05.17 23:50

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.
You would hope the Gasper statements triggered some kind of action since?

I'm sure they followed it up?

Surely?

Substitute followed with covered.

by Alba1 20.05.17 0:24

Thanks for the links [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Loving Mom 29.05.17 14:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Alba1 wrote:In fact number 5, what is a CATS file?
Hi Alba1, here's a couple of links:

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

A CATS (Registration of Child Abuse: Case Administration and Tracking System) file, numbered 19309, was found when background checks of the McCanns were made. It has never been made public on what precise date that file was opened, and why.

Operation Task was the operation set up by Leicestershire Police to deal with the UK arm of the Madeleine McCann investigation back in May 2007. It is said that to complement Operation Task, a Case Administration and Tracking System (CATS) file was set up, “in case any investigation by Childrens or Social Services was needed”.

It is said by some that the file on the McCanns, CATS 19309, once contained material which has since been removed.
AFAIK there is no evidence that this is the case, but then again there is no absolute proof that this didn’t happen.

Leicestershire Police claimed that the McCanns were not known to the police or social services before they reported Madeleine missing.

Wondering if CATS changed names, nothing is coming up when I google CATS. It has probably been checked but I was wanted to see if it is possible to get some idea of when other nearby CATS case numbers may have been reported (to help get an idea of when Gerry's was reported...

by **sharonl** 29.05.17 22:03

I just googled the CATS system and got this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then I went to the "about us/Partners" tab and got this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Scroll down too see why I gave up at that point aaagh

by **sharonl** 19.11.18 18:26

Bumping for new members

by Baffled 26.11.18 7:01

Could I intrude and ask some questions about these facts please?
The problem is that I have come across a site that thoroughly debunks them.
It claims:

How accurate is the 50 Facts Leaflet?
Following a thorough analysis of the 50 "facts", our fully sourced rebuttal proves the following:-

27 (54%) of the "Facts" are false.
11 (22%) of the "Facts" contain significant misquotations.
16 (32%) of the "Facts" are misleading or contain misrepresentations of the facts.
1 (2%) of the "Facts" is a rumour - even the source claims it to be so.
4 (8%) of the "Facts" are Irrelevant - unfortunately, three of these are the only claims which happen to be true!
2 (4%) of the "Facts" contain unsubstantiated claims.
3 (6%) of the "Facts" are based upon quotes which have been taken out of context. Many of these are also MISquotes.

It also claims:

Conclusion - Facts that the media aren't telling us?
We are told by the MMRG - which have "close links" with the Madeleine Foundation - that this leaflet contains "50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you". In fact, we have proven that the media (and mainly the British media) was the source for 68% of these "facts".

The home page lists your 50 facts and the text on each fact can be clicked to take you to a full rebuttal of these facts.

It's very convincing.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Your views please?

by Jonal 26.11.18 19:48

Baffled wrote:
It's very convincing.

Convincing only to the naive. When you have been around the case for a while you will become aware of what are known as 'antis' and 'pros'. Sometimes those pretending to be 'anti' turn out to be 'pro'.

Have you heard of a person called Clarence Mitchell? Kate was very taken with him. His job - full-time, for many years, paid by a benefactor to the McCanns - was to promote the McCanns to the media in the best light and try to debunk anything that threatened this promotion. Such as the 50 facts. It's not unimaginable that he (or others like him, family members perhaps) would set up a website that pretends to be impartial but those with experience of this sad case can see is not.

I would like to suggest you stick around CMoMM, there are members who will do their best to unbaffle you. Search threads related to whichever facts are giving you the problem. Did you read Dr Amaral's book?

by Baffled 26.11.18 20:38

Thanks for your reply, and I would certainly like to become unbaffled!
This is the only place on the net where someone who is neutral can ask questions without getting caned if they go against the grain.

The problem I'm having with this is that site doesn't seem to have anything to do with Clarence Mitchell, and seems to be very accurate.

It sources all it's rebuttals and shows the sources of the MMRG, which turn out to be dubious, so without anyone refuting it's content I'm stuck with facts over hearsay.

Will no one have a look and refute even one of it's rebuttals so that I can see a different reality?

I've read some of Amarals book and did watch his documentary a few years back, and I wasn't very convinced. He's certainly very genuine and believes his conclusions, but I feel these are more opinions than facts.

That rebuttals site also lists many, many inaccuracies in a book by Pat Brown, that was banned. That too is fully sourced and shows all the mistakes that Pat Brown made.

So on one hand I've got almost everyone believing Amarals version that Maddie died in the aprtment, but when I look at their sources of information, they turn out to be dubious, and on the other hand I've got a fully sourced website that actually makes a lot more sense.

The MMRG basically claim to have listed 50 facts but these facts have their sources in Media.

The way I see it is that BOTH the MSM AND the Alternative media have done a lot of harm to this case.

Could I perhaps get a comment on fact 1 of the MMRG:

The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open. The windtow had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

And the fully sourced rebuttal here:

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

I would appreciate it, thanks.

by Guest 26.11.18 20:53

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

Are you, or are you representing, the venue you are so anxious for members of CMoMM to read - or are you here just for fun?

A serious question.

by Baffled 27.11.18 1:17

Serious answer: I'm trying to establish a balanced view on the Maddie case, but there is so much disinformation across the net.
One of the biggest sources of this disinformation seems to be those 50 'facts'.

And it becomes even more curious when nobody wants to address this.

Look at it this way...the MMRG have stated that these are 50 facts, but they haven't provided sources for those facts, and another site has refuted those facts AND provided sources, not only of their rebuttals but also of the most likely source that the MMRG got their information from.

So it can't be considered unreasonable of me to ask how the MMRG established their facts.

At the moment I have 50 'facts' that no one wants to provide sources for, and 50 rebuttals that no one wants to address.

Why not?

Does the MMRG wish people to accept their word despite evidence to the contrary?

It's not an unreasonable request.

Perhaps you might be prepared to answer?

ps: Regarding Anti McCann or Pro McCann, I am neither, but I am pro truth and I am pro Maddie.
If we are expected to accept information at face value, without question, then we can't have Maddies best interests at heart.
Also, if those 50 facts are indeed facts, then all I'm asking for is the proof. Why the relluctance to provide it?

by Baffled 27.11.18 2:36

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

Are you, or are you representing, the venue you are so anxious for members of CMoMM to read - or are you here just for fun?

A serious question.

Verdi, Further to my previous response:

I've had a think about this and I find your answer quite sinister and disturbing.

It seems you're happy to allow people to present data as facts, but when asked to substantiate those facts, you come out with a response like that.

Why is it so difficult, and why are you so reluctant to substantiate what you believe to be facts?

They are either facts or they aren't.

If they are facts, then you won't have any difficulty in substantiating them, but if you know that they cannot be substantiated, then you are willfully disseminating hatred.

Which one is it.....can you substantiate those 'facts' or not?

I thought this was a fair forum, but that response of yours has just shown it up in a different light.

Is this an honest forum or not? Is it's purpose to spread lies and hatred or not?

I am not anxious for people to look at that other site, but it would take up too much space to present their facts here, so it's far easier to have you look at what they have already written elsewhere.

By giving a response like you did, it seems that you do not want other members to have even an inclination that those facts may be wrong.

I feel that you are being dishonest.

by Guest 27.11.18 11:19

Baffled wrote:Verdi, Further to my previous response:

I've had a think about this and I find your answer quite sinister and disturbing.

By giving a response like you did, it seems that you do not want other members to have even an inclination that those facts may be wrong.

I feel that you are being dishonest.

Oh dear!

Firstly I will point out, I played no part in the in the production of the '50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you' so I'm in no position to satisfy your concerns one way or the other.

The site you link to has been in existence for a very very long time, if you carefully observe you will realise it was created by a force (or source if you prefer) close to the McCann faction. It is designed to provide that proverbial 'explanation for anything the police might find' - in the infamous words of the government media monitor extraordinaire! It therefore doesn't, in it's own right, warrant close scrutiny - or indeed, notice of any description whatsoever.

As I say, the site has been there forever (I'm astonished you've only just stumbled upon it) and now, should any reader not already have seen it, you have now provided the link which gives all and sundry the opportunity to read and judge for themselves.

If however you, as an individual and forum member would like to take issue with the content of this thread yourself, then feel free so to do. Personally, I don't have a great deal of time for semantics, so much evil can be woven by word play.

In Verdi Veritas !

by Phoebe 27.11.18 11:42

@ Baffled. Can I suggest you read the Tapas 9 statements in the files and then compare to the "rebuttals" offered by the S.T.M.s (Save The McCanns aka Stop The Myths)
The very first rebuttal re. how the "abductor" got in should result in a cacophony of warning bells.
S.T.Ms. claims that the McCanns immediately admitted leaving the patio door unlocked. One quick read of Gerry's 1st statement will show this is nonsense and that he claimed to have entered by using his key to unlock the front door. Why would he do so if the patio door was open. He then changed his story when it became obvious that no intruder had come through the bedroom window.
Still on point 1 - There is ample video evidence of the Portuguese C.S.I. team dusting the outside shutters for fingerprints. What, are we to believe they neglected to check the outside of the window at the same time - despite claims that this was how the intruder gained entry!!!!
I could go on, and on, and on, to "rebut the rebuttals" but, strewth, give me patience!!!!

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.18 13:40

In all the long, 9-year history of CMOMM, it is hard to recall one previous instance of a person hostile to this forum, and all it stands for, to have been quite so transparent in his malign intentions towards it, as is the case of ‘Baffled’. His mask is so transparent, it may as well be made of clear glass.

Let us call a spade a spade. Baffled is an out-and -out liar.

He writes: “This [CMOMM] is the only place on the net where someone who is neutral can ask questions…”

There’s one lie. Baffled is not ‘neutral’.

Baffled writes: “I've read some of Amaral’s book and did watch his documentary a few years back, and I wasn't very convinced…he believes his conclusions, but I feel these are more opinions than facts”.

So why does Baffled bother to come here?

He writes: “When I look at the sources of information [of people like Amaral, MMRG and Pat Brown], they turn out to be dubious”, but of the ‘Stop the Myths’ site, he tells us it is “a fully sourced website that actually makes a lot more sense”.

It is pretty clear where Baffled is coming from.

There is no more ‘fully sourced’ analysis on the internet than the e-book by former Police Superintendent PeterMac. Peter is renowned for referencing precisely every fact and every point he makes. Baffled knows of its existence. But he chooses not to mention it.

He writes: “The MMRG’s facts have their sources in media”.

Hmm. Some possibly, but most of them are sourced from the PJ files, Amaral’s book and other written sources.

If we look at Baffled’s post today, we can see the venom dripping out of his pen as he writes to Verdi:

“Your answer quite sinister and disturbing…if [MMRG’s facts] are facts, then you won't have any difficulty in substantiating them, but if you know that they cannot be substantiated, then you are willfully disseminating hatred.

Baffled claims: “I thought this was a fair forum…your response has just shown it up in a different light. Is this an honest forum or not? Is its purpose to spread lies and hatred? From your response…it seems that you do not want other members to have even an inclination that those facts may be wrong. I feel that you are being dishonest”.

Baffled refers to the ’50 Facts rebuttal’ on the Stop the Myths site as “a fully sourced rebuttal”.

So let’s now examine Baffled’s claim that the rebuttal is “fully sourced” and therefore accurate. He asks us to look at the rebuttal to Point 1.

Below is Point 1 and the Stop the Myths rebuttal:

1. The McCanns originally claimed they found the shutters and window of the children’s room open. They ’phoned relatives that night saying: ‘An abductor broke in and took Madeleine’. But when police and the managers of the complex declared there was no sign of forced entry, they changed their story, saying they must have left the patio doors open. The window had been cleaned the day before. Only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window.

Verdict - False and misleading. The McCanns didn't change their story. Kate's fingerprints were on the inside of the window; it's not known what was found on the outside. Also, MMRG failed to mention the inclusion of the unidentified partial fingerprints which were found on the shutters.

Source - Media articles and police files.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Responding now to each statement in the Stop The Myths rebuttal.

STM CLAIM: “The McCanns didn't change their story”.

RESPONSE: I refer to these two references:

YouTube video by Lizzy HideHo: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

CMOMM (extract from PeterMac’s ebook): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Moreover, on 18 October 2007 the Dispatches programme aired ‘Searching for Madeleine’, a programme which effectively proved that there was no way anybody could break into the apartment and leave no forensic trace or damage to the lightweight aluminium shutters, which are covered with a fine coating of polyurethane paint which marks extremely easily. Of course, Stop The Myths failed to mention this programme and its devastating conclusions for the McCanns.

Let it be noted that in this programme, David Barclay, former Head of Physical Evidence UK National Crime and Operations Faculty, said, quote: “We must be very careful that we're not saying this is actually staging, but it is difficult to see how anybody could have interfered with those shutters from the outside without leaving some trace. In fact, having looked at them, I think it's almost impossible.”

During the week following the Dispatches programme the McCanns’ official spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, announced that the McCanns now reversed their previous stance on the break-in story (also NOT mentioned by Stop The Myths).

In an interview, as set out in the media but is sourced from an actual interview in this link above: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

“The spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child…However, in the early part of the hunt, friends and family members told journalists that the shutter on the apartment where the McCanns were staying had been broken.

"There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell.

"I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape, and to do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily.”

STM CLAIM: Kate's fingerprints were on the inside of the window; it's not known what was found on the outside.

RESPONSE: So STM admit that MMRG was right; the only fingerprint found on the window was that of Kate McCann. STM make a huge song and dance about the fact that no-one could be sure whether the window was actually cleaned on Wednesday when the cleaner came. As if that makes any difference! Thursday was the SIXTH of the holiday. As STM concede, only Kate McCann’s fingerprints were found on the window. The window was said by Kate McCann to be open when she ‘found’ Madeleine was missing. The most likely conclusion by far is that

STM CLAIM: Also, MMRG failed to mention the inclusion of the unidentified partial fingerprints which were found on the shutters.

RESPONSE: Why should MMRG need to mention the shutters? MMRG was merely talking about the window. Partial fingerprints on the shutters could have got there from all manner of people, maintenance met, cleaners etc.

===================

Baffled chose to zoom in on Fact No. 1. He has an answer from me. I won’t be devoting time to explaining the other 49.

The MMRG leaflet has been uploaded to YouTube, accompanied by a large series of photographs to illustrate each point, LINKS here:

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

121,661 views to date

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

106,258 views to date

by Doug D 27.11.18 14:34

Thank you Tony, obviously more patience than me.

I know Textusa’s not everyone’s cup of tea, with their usually verbose posts and underlying beliefs, but this schematic from 3^rd May 2012 has always appealed to me, whether ‘they’ came in through the front door (first story) or through the patio doors.

Shall we go out quietly the way we came in or make things difficult, climb out the window and raise suspicions on ourselves should anybody see us?

Either way, it’s all McNonsense.

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

by Baffled 27.11.18 15:24

This response is to Verdi and Tony.

Verdi, I found your response sinister because it was accusative, when it would have been just as easy to refer me to some accurate data, and when people start throwing accusations I tend to feel they are trying to cover up something.

If this forum has confidence in those facts it should be more than willing to provide it's members with sources of those facts.

Tony, well you've made quite an accusation yourself while accusing me of hostility to this forum you are the one portraying hostility.
I only become hostile towards people who expect me to take their word for it, then get defensive when I ask how they arrived at their conclusions.

I have made it clear from the very start that I am here because I like the fourm, because I think it is non accusative, and that I am only on the side of Maddie.

As Verdi will know, I have stated from the start that I do not believe Maddie is dead, and have questioned why this forum comes from the starting point that she is.

I find information all over the internet, some of which is fully sourced and some of it which isn't. Although I am not a member of any pro McCann forum, that's mainly because I haven't found one that allows sign ups.

And if I were able to sign up to one, it would not be to be pro McCann, but to ask them questions too, just like I do here.

It is sinister to try to cover up facts, so by getting so defensive simply because I ask for sources, is suspicious, it's as if you don't have any facts and are frightened other members will come to realise that.

Such a song and dance should not have been made, just to get an answer.

Thank you for your references which I will check out in good time, why was it so hard to do that? Why was it done with accusations, hostility and unwillingness?

The credibility of this forum is fast dwindling, let's see if your links can redeem it.

The site has as it's title The truth of Madeleine McCann, yet it seems everyone clams up when I ask for that truth, that to me is not honesty, nor is it a fair investigation...what is the difference then between Operation grange and this forum, if they both start from a biased viewpoint?

Both viewpoints are flawed, and I am trying to separate fact from fiction, I have been fully transparent from the start and will always be so.

If you have a problem with that, it indicates that you're not really interested in truth yourself, but more interested in what you can convince others of.