Would this account for the unprecedented high level of political support?

There are no twins here though as the ages are 6,7,8.

Hicks wrote:There are no twins here though as the ages are 6,7,8.

I have three in three years..  All singles, but a also a set of what they call "irish twins" born 50 weeks apart.

Again: if they're all boys, there's no mystery about it ...   

sami wrote:

Hicks wrote:There are no twins here though as the ages are 6,7,8.

I have three in three years..  All singles, but a also a set of what they call "irish twins" born 50 weeks apart.

Brave. Very brave.   

tigger wrote:I'm quite convinced it was to get on the microchip bandwagon, but also sure that it wasn't a fake abduction or abduction organised for that purpose.
It was simply so badly done - the evidence of abduction so totally missing, that it bears all the hallmarks of someone who thinks he's clever and regards foreigners and simple folk like us as inferior and gullible. 

Well I must admit that a government scam to promote microchipping features on my list of explanations for the Madeleine mystery, but unlike you I think that a badly-done, obviously faked abduction  fits into that scenario very well.
 
Bear in mind that if the government are using Madeleine’s plight to get the public to accept the idea of microchipping, then it would be most important for them to hold the public’s interest  in her story over a long time.

If they had presented the scenario of a ‘professional’ ie believable abduction and if it had been impossible to see the McCanns as anything other than victims, I think the public would have eventually lost interest…that is human nature. 
The same way that a soap opera wouldn’t get very far if all the characters were trustworthy and likeable.

But if they keep changing the storyline and adding all sorts of new twists to the plot  and throwing loads of confusion and discrepancies into the mix as well,  that will keep the interest of the public…just as all the little sub-plots in a soap opera do.

If it is a scam then I think the ending will be unexpected and spectacular in true soap-opera style...I also think it will be fairly credible, thus making it impossible to know whether it is real or not.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

Stella wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:
The presence of Weinberger suggests to me that the meeting was not to resurrect the Pathways bid but rather to discuss an innovative product and the launching of a company.

You could be right Cheshire Cat.

This was something I posted on the other OC Guests thread and may be relevant to this discussion:

I have read up on the failed Pathways bid and I feel doubtful that this was the reason for the Doctors, experts and business people to have gathered at the Ocean Club at the end of April 2007.
For me, the characters present and the curtain of secrecy indicate that an important meeting was indeed scheduled for that fateful week but I am inclined to believe it was to discuss some other commercial venture. Here is one suggestion:

Paul Weinberger was present at the Ocean Club and he was at the time Director of Clinical Development at Enigma Diagnostics. Enigma has an exclusive licence from the Defence Science Technology Laboratory to manage a portfolio of patents which represent over 15 years of UK Ministry of Defence funded research.

Paul Weinberger has been involved in many projects and the RANGER project is detailed below. It was submitted to the EC in April 2007. The RANGER consortium also included the Health Protection Agency [Note: COMARE is part of HPA].

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

The EC issued the following Call under the Health priority in 2007: “HEALTH-2007-2.3.3-4: Innovative point-of-care diagnostic tests for influenza. The objective is to develop and validate affordable, reliable, and rapid diagnostic tests for influenza infections with designated viruses. Research outcomes should be applicable to surveillance and early detection of an epidemic outbreak and suitable for point-of-care use in both developed and developing countries, addressing early biological markers and/or late surveillance.”

Enigma [lead partner and coordinators] decided to submit a proposal to the specified EC call as it provided an opportunity to fund the development of a clinical diagnostic system to complement its existing defence sector system. The project was called Ranger (“Rapid, robust and scalable platform technology for fully automated reference laboratory grade Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) based diagnostics regardless of global setting”) and was submitted to the EC in April 2007. The project was accepted for funding and received a grant of €3 million against a total project plan of €4.1 million and 24 month duration. The project started in January 2008.

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

PRESS RELEASE

3, October 2007
ENIGMA DIAGNOSTICS ANNOUNCES A EUROPEAN COMMISSION AWARD
OF €3MILLION TO FUND THE DEVELOPMENT OF A POINT OF CARE
PLATFORM FOR THE RAPID DIAGNOSIS OF INFLUENZA INFECTIONS
A fully automated, portable solution for in-clinic and out-reach influenza testing
Porton Down, UK, Enigma Diagnostics, the life sciences company developing rapid
molecular diagnostics and detection systems, announces a €3 million award from the
European Commission Framework 7 programme to the RANGER consortium. The
award will fund the development and validation of a fully automated, low cost system for
the rapid diagnosis of influenza infections and subtypes.
The RANGER consortium, which is coordinated by Enigma Diagnostics, comprises
leading technology companies including Applied Biosystems, Sagentia, Tico Europe,
Bruhn Newtech Group, Bioplastics BV and PERA who will contribute to the development
of the instrument and assays. The consortium also includes the Health Protection
Agency, the UK’s national reference laboratory for influenza diagnostics, and the Queen
Sirikit National Institute of Child Health who will evaluate and validate the system.
The system will be based on Enigma’s proprietary and fully-automated instrumentation
technology, which integrates sample preparation with real-time polymerase chain
reaction (PCR) to detect viral RNA in a full range of clinical samples. The simple-to-use,
portable system will provide rapid results direct to medical staff in a near-patient or outreach
environment in both the developed and developing world.
By providing laboratory standard, high specificity and sensitivity PCR results in a
decentralised setting, the system will advance the diagnosis of early stage viral
infections and the surveillance of disease outbreaks.
Enigma is also separately developing real-time PCR-based diagnostics systems
targeting chlamydia, gonorrhoea and other sexually transmitted infections.
John McKinley, Chairman of Enigma Diagnostics, said: “The award of this grant and the
strength of our consortium partners is a great endorsement of Enigma’s technology. It is
also a strategically important milestone for the company as it demonstrates the utility of
our real time PCR in what is an extremely challenging area of diagnosis. We are
confident we will be able to deliver a system that rapidly and simply delivers laboratory
quality results at the point of care”
-ENDS

A UK based SME called Enigma Diagnostics was an innovative start-up company operating out of the UK Government defence research centre DSTL at Porton Down, Salisbury, UK. Enigma is a recognised leader in developing rapid diagnostics for the detection and identification of infectious organisms, such as bacteria and viruses, in environmental, clinical, and biological samples. The basis of its technology is an automated platform for PCR diagnostics, at present focused on the defence sector.

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

Paul Weinberger : Director

ENIGMA DIAGNOSTICS LTD
Building 224 Tetricus Science Park
Dstl Porton Down
Salisbury
Wiltshire
SP4 0JQ
Tel: +44 01980 590131

The vaccine industry is big business. Flu vaccines are heavily promoted, despite some doctors and scientists believing that they don't work properly if at all. And there is the possibility of an adverse reaction. The Labour Government under Blair heavily pushed the MMR vaccine. Those who raised questions about vaccine safety, for instance Dr Andrew Wakefield, were dealt with in no uncertain terms. Any suggestion of adverse reactions after vaccines, sudden infant death for instance or autism or other auto-immune disease for instance was silenced. The British press gave a lot of credence to reports from our health authorities. and Andrew Wakefield was struck off. At around this period (eg: 2007) the MMR thing was a hot potato. Brian Deer writing for the Sunday Times and also for the doctor's newspaper BMJ was involved in a sustained campaign again Wakefield which led to him being called 'discredited'. 

Thought there had to be a drug issue behind all this! And medical negligence issues. In more ways than one.....

Guest wrote:We are currently having a count up and to date have identified 11 Doctors staying at the OC that week.

11  

Oh the bitter irony of it all!  How many doctors does it take to resuscitate a sedated child, a purely hypothetical question, obviously!

tigger wrote:jd wrote:
All the meetings they had, people who got involved from the outset, and the visits that gerry mccann made at this time suggest strongly this was the case. This imo was what the mccanns accepted as their part from the Symingtons/OC. And looking at gerry mccann laughing like he had won the lottery within 3 and 9 days shows he was easily persuaded! This also shows why he always this big smirk, he knows the powers behind the scenes would always protect the scam, they had to despite what they really thought of the mccanns.
unquote

I suddenly thought: 'That's it, he pulled a fast one and it came off, just - but it came off!' It is so in character!

Yes - that huge smirking grin. As he stood by the patio doors of an apartment not long after Madeleine 'disappeared' - a big wide smile like that as though he had won the jackpot. As he came out of the church on what would have been Madeleine's fourth birthday - another huge grin. Those were genuine smiles - with a wide mouth.

What planet are some people on? Oh, I know.....follow the money folks. 

Plus those inappropriate little smirks when interviewed

Guest wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Stainless steel is used to manufacture medical and surgical equipment. itanium is used to manufacture light weight but tough medical products such as implants. If an innovative and important project was being discussed that required steel in the manufacturing process then perhaps Edmonds would be in a attendance? Zug, Switzerland is Stentors European hub for stainless steel.

Anytime there is a health scare like swine flu, everyone is encouraged to go and get a vaccination. All of these injections must have stainless steel needles and as vaccinations are the way ahead, I think you might be onto something here Cheshire Cat.

Yes - excellent point! Think of all the health scares which the media whipped up into a frenzy - swine flu is a good example. The Health Protection Agency advise everyone to go and get a vaccine otherwise we are all going to die from swine flu and so on. Massive stocks of drugs are manufactured which, in the case of swine flu, for instance, get stockpiled as, surprise, surprise the 'killer epidemic' is not quite as 'killer' or 'epidemic' as the health 'experts' and media had claimed. Still, it was a nice little earner while it lasted.

The media loves a good old health scare. It sells newspapers and taps into a national neurosis. Whipping everyone up into a fever of anxiety about some new and deadly virus or bacteria is good for business all round and also serves to keep the general public in their place - anxious that they are about to succumb to the latest killer virus.

Now, if you look at the 'disappearance' of Madeleine McCann through the lens of the latest scare, you can see that it taps into the  big bad bogey-man scare. The big bad bogey-man who is going to creep into your child's bedroom and steal you sleeping child.  If it happened to the McCanns, it could happen to anyone! Too bad it was in Portugal where the police are like Tweedledum and Tweedledee though.

Throughout her book, Kate continuously makes references to Madeleine being 'stolen' from her bed by an unknown abductor or 'being taken' as though she is a character in some ghoulish fairy tale. The big bad wolf and red riding hood. 

So, this is the child abduction scare....as others have noted, perhaps to pave the way for microchipping or other surveillance devices. A bit like the latest 'must have' vaccine or drug - a device guaranteed to keep your child safe and sound from a nasty random abductor! Buy one, get one free, available in sizes 0 - 20 (gap year specials!) Once fitted, you have a 100% money-back guarantee that if your child is unlucky enough to be abducted, s/he will be found - dead or alive. That's our promise to you!

Gee, thanks - do you do them for adults too?  

So you can see why the media liked the abduction story. And if the 'wider agenda' relates to some kind of surveillance device or increased data-bases and further intrusion into an individual's privacy, then that might explain the political enthusiasm for the McCanns in the early days (plus it was a massive human interest story that would cover up all sorts of other things that were going on). And other vested interests might gain to benefit from encouraging a collective paranoia about health and safety and increased surveillance etc.

Kate throws herself into the cause of 'missing children' with the indignant fervour of a woman scorned.

As she explains on page 365: 'It is simply unacceptable that the authorities could decide no more can be done to find Madeleine when no comprehensive review of the case has been undertaken.'

Chutzpah is the word that springs to mind here.

On page 291,  'Until Madeleine was taken, I'd been aware of only a few child abduction and murder cases......As we learned more and discovered the massive scale of the problem, we were appalled. Sickened and perplexed at first by how little I had known, I was only now beginning to realize that such ignorance was widespread. In general these crimes are so poorly publicized, probably because they are so low on the political agenda of too many countries, that public awareness, too is low. 

Well, Kate certainly changed all that. Although what good it has done Madeleine, or any other missing child, is a moot point.

She then goes on to write about the AMBER alert system in the US and her frustration at there not being a similar system in Europe. On page 295 she calls out for DNA testing of everyone who was in Praia da Luz and subsequent testing of people in the area. 

She also writes about her lobbying of all MEPs to sign a declaration to help establish a coordinated CRA. 

Then, on page 366, she writes that in November 2010 'we started a petition to lobby the two governments to conduct an independent review.'

Holy guacamole, what next?! A world-wide investigation and review of the case, with unlimited funding, underwritten by the Pope and Bill Gates?


Still, as Kate writes at the end of her book: 'It is never too late to do the right thing.'

Indeed.

As always, I find myself morbidly fascinated by the minutiae of Kate's book. The closing words are as illuminating, in their own way, as the opening words.

After being extolled to 'do the right thing', we are asked to contact the Madeleine Fund and contact details are given. 

Two further sentences conclude the main body of the book: 

'Alternatively, speak to a religious leader in your community.
Thank you for not giving up on Madeleine'.

A religious leader, eh? Many people these days are not religious. I presume Kate is aware of this. Still, I suppose if you are a member of the Catholic religion, as Kate is, your secrets will be safe with the priest!

I think the great political enthusiasm and support in the early days can certainly be explained if they had or could have their own interests promoted on the back of this - I think they truly believed the abduction.

It didn't take long for the powers that be to realise the McCann band wagon wasn't altogether a reliable vehicle.
They could influence the investigation to some extend, but hardly change the constitution of Portugal.
They did have MW doing their bidding - which is why I no longer believe the Tapas sheets, except for Thursday.

They did need the background, the unusual mix of 'holiday guests' under wraps, hence the request for photographs where there might be people of interest in the background. Creepy man or someone representing government ?
What am I saying! One does not preclude the other.   

So fade out background - spotlight on the main players and didn't it go to their heads!

All my opinion of course.

Weinberger at Ocean Club. Enigma  - rapid diagnostics of bacteria, viruses etc. The Defence connection. COMARE is part of the Health Protection Agency. Gerry McCanns involvement in the health aspects of nuclear energy. Philip Edmonds, nephew of Hodges. Oppenheimer. Diamond Mines, De Beers. Microchipping. DNA data bases.

Brave New World has most definitely arrived.

It just gets hotter and hotter!

Why am I not surprised that the Health Protection Agency is snuggled away in there? It just had to be. It's a relatively new body which appears to have quite a big agenda. And I'm not sure how healthy it is. It might be better named 'Protection Agency'. And you have to ask who exactly it is protecting.

Dynamite.

Poor little Madeleine. What a truly extraordinary situation. 

Conspicuous by its absence is one agency that, remarkably, has not been  involved. The child protection agency.

What a racket.

Just my opinion but I think it probably goes no further than a highup member of British parliament / government or someone possibly connected to the Royal Family being in PDL at the same time Madeleine went missing, possibly for purposes which have been discussed on other threads. I think that would explain the extraordinary level of cooperation from the government, all sanitization, and the attempts to keep Kate and Gerry from being arrested, lest they "sing" rather loudly.

Again, just my opinion.

canada12 wrote:Just my opinion but I think it probably goes no further than a highup member of British parliament / government or someone possibly connected to the Royal Family being in PDL at the same time Madeleine went missing, possibly for purposes which have been discussed on other threads. I think that would explain the extraordinary level of cooperation from the government, all sanitization, and the attempts to keep Kate and Gerry from being arrested, lest they "sing" rather loudly.

Again, just my opinion.

It's still a biggie, though. There are some very powerful vested interests and conflicts of interests revolving around the case. Gerry's role as medical advisor in issues relating to possible links between nuclear power stations and cases of leukemia. Smethurst as a lawyer defending the nuclear industry and also a key player in Cancer UK. The setting of up Enigma diagnostics at Porton Down. The Health Protection Agency: 'an organisation that was set up by the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 2003 to protect the public in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from threats to their health from infectious diseases and environmental hazards.' (Wilkie) On the one hand, you have to ask exactly who this agency is protecting, and on the other hand you have to ask whether they play a role (inadvertently or not) in public scaremongering. Which of course can be good for business. 


What has all this got to do with Madeleine McCann? Well, you could argue that her 'abduction' triggered a massive 'scare'. Certainly, in her book, Kate expresses that she is 'appalled' by the scale of the problem of child abduction and murder cases.  Seen through the lens of scaremongering, Gerry''s comment about good marketing  ploys spring to mind. Not to mention wider agendas.


And, as Kate writes on page 292: 'Having your child stolen is the most terrible ordeal imaginable.'  But. thankfully, there is a child rescue alert system available that is a gold standard! The USA's AMBER Alert.


'It is clear to Gerry and me that if such a procedure had been in use in Portugal, Madeleine might have been swiftly tracked down. It breaks our hearts just thinking about it.' (page 292)


And again, as with so much that Kate writes, my mind is once again engaged in mental gymnastics over the sentiment expressed in those two sentences. We know what Kate is attempting to convey in those sentences, but, unfortunately, the meaning comes out as something quite different - it breaks our hearts just thinking about how Madeleine might have been swiftly tracked down.


Hmmm. How long was it before a phone call was logged at the police station on the evening of Madeleine's alleged abduction? How come the McCanns and their friends found it so difficult to use their mobiles to phone the police that evening. Instead sending someone up to reception almost as though the telephone had never been invented.


Not sure how useful AMBER alert is if the parents of the missing child have a difficulty in punching a three digit number into their mobiles when they 'know' that their daughter has been abducted (by a paedophile).

An Amber Alert wouldn't have worked anyway. Police only issue an Amber Alert when they have something to go on - someone has witnessed the child being taken away in a car, so they have a description and possibly a license number. The description and name of the person the child was last seen with - a parent or other adult. Amber Alerts are very successful but that's because there is a concrete description and / or name that goes with the missing child. Rarely if ever are Amber Alerts issued without the car, license number or description of adult the child was last seen with.

canada12 wrote:An Amber Alert wouldn't have worked anyway. Police only issue an Amber Alert when they have something to go on - someone has witnessed the child being taken away in a car, so they have a description and possibly a license number. The description and name of the person the child was last seen with - a parent or other adult. Amber Alerts are very successful but that's because there is a concrete description and / or name that goes with the missing child. Rarely if ever are Amber Alerts issued without the car, license number or description of adult the child was last seen with.

Interesting. I think in Madeleine's case, the last people who saw her before she was 'abducted' (according to Kate and Gerry) were Gerry and Kate (bath-time and bedtime) and David Payne who I think Kate said popped in that evening at around the time Kate was having a shower?  I think there are some inconsistencies in the statements here with regard to times etc.

But there was a delay in police arriving if we are to look at some of the witness statement from staff at the resort, they heard a 'commotion' at times between 9.15pm and 9.45pm. In other words, earlier than the time that Kate records in her book as raising the alarm which is 10pm. And it makes no sense that Jane Tanner, who allegedly saw the 'abductor' at 9.15pm, failed to either call the police herself or at least give out that information at an early stage.

And, aside from all that, I find myself curious about Enigma Diagnostics based at Porton Down - the UK Government military science park. All sorts of things go on here - of a sensitive and secretive nature.

And in fact, surprise surprise!! An inquiry into the deaths of servicemen allegedly used as "guinea pigs" in secret military chemical warfare tests has concluded there is insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal prosecution, according to reports.

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Who would have thought it?

There is a very strong whiff of Brave New World around this whole case. It links in with a lot of that New Labour stuff with Big Brother breathing over everyone's shoulder. The manipulation of the press, the need to 'shape' public opinion, the health and safety scaremongering, the national neurosis surrounding child abduction, talk of DNA banks, micro-chipping of children, electronic surveillance and all the rest of it. Not to mention the medico/legal/defence angles. A pretty powerful cocktail. I think it is entirely possible that the micro-chipping of children was on the cards. That would certainly tie in with the prevailing attitude of the time that children needed to be 'protected' with any increasing array of vaccines, drugs to treat a variety of 'syndromes' and the need for surveillance. The pharmaceutical lobby is unbelievably powerful. And the terrorism fears paved the way for increased surveillance. 

So you can see why a child abduction might provide the catalyst for something of this nature. It would certainly sell newspapers and whip up hysteria. And bring in the ££££££.

Following on from this,  if we are to believe Amaral's theory, that Madeleine had an accident and the parents covered it up, then that suggest there was no premeditation. (Although I suppose it doesn't rule out the possibility of a premeditated 'accident'. )

But you could argue that the micro-chipping device was on the agenda and it just so happened that Madeleine's 'disappearance' coincided with this - the 'manna from heaven' mentioned in an earlier post. This is certainly feasible. But when you look closer at the timescale of events following Madeleine's 'disappearance' you cannot help noticing the unseemly haste with which the team McCann availed themselves of spin doctors, reputation managers, extradition lawyers, libel lawyers and all the rest. Their private limited company Find Madeleine was incorporated at breakneck speed - 15th May. Just 11 days after Madeleine 'went missing'. 

The parents ignored police advice that intense publicity might lead to the abductor panicking, including highlighting Madeleine's unusual eye feature (which was later, strangely, downplayed by the McCanns). The McCanns were busy afterwards phoning the media and their lawyers, but failed to phone the police themselves at the time they discovered their daughter had been 'abducted.' They also did not search for her that night. Or at least not in a sustained way.

They managed to get some very high profile backers at the beginning and a great deal of public support. Which meant a lot of money going into their company. I think they both enjoyed the celebrity status and the VIP backing. Not to mention the money.

Their immediate friends - the Tapas crowd - appeared to back their version of events (although there were massive discrepancies in statements and so on). 

But as others have noted on here, several other guests from the Ocean Club left early which could suggest they wanted to distance themselves from what was going on.

It wasn't long after Madeleine's disappearance that the McCanns were enjoying something of a celebrity status, jetting off around the world and also being used as guest speakers. Both took up the cause of missing and abducted children. Gerry spoke of 'marketing ploys' and 'wider agendas' and Kate threw herself into campaigning for introducing more sophisticated alerting and tracking methods in Europe for missing children. Certainly, inititially, they received much high level sympathy and support. And at the simplest level I can see why politicians might want to show support as it is a human interest story and 'buries' other news.

Looking at more complex reasons for political support, you have Gerry's role as advisor in nuclear health risks as well as business and research interests. Any level of sensitivity around these would be a reason to curry some political favour (not to mention financial incentives). the Enigma Diagnostics stuff ties in with some highly sensitive and powerful medical/defence issues (testing out new vaccines, possible germ-warfare stuff and so on. This is all very politically sensitive). 

Looking at the wider circle - those high profile names that have cropped up on this thread, I cannot help agreeing with some other posters that they might well have wanted to distance themselves from the McCanns following the events of 4th May. The loyalty of some of the members of the Tapas group is intriguing. It may be they all panicked that their child care arrangements left a lot to be desired and decided to stand or fall together.

I personally think they were other factors at play as well. Like Kate and Gerry telling the truth about their children having been drugged but being less than truthful about who did it. It may be this was something that implicated other members of the group. Which would be another reason to stick with the McCann verson of events. It is possible there are darker reasons why the McCanns and one or more of their friends would want to cover up what happened to Madeleine. Certainly the Gasper statements are worrying (and there are a few other red flags in Kate's book). David Payne was one of the last people to see Madeleine (allegedly) apart from the parents. His role on the night of Madeleine's disappearance (shepherding the McCanns away from a social worker. Saying they had a pact and it was between the three of them.)

So, my guess is that there are several people who know what happened to Madeleine. Then there is a wider group that know something of what happened, but not necessarily the full or correct version of events. They feel implicated in some way so stick with the McCann's version of events. I think there is then a kind of 'underworld' group who may have played various roles. 

Don't forget Gerry saying something about everyone playing or acting roles, some of them quite big.

And what of the claim that it could be a 'false flag' child abduction (ie: the implication that the state is in some way behind it?) That would suggest that the PJ were also in on it and that is not the impression I get from Amaral. 

Still, it's a very strange case.

Garrincha wrote:Hello J.Rob

 

I agree it’s a very strange case, and I also think it’s strange that although you only joined this forum 2 or 3 days ago you already have so much to say.

 

So, either fair play & all kudos to you (& my apologies for my doubts) but, as you must have been reading here for a while before posting, did it occur to you that your approach might raise some doubts about your motives?

Well, to answer your question, no, not really. 

I think it's fairly clear from my posts where my sympathies lie. I've been following this case for ages and done loads of reading on it. It's only recently that I felt I had anything more to add to the reams that have already been written on this case.

I am annoyed and irritated by the way the case has been manipulated by the media. I think the Portugese police were going along the right track. I think it is a miscarriage of justice (for Madeleine). And I am sick and tired of the McMurdoch rubbish that is spewed out by our media. Plus, at least in my mind, this case ties in with other medico-legal stuff that I have strong feelings about. 

There have been too many cover ups. And I think public money is used to protect the reputations of those who are happy to feed at the trough - even if that trough involves innocent children.

So what if I have a lot to say? I'm not sure why that is necessarily suspicious.

What would be a better approach? Saying nothing? Doing nothing? 

The McCanns piss me off and the whole global circus they have created is the most giant hoax of all times. And so many people getting rich off the back of it. 

I think that it is perfectly reasonable to feel angry about that. And if people don't like my approach - tough. At least I'm not profiting from the disappearance and likely death of an entirely innocent child.

I'm sick of the level of corruption that, as illustrated by this case, now permeates through our society. Maybe it always did but it is now so blatant. Meanwhile, down at the bottom of the pecking order, there are good people working hard etc.

As for Carter Ruck, don't get me started. Let's just say that I have an image in my mind. 

Huge fat ugly vultures circling over a seething cess-pit. But that is probably being too kind.

The McCanns have had a lot to say, haven't they? Just read through Kate's cringeworthy book: Madeleine. On the one hand I am annoyed that I spent my hard-earned money on such an absurd piece of fiction, full of self-righteousness, pomposity, grandiosity and fake victimhood. On the other hand it gives a fascinating (if deeply disturbing) insight into the mind of this woman. 


I have one motive only and that is that justice is done for Madeleine and that the public open their eyes and their ears to the truth and stop being so pathetically gullible.

j.rob wrote:As for Carter Ruck, don't get me started. Let's just say that I have an image in my mind. 

Huge fat ugly vultures circling over a seething cess-pit. But that is probably being too kind.

I'm not over enamoured by the legal skills of Carter-Ruck employees, like most solicitors, they are merely jobsworths familiar with legal procedures.  For the past 20 odd yrs. solicitors haven't even attended the lower courts with much regularity, preferring instead to instruct counsel.

I appreciate Tony Bennet played on the David and Goliath angle in order to obtain the sympathy vote vis a vis the McCann's action against him, but after reading his 'diary' of events, I came to the conclusion that he was more than a match for Carter-Ruck's overpaid lawyers and played them quite well. My own criticism being and I'm sure he'd agree with me, was in making too many concessions at the original hearing.

I haven't followed the Bennett case very closely although there are clearly vastly differing agendas and I do admire someone who makes a stand when they appear to have little to gain and much to lose. Apart from wanting to see justice done for Madeleine, I also am appalled by the amount of public money that has been spent so far on the Madeleine case. 

It strikes me that if the police had carried out their jobs from the very beginning, without interference, the outcome may have been very different. The parents and those who were last to see Madeleine obviously needed to be ruled out as suspects. This was hardly likely to happen when there were such a buddy relationship with Leicestershire police. How was this allowed to happen? Since when did the McCanns become the only parents on earth who are above suspicion when their child is allegedly abducted.

It's not just the tax payers money that has gone into the investigation (and it must be one of the biggest and therefore most expensive investigations around) but also the money that was generously donated into the fund by the public. The fund that was allegedly set up to 'find Madeleine'.  

When you consider that there was never any evidence that Madeleine had been abducted by a complete stranger in the first place, you have to be astounded be the subsequent course of events in which the Emperor is, indeed stark b****** naked.

It doesn't seem to me that the Microchipping Theory is able to stand up - given that the British Governments and the media haven't started a massive debate about it, in the wake of the "abduction" and of all the fuss about the Madeleine case, in order to exploiting it and obtain the consensus of the public opinion - seven years have passed and nothing of the sort emerged. So I don't think that this explanation convincingly accounts for the involvement of the establishment, for the protection of the McCann, the cover up and its persistence.

I'm aware that the Dunblane affair has probably been discussed here before but has anyone ever mentioned that the phrase "No stone unturned" was coined at the Dunblane enquiry? Is this yet another of those strange coincidences that abound in the McCann case?

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

Deleted, misplaced post

In Chapter 3 of his book "The Truth of the Lie" S. Amaral writes about how, right from the start, his investigation was hampered by British involvement. At first its down to delays in getting hold of much needed information,

"We're not getting any response from Great Britain. We've had no reports on the subject of the couple, their children and their friends, which doesn't help us to tighten up the investigation. We would like, for example, to know if Madeleine was adopted by the couple, which would allow us to eliminate the hypothesis of parental abduction. If the information is not reaching us, it's obviously reaching the British Ambassador. We are astonished by this prompt mobilisation of the English authorities. So, who are the McCanns? Who are their friends? We don't need diplomatic intervention: what we would like, is answers to the questions sent to the British police authorities by Glen Power."

But then a more sinister note creeps in. Writing of a discussion the PJ had on May 5th he says,

"Until now, the results have hardly been conclusive. New means - in all other investigations, they would already have been put in place - must be deployed.

- Why not monitor and tap the phones of the parents and friends? Their statements are far from convincing. The story about the window is unsound, and Jane's witness statement is not convincing either.

- In that way new details could be obtained.

- We have already discussed it. That would be ideal...Only, we have to get the judge to give us authorisation with the scant details we have at our disposal. And if the parents get wind of it, we risk having the sky fall on our heads....

Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed."

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

What does this mean, exactly? David Payne had arranged for new phones to be delivered to them on May 4th through a contact, hadn't he? Were those phones actually arranged by MI5? If so, how did that happen? And why? Does it have anything to do with the odd late night phone call he made to Jim Gamble's outfit?

Suep are you saying that DP was a plant all along to catch somebody doing something on that holiday?

Hmmm - this is a totally new scenario to me but some things spring to mind...

- He was allegedly the last independent witness (discountng the MO checking farce) to see MBM alive in that last meeting with Kate on the 3rd - what was said in that meeting?  Cld it be that case that Kate realised in that meeting that  she and GM were rumbled and therefore MBM had to be 'disappeared' quickly?

- The alleged Gaspar statements - was DP trying to draw GM out?

- DP was allegedly recognised by someone from social services/protection(?) in P de Luz - could this have been someone he had previously worked with in that sector?

- His non-appearance on Crime Watch - this was noticable by it's absence.

- He was the one that allegedly organised the holiday

- And yes the late night call to Jim Gambles outfit - he would hardly be reporting himself would be?  What and who was he reporting?

- And weren't his interviews were different from the rest of the tapas - wasn't he the only one not interviewed in the presence of the PJ - I think this is correct I will check this.  And when asked if he had anything else to add to the interview he allegedly said something along the lines of it wasn't the right forum to say it - what on earth did that mean?

Pls correct me if I am wrong about any of the above - I will look up the links tomorrow, sorry am too tired now.

I have always thought of DP as a baddie becos of the alleged Gaspar statements but hmmm you have really got me wondering now...

BlackCatBoogie wrote:[...]
- The alleged Gaspar statements - was DP trying to draw GM out?
[...]

***
Interesting thought. After all, GM didn't slap him in the face, did he?
This also reminds me of DP's end of the rogatory interview:
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.'

Yes I have just looked DP's rogatory interview and after DP says it is not the right forum the interviewer just says ok and then immediately changes the subject:-

"Okay. And finally, Mr PRIOR touched on the re-enactment earlier on, I think the etc etc ....."


What? How come he wasn't pressed further on this or asked what he meant, where was the right forum etc?