Re: References to paedophilia in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

by second-guessed 28.02.17 9:21

Cherry wrote:It would seem the real protection of children is way down on the list of successive British Governments.

Coincidentally, I just listened to an American video, The Hagmann Report, (2/25/17)
interviewing David Steele. Part of it deals with pedophilia. At about 33.00 David Steele remarks (and I am paraphrasing) why this subject is so low profile:

33.00 Because the FBI and the media have not covered the subject of pedophilia, what we have is a vigilante mob [in the US]. Steele has been pro ‘citizen intelligence minutemen’ in the media for the last 30 years. But in the US there is now a social media mob. [Thankfully, I don't include this forum as such a mob, which is an endorsement of it.]

He goes on to say that "There is an FBI pedophilia target and there are over 30 politicians in the US on the arrest list." This is new.

Also, "Some say, Paedophile should be dropped into the ocean..” However, he stresses "Truth and Reconciliation as a way of dealing with them. Why? If you capture one and get him to talk he will give away all the other pedos. Then you can clean out the whole nest. If you don’t have this Truth and Reconciliation system they will clam up. and you will get only one."

He does go on to say that, "You can go back later and decide that if one is such a threat to society he must be put away, but by and large educating the public is much more important than punishment because pedophilia is COMMON. Police departments have been ordered to ignore pedophilia. “The same thing happens in the United Kingdom…a previous Prime Minister was a pedophile… Prime Minister of UK was protected and covered up by orders.”

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

My experience of watching Operation Grange is that it is a cosmetic exercise. This forum is full of people demanding justice for Madeleine, yet nothing comes of it. This, evidently, is policy.

by NickE 28.02.17 15:15

Paedophile hunter "Stinson Hunter" with over 500,000 followers posted this on his FB earlier this month.
It's about this case:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And he posted this a few days ago(I don't know if it's connected to his post re McCann case.

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

by MayMuse 28.02.17 15:21

NickE wrote:Paedophile hunter "Stinson Hunter" with over 500,000 followers posted this on his FB earlier this month.
It's about this case:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
And he posted this a few days ago(I don't know if it's connected to his post re McCann case.

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

He was also in communication with the recent Jodie Marsh input, ref her tweets?

by Guest 25.10.17 12:22

willowthewisp wrote: People keep stating there is/are no elements of "Paedophilia"connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,but quite how you can determine such claims,seems to be ambiguous,especially when CEOP's boss,Jim Gamble has such close affinity to a former named Arquido,along with the 90%claim that RM was there chief suspect in that case,then when you add in his review for Scotland Yard in 2010 before he resigned from his role at CEOP, Home secretary,Theresa May?

Snipped from willowthewisp's post on Media Mayhem thread.

by Ellie 30.10.17 19:23

I am very concerned that Madeleine may have been taken by such an evil organisation because of the evidence I have found from such widespread sources on the internet. That paedophilia has been the disgrace of British Government for decades is well known since the Savile exposure. It is implicated in the Royal Family too. Cover-ups were known to be made by Margaret Thatcher. It looks as if anyone who spoke out, at any time or place, be it government or the BBC, would die suddenly. I have been listening to the YouTube video: Michael Shrimpton Exposes Ted Heath and others in which he briefly refers to Madeleine whom he clearly regards as being a victim of paedophiles, taken for a famous figure and he says would have lost her life because of this. I expect there is more on this elsewhere. I can't look now, I can only take so much at a time.

by JRP 30.10.17 20:37

I wouldn't believe anything Michael Shrimpton says about Madeleine McCann.

by Guest 30.10.17 20:56

Ellie wrote:
.... he briefly refers to Madeleine whom he clearly regards as being a victim of paedophiles, taken for a famous figure and he says would have lost her life because of this.

What - abducted by a paedophile gang from a second rate tourist resort whilst the parents are conveniently dining a crows fly away? The parents complicit with this paedophile gang, thus agreed to take a spring holiday for one week with a group of friends in order to facilitate said abduction?

Can't you see the flaws in this hypothesis? If the parents are complicit in an arranged abduction, why choose this particular destination to carry out the plan? Wouldn't it be easier to just sell their child to the highest bidder by private arrangement.

Besides..

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

by Ellie 31.10.17 10:55

Yes Verdi it does seem ridiculous. I was trying to air this possibility because it was the subject of an abduction about which I read published at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] under the heading "Madeleine McCann and the European Commission paedophile scandal" at page 23." The report states in part this:

[...] "It was confirmed on August 7, 2007 by the Metropolitan Police of London that Madeleine McCann was abducted on orders by a paedophile organisation based in Belgium. We have been informed that the way this depraved activity operates is by the 'client' receiving three photographs of different children who chooses one and is then provided with the child to meet his depraved requirements. The individual who selected Madeleine McCann is a high ranking official at the European Commission in Brussels, and his name has been reported to this service.......Late insertion: The Editor had intended to withhold the identity of the European Commission official concerned. However, in light of the threat and given that in these circumstances the lapse of time between the threat and exposure that must be minimised, we have been forced to reveal the name of the official concerned. His hereby shamed name is Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission."

The report continues by informing the reader that the paedophile and abduction ring is actually run out of the EC itself.

I can only find it on this website now:

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

the following appears on the page; "Some results may have been removed under data protection law in Europe."
However, the Barrister Michael Shrimpton speaks of Madeleine in the same way, as I said above. I have been very suspicious about the summoning of Robert Murat from England to PdL before the announcement, the arrival of Interpol at the scene, seemingly in a clandestine manner, before the local Police arrived, the urgent involvement of Gordon Brown - this was the first alarm bell for me at the time - and the trampling all over the flat to destroy evidence. I do agree with you about the two dogs though. I am simply raising issues which have come up in my searches, and the horrible paedophile one has come from different places when I have not been looking at this case or at such terrible child abuse. My aim is to keep an open mind to all possibilities and questions raised until we have confirmative proof which points to a clear explanation. thanks for all your comments and dedication to this matter. I find it really helpful.

by Ellie 31.10.17 11:05

JRP wrote:I wouldn't believe anything Michael Shrimpton says about Madeleine McCann.

Thanks JRP! I need some help here - I'm not familiar with the man and would be glad to hear some testimonials on him! He speaks (on YouTube interviews) as if he knows everything! I've been wondering how he's got away with the things he says about people.

by Guest 31.10.17 11:54

I do understand why people focus on the paedophile aspect with the Gasper's statements etc, and the make up photo but, tbh? Imo? It's just a distraction and I don't believe this happened to Madeleine.
I think this is too much of a convenient excuse for the McCann's and the UK police to keep pushing the abduction so called theory.
I can't see it even being a possibility as I said, just my opinion

by JRP 31.10.17 13:56

Ellie wrote:
JRP wrote:I wouldn't believe anything Michael Shrimpton says about Madeleine McCann.
Thanks JRP! I need some help here - I'm not familiar with the man and would be glad to hear some testimonials on him! He speaks (on YouTube interviews) as if he knows everything! I've been wondering how he's got away with the things he says about people.

There is a lot written about Michael Shrimpton on the internet, which may be worth some of your time. I'm sure he has been a fine lawyer during his career, you don't get to be a QC otherwise.

He speaks very eloquently on many subjects as if he has inside knowledge, what should be taken into account is that this is what barristers do for a living, speaking eloquently and with great conviction on any subject a client of theirs is accused of, in order to convince a jury to believe what they say is true.

As far as I'm aware, his theory, (which is different to knowing everything), his theory is that Madeleine was selected and kidnapped to order, and whisked away on a boat to Morocco?

The huge holes in his far fetched theory are there is no evidence of a kidnapper taking Madeleine. No evidence to back up that she was selected by order. No evidence that she was in Morocco or anywhere else on the planet.

There is however evidence of a dead body having been in apartment 5a, and that is a point he fails to address with his theory.

How does he get away with things he says about people?
Well, Edward Heath is dead, and the McCanns wont have a problem with yet another abduction theory, however potty it is.

by Guest 05.11.17 0:22

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man. It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles.

Alan [Pike] got us talking, encouraging us to try to think rationally about what we were saying, and we talked a lot, for several hours. We faced our biggest fear: that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile and killed. This was the only scenario occupying our minds just then.

This initial discussion, though, was unsettling, focused as it was on the typical profile of a paedophile. All I could think was, not Madeleine. Please, not Madeleine!

It served only to colour my judgement of Murat. They told us, for example, about a newspaper clipping they’d seized from his house, an article entitled ‘Lock up Your Daughters’, which claimed that Casanova had been a paedophile. It made us shudder. Back then we feared everything and, perhaps understandably, leaped to the worst conclusions without pausing to consider innocent explanations.

Crying in bed again – can’t help it . . . The thought of Madeleine’s fear and pain tears me apart. The thought of paedophiles makes me want to rip my skin off.

I don’t mind if it’s in nice surroundings but certainly, in the case of paedophiles, away at all times from ANY contact with children.

Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her. Then I’d begun to wonder if she was being held by pornographers, I told them, or had been taken for someone who wanted a child.

The second stemmed from the revulsion stirred up by my fear that Madeleine had suffered the worst fate we could imagine: falling into the hands of a paedophile.

When she was first stolen, paedophiles were all we could think about, and it made us sick, ate away at us.

The idea of a monster like this touching my daughter, stroking her, defiling her perfect little body, just killed me, over and over again. It didn’t make any difference that this might not be the explanation for Madeleine’s abduction (and, please God, it isn’t); the fact that it was a possibility was enough to prevent me from shutting it out

It seemed the attacker would often lock the door to the parents’ bedroom before assaulting the child. In one case, the paedophile had put on some of the father’s aftershave in an attempt to soothe or deceive the child.

Night after night, I read of depraved individuals, British paedophiles, Portuguese paedophiles, Spanish, Dutch and German paedophiles, and of the horrific crimes they’d committed. The police went to visit some of them, looked around their apartments and recorded merely, ‘No sign of the minor.’ Was that enough to eliminate these vile characters from the inquiry? If more had been done, there was certainly nothing in the files about it. No description, no photograph, no alibi, no DNA. Just ‘No sign of the minor.’

He warned me that a British tabloid would be running a piece the following day about a convicted paedophile called Raymond Hewlett, who had been staying in Tavira on the Algarve in May 2007.

The proximity of Tavira to Praia da Luz and the fact that this man was a paedophile ticked all the boxes for the redtop papers, and they jumped on the story. All of a sudden, Hewlett was cast as the man who could have taken Madeleine.

We were exasperated. We now knew that there had been hundreds of paedophiles on the Algarve at that time and if, God forbid, one of them had been involved

[Excerpts for study purposes only]

----------

No neglect = no abudction = no sedation = ???

by Irene 2 05.11.17 12:47

It was rather strange how a location they claimed they considered safe enough to leave three small children alone in an unlocked apartment, they then claimed to be swarming with paedophiles when they claimed Madeleine "disappeared".

by Guest 05.11.17 13:22

Still Gerry McCann insists there is no evidence she has come to any harm and according to Kate McCann 'whoever she's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth' - or words to that effect..

They think we're all stupid enough to swallow this tripe. I don't like tripe - even if it's smothered with onion gravy - sorry jus - or is it a source?

by Irene 2 05.11.17 15:28

Verdi wrote:Still Gerry McCann insists there is no evidence she has come to any harm and according to Kate McCann 'whoever she's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth' - or words to that effect..

They think we're all stupid enough to swallow this tripe. I don't like tripe - even if it's smothered with onion gravy - sorry jus - or is it a source?

Nor me.

by Phoebe 05.11.17 16:42

Verdi wrote:Still Gerry McCann insists there is no evidence she has come to any harm and according to Kate McCann 'whoever she's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth' - or words to that effect..

That has to be the greatest load of codswallop ever. One one hand Kate tells us how she wants to "tear her skin off" at the thought her her child's plight and on the other she's cheerfully telling us that a three year old will be able to stand up to paedophile rapists and put them in their place. Give me patience!

by Liz Eagles 05.11.17 17:04

If the demise of this little girl isn't about paedophilia I will spend the rest of my days in penance, mopping the steps of Scotland Yard and bulling their boots.

by shirleytemple 12.11.17 13:02

Guest wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.

It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera! I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc. So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

by **sharonl** 12.11.17 17:12

shirleytemple wrote:
Guest wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.
It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera! I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc. So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

That's a strange one. If cuddle-cat was Madeleine's favourite toy which had become contaminated, why did they keep it? Why not just dispose of it?

Cuddle-cat must have been much more important and had a bigger role to play, but why wash it?

by Irene 2 12.11.17 20:12

shirleytemple wrote:
Guest wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.
It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera! I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc. So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.

by Liz Eagles 12.11.17 20:23

Irene 2 wrote:
shirleytemple wrote:
Guest wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.
It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera! I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc. So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.

Where did the press release/source close to the family/spurious crap come from that Cuddlecat was allegedly in contact with cadavers as KM came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a part-time locum?

by Irene 2 13.11.17 8:40

aquila wrote:
Irene 2 wrote:
shirleytemple wrote:
Guest wrote:Allegedly had a toy called Cuddle Cat......apart from a baby photo with a pink toy which could have been something else, there's no proof that Madeleine was ever fond of it.

I haven't yet worked out the significance of this toy; why say it was her favourite toy if it wasn't?

As for the interacting and role playing terms, they sound creepy in conjunction with the other unsettling elements of this case but I think that they could also be formal medical parlance.
It might well have been a favourite of Madeleine's but her mother washed it very quickly and then always paraded it on camera! I couldn't wash my dog's bedding for weeks after he died, I didn't want to get rid of his smell etc. So why did Kate McCann wash it so quickly - perhaps to get rid of incriminating evidence I think!!

Except it didn't work and Eddy sniffed it out. Then of course the dogs were labelled "incredibly unreliable" by the not so wise ones.With not so wise examples desperately sought, to dig the hole deeper.
Where did the press release/source close to the family/spurious crap come from that Cuddlecat was allegedly in contact with cadavers as KM came into contact with dead bodies in her role as a part-time locum?

Wasn't it first reported by the Portuguese press?

by skyrocket 13.11.17 12:58

Richard discussed the cuddle cat/Kate's work matter in his first series of films.

Start around 1:57:10 mins.

The original 'story' of Kate taking cuddle cat to work apparently originated from Kate herself. It then passed via the PJ to the Portuguese press.

Another oddity is Bridget O'Donnell's ~~non-~~fictional piece about Madeleine which includes a very strange and over-dramatised passage about the abduction of young girls. How many young girls have any of us seen on the UK news, within the last twenty years, who have been grabbed and then released alive but naked and holding a £10 note (don't petrol station forecourts all have cameras?!)?

Bridget tells us:

'I once worked as a producer in the BBC crime unit. I directed many reconstructions and spent my second pregnancy producing new investigations for Crimewatch. Detectives would call me daily, detailing their cases, and some stories stay with me still, such as the ones about a girl being snatched from her bath, or her bike, or her garden and then held in the passenger seat, or stuffed in the boot. There was always a vehicle, and the first few hours were crucial to the outcome. Afterwards, they would be dumped naked in an alley, or at a petrol station with a £10 note to "get a cab back to Mummy". They would be found within an hour or two. Sometimes'.

How many young girls have any of us seen on the news in the last twenty years who have been abducted and killed - an unfortunate few, but the vast majority of children who go missing or who are killed are the victims of parents/other family members/persons known to the child or parent. Infact, Goncalo Amaral tells tells us some very interesting statistics passed on to him by murder/abduction/search expert, Mark Harrison:

AMAZING STATISTICS

Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.

The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.

by sar 13.11.17 18:49

AMAZING STATISTICS

.....The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.

This is illuminating in itself

by **Jill Havern** 27.11.17 11:33

Might aswell add Nigel Nessling to this thread now. Yet another nonce associated with Team McCann.

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

by polyenne 27.11.17 12:16

By no means a casual correlation but the paedophile and masonic links surrounding the case of Madeline McCann (and possibly not just surrounding it) are manifold.

by Irene 2 27.11.17 16:35

Polyenne's post reminded me of this.
From David Payne's Rogatory of the "nothing you could hide a tennis racket in" fame, does anybody know what this could be about?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
1485 "Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth''
Reply "Err the, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up.'

1485 "Okay"

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.17 16:52

polyenne wrote:By no means a casual correlation but the paedophile and masonic links surrounding the case of Madeline McCann (and possibly not just surrounding it) are manifold.

The number of references to paedophilia in the Madeleine McCann case was increased by one last year when it was revealed that the McCanns' friend Sir Clement Freud was a serial child sex abuser.

We will have to increase this number by one more, now that prominent McCann fund-raiser and McCann supporter Nigel Nessling from Ipswich has been convicted of possessing over 43,000 images of child sexual abuse, including 804 moving and still images in the 'most serious' Category A, which consists of images of young children being tortured and raped.

Cry, cry, weep and weep again for the poor, innocent children so cruelly abused to satisfy exceptionally perverted adult lusts

aaagh

by **sharonl** 27.11.17 20:27

Here is another McPaedo that many of us may not know about

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

by skyrocket 28.11.17 8:54

I found this interview yesterday - it gives some insight into the sort of pressure dedicated and honest, lower rank officers in the police force in the UK are under when they try to investigate child abuse.

Dc John *****, amongst others, is a brave and determined man whose professional life has been destroyed because he was simply too good at his job and too principled to stand back and let children suffer.

Bullying and harassment of police officers is rife – the senior officer who feigned some concern and asked John to fill in a complaint form and then went on to say that when he received it he would throw it in the bin in the corner of his office needs a kick somewhere painful (I’d happily do the honours).

All the very best with the rest of your life John.

The final few minutes of John’s comments are crucial :–

‘Why do you think these people did this?’ (covered up/bullied)

‘Because they’re involved! There is a cover up and these people are appointed into these key positions where they have total governance of all these allegations, so they can’t be dealt with by any other unit other than these specialist units, there’s like a filter they go through and then internally in this unit they will be filtered again, what gets proceeded with and what doesn’t, so that they have total autonomy over what they deal with and what they don’t deal with. So these people are put in place to make sure these allegations don’t get out.
And it’s not just that, all them years that I worked urm in this remit we would get what they call referrals – now referrals could come through from schools, referrals could come from playgroups, from wherever. And all the years I worked on child abuse investigations I was aware of only once a referral coming through from NSPCC, only once, now bear in mind they’ve got Childline and all those kids that would be ringing up Childline specially when Jimmy Savile got nicked and everything else - why didn’t they ever come through, why didn’t they ever come through? And, these people are filters. And my opinion is they are filters that these people are deliberately put in there to protect those who are involved. Deliberately’.

By these people, I understand that John is referring to senior officers but perhaps there is also a blockage in organizations like the NSPCC.

References to paedophilia in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann