Victims of the McCanns' calculated hoax

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
When two British tourists spotted a woman leading a child with long blonde hair on the Croatian holiday island of Krk, they immediately thought it was Madeleine McCann.
The couple became even more convinced that the youngster was the missing Briton after secretly taking a couple of photographs.
So when the adult leading the child was not looking, the British woman grabbed the youngster's arm.
It was only then that she realised the child not only wasn't Madeleine, it wasn't even a little girl.

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

Police hunting for Madeleine McCann launched a 2am raid on the South London home of an innocent woman in her 70s.

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

How many more innocent people, including children, will be victims of the McCanns scam?

they couldn't care less so long as the spotlight is off them as perpetrator.

The entire town of PDL who's people lost their livelihoods.

They won't, they're addicted to the attention.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Being a wheelchair user myself, I find it quite odd that this wheelchair does not appear to have any foot plates.

Is this photo a set up just for sympathy?

I'm sorry to hear of your disability Stella. I have seen wheelchairs like this with the occupier (quite possibly a cancer sufferer) using their feet to help move them along. I presume that foot plates are removable if not needed?

Foot plates are removable and I have seen someone young using there feet to move in one, when they have no arms. But someone who is very weak and on deaths door, would be to weak to do this in my opinion.

Stella wrote:
Being a wheelchair user myself, I find it quite odd that this wheelchair does not appear to have any foot plates.
Is this photo a set up just for sympathy?

In one of the articles I think they said that he got up out of the wheelchair and dashed back into the hospital rather than face further questions.

Edited to add
Found it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
From ALEX WEST in Aachen, Germany
Published: Today (27 May 2009)
THIS is the moment The Sun confronted paedophile Raymond Hewlett over Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

"We stepped in to grill the convicted child abuser after he stonewalled private eyes acting for Maddie's parents Gerry and Kate.
Blah Blah, EDITED
"At this point Hewlett, who lives in Aachen with partner Mariana, 33, and their six kids, let fly with another four-letter volley before leaping from the wheelchair and dashing inside the hospital."

You can't Leap and then Dash if you have foot plates on your wheelchair !

PeterMac wrote:

You can't Leap and then Dash if you have foot plates on your wheelchair !

Very true. So this picture was staged for the benefit of photographers and journalists, but when the questions came he legged it. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Talk about having a back up plan.

This may interest some :

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

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Good find Steevo that looks like the McCanns manual of how to behave when your child goes missing.

Yep, I think most can apply to the McCann's. Number 11 definitely, and boy, did it work!
No-one, normally, could 'admit' child neglect and walk away without prison sentence/significant SS involvement. K+G have managed it, and not only that, they have gained massive public support and sympathy! It makes me ashamed to be human, frankly. Are these people sleep-walking, or such sheeple that The Sun tells them that The McCanns must be sympathised with - so they do?
Well sorry! I have a brain in my head and whilst it still works those two will never get my sorrow. I reserve that for a little girl named Maddie.

ETA: I don't believe there WAS neglect, BTW.

Even our Bob has his doubts in this cleverly done video

a lot to digest there, thanks for that.

I think maebee's new post on McCann's Latest News [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] deserves a place on this thread aswell because Dr Amaral is clearly a victim of the McCann's calculated hoax.

Lets not forget that Dr Amaral lost his job and pension, his dog was killed, his marriage destroyed, his children affected, his reputation destroyed by the McCann's and UK media, his book banned and sued for libel, his assets frozen just because he did his job after the McCann's themselves neglected all their children until one went missing, presumed dead.

Quote:

NOT CHANGING HIS MIND: Gonçalo Amaral said the Maddie-case has 'ruined' him. Still, the ex-investigator is certain that he knows what happened to Madeleine McCann. Photo: Per Lars Tonstad
- It's hard to accept that I have to live like this just because I did my job
The man who led the investigation of Maddie's disappearance is fighting a bitter feud with Madeleine's parents.



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

-------

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

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

Quote of The Day:

Bishop Brennan wrote:It is amazing (and impressive) that this one lone man with zero resources is still standing - despite the might of the McCann's formidable army that has been set against him almost from day 1.  

- An extensive PR machine
- Several prime ministers
- Influential government advisers,
- SY and £10 million pounds of our cash
- The entire UK press
- All of the UK TV networks
- The very best lawyers in the UK
- A multi-million pound fund
- Several sets of private investigators
- Multi-leveled injunctions and appeals
- An ongoing libel case

And not only is he still out there fighting, he even seems to be winning some of the battles.  Can he win the war...?  Hard to say, the McCann army has brought in some heavy reinforcements in the past year or two, but if it turns out that he was right all along, then hero status (in Portugal at least) awaits.

Perhaps we can also add the family of the now-deceased tractor man, who had a family members past dragged through the press, seemingly for no purpose other than obfuscation.

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

Ask the Expert: Easing child’s worries about kidnapping

The human mind is not rational when it comes to assessing risk and excessive anxiety can be triggered.
John Sharry
Madeleine Mccann
Tue, Jan 28, 2014, 01:00


Q We hope you may be able to help: our eight-year-old daughter has recently developed a fear of being kidnapped to the extent that she will now not sleep on her own or even go upstairs without someone going with her (preferably my husband or me).
She has also developed some facial tics which may be related to this new anxiety. She is, and has always been, a sunny child, gets on great with her two sisters (aged 10 and 12), has lots of friends and interests and is doing really well in school. We also live in a safe area and family life is very happy and stable.
We are not sure where this is coming from, except that the Madeleine
McCann case was in the news before Christmas and she is also participating in the very worthwhile Stay Safe programme in school (which warns against stranger danger, etc).
We try to reassure her and not make a big deal of it and, for example, have moved her bed into her sister’s room for a while. We are hoping she will grow out of it but would appreciate some advice on whether we are doing the right thing or what else we should do so that this fear doesn’t develop further or that she becomes an anxious or withdrawn child over time.
A Though childhood fears and phobias usually have a specific trigger, frequently their cause is quite non-specific and could be related to developmental changes and growing up.
At eight years of age your daughter is getting older and becoming more aware of dangers in the world. She is probably more aware of the bad news stories that are everywhere and may be particularly sensitive to the worries these evoke in everyone.
A big child abduction story such as the case of Madeleine McCann can cause everyone to worry and take stock. It feeds into parental worst fears about what can happen to their children and also can cause children to worry about similar bad things happening to them.
Though, thankfully, abductions and kidnappings are extremely rare, the human mind is not rational when it comes to assessing risk and, instead, excessive anxiety can be triggered.
This is especially the case for children with sensitive personalities or who have a predisposition to worry or being anxious. The facial tics you have observed are most likely to represent a nervous behaviour caused by worry and stress she is experiencing.
The good news is that there is a lot you can do to help your daughter. Anxious children are usually very co-operative and can be easily supported to tackle their worries.
In addition, they often have vivid imaginations (employed against themselves in worry to visualise negative outcomes) that you can draw upon to help them imagine new ways of coping. Below are a few specific strategies that might help.
Support and reassure her
The first step is to be very supportive towards her about her fears and to listen carefully to what she says. Encourage her to talk about her worries and to express her feelings.
Be careful about becoming frustrated and dismissing her worries as this can make her feel bad about being anxious which, in turn, can escalate her anxiety. Instead, aim to be empathetic and show you understand how she is feeling, while also being reassuring that she is safe and well.
Comments
PeterMac
One of the real tragedies about the Madeleine case is the irrational fear it has caused people, both parents and children, who now believe that the world is populated by predatory kidnappers. In fact as everyone knows a child is far more likely to be harmed by someone in its own family. And of course in the McCann case there is no evidence of anyone having entered the apartment. This is one of the big stumbling blocks in the investigation.

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

rainbow-fairy wrote:

ETA: I don't believe there WAS neglect, BTW.

For what its worth, neither do I, had this been merely a case of neglect, Madeleine would have still been alive today, as are the other two chidren of the McCanns.

To create the illusion of a potential abduction, there has to be an element of accepted neglect, albeit grudgingly.

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

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

steevo1962 wrote:This may interest some :

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

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”, “radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual deviates”, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they are to criticism”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Excellent, Steevo! One epithet which I didn't see mentioned, and which one hears a lot in this case is "ludicrous", when dismissing any "purported" theory about the case!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Members are respectfully asked not to resurrect old defunct threads without good reason.


Thank you.  Mod