Donal McIntyre article

I've heard that there's a dreadful article in the Irish paper Sunday World by Donal McIntyre who was at one time a competent investigative journalist.

It doesn't seem to be possible to access it online but here's a link to a short clip and that's bad enough by itself!

http://www.sundayworld.com/index.php

Right hand side - Madeleine McCann Cold Case Review

Jean wrote:I've heard that there's a dreadful article in the Irish paper Sunday World by Donal McIntyre who was at one time a competent investigative journalist.

It doesn't seem to be possible to access it online but here's a link to a short clip and that's bad enough by itself!

http://www.sundayworld.com/index.php

Right hand side - Madeleine McCann Cold Case Review

I didn't bother to go past the first few sentences. This rubbish gets readers and viewers just for the P word. Practically porn.

Jean wrote:I've heard that there's a dreadful article in the Irish paper Sunday World by Donal McIntyre who was at one time a competent investigative journalist.

It is interesting how contact with the McCanns and their story seems to diminish everyone.
Jon Clarke of the Olive Press (dot es) once wrote a half reasonable book on the Costa Killer, but went totally to pieces with the drivel about the shutters and then about the Angolan bouncer; some MPs seem to have had their brains turned off and to have lost their sense of detachment; tough interviewers like Paxman just turned to jelly; the normally reasonable press have written unmitigated nonsense; Lord Leverson turned from being an incisive forensic specialist into a wet sponge, and so on.
What is it they do to people ?

PeterMac wrote:

Jean wrote:I've heard that there's a dreadful article in the Irish paper Sunday World by Donal McIntyre who was at one time a competent investigative journalist.

It is interesting how contact with the McCanns and their story seems to diminish everyone.
Jon Clarke of the Olive Press (dot es) once wrote a half reasonable book on the Costa Killer, but went totally to pieces with the drivel about the shutters and then about the Angolan bouncer; some MPs seem to have had their brains turned off and to have lost their sense of detachment; tough interviewers like Paxman just turned to jelly; the normally reasonable press have written unmitigated nonsense; Lord Leverson turned from being an incisive forensic specialist into a wet sponge, and so on.
What is it they do to people ?

I don't think they do anything to the individual. It's my opinion that there is so much drivel, spin and tripe that it's not worth the likes of Paxman (for whom I have a great deal of respect) to waste time on it. It's just another week in the media. There will be another story to tackle the week after and if no-one is kow-towing to the spin-doctors then careers might just be damaged. IMO what they do is to make people give up and move along. It's a slick operation (of course this is my humble opinion).
I'm editing to add. Whilst the fate of Madeleine is important to me and most people on this forum it's a poor assumption that it's important to everyone else. There are a hundred stories in the newspapers each day, most of them bad news or fear-mongering nonsense. Stick the picture of a little girl in a pink dress who has gone missing in Portugal (it's not deepest, darkest Amazon country but it may as well be) and IMO you have a sure-fire winner. What an easy job.

pps. I'm adding again. How many people have made money out of Madeleine's disappearance, that's the question for me.

[quote="aquila"]IMO what they do is to make people give up and move along. It's a slick operation (of course this is my humble opinion).[quote]



On the other side of the coin there are many people on forums, blogs, facebook, twitter etc who are determined to stick with this case to the end because they can see for themselves what is going on. NSY may well have been commissioned, with millions of pounds of tax payers money to do a cover up in these times of austerity when people are dying because they can't afford to eat anymore, but there is always Snr Amaral who wants to see justice done for a little girl whose death her parents want covered up for some bizarre reason. No matter how much of the McCanns publicly donated money it takes to silence people with libel lawyers people are intrigued to know why the McCanns are so special that government, media and police are at their beck and call and Madeleine is being denied justice right in front of our very eyes.

[quote="happychick"][quote="aquila"]IMO what they do is to make people give up and move along. It's a slick operation (of course this is my humble opinion).

On the other side of the coin there are many people on forums, blogs, facebook, twitter etc who are determined to stick with this case to the end because they can see for themselves what is going on. NSY may well have been commissioned, with millions of pounds of tax payers money to do a cover up in these times of austerity when people are dying because they can't afford to eat anymore, but there is always Snr Amaral who wants to see justice done for a little girl whose death her parents want covered up for some bizarre reason. No matter how much of the McCanns publicly donated money it takes to silence people with libel lawyers people are intrigued to know why the McCanns are so special that government, media and police are at their beck and call and Madeleine is being denied justice right in front of our very eyes.

I'm here for the long haul. We long-haulers must be very irritating to TM.

For those who've forgotten or didn't know, Donal McIntyre and Jeremy Wilkins know each other. They both worked on the series Britain's Toughest Cities.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433705/fullcredits

could not see any article just a video made by McIntyre ages ago. rubbish, he used to be a decent journalist.
Also dont know why it is being rehashed now.

The article isn't available online Russian doll, I didn't know that the video clip wasn't recent. I have heard from someone in Ireland that the actual article was dreadful and full of inaccuracies so we aren't missing much.

Donal Mcintyre follows @greenink211 on twitter. Need I say more?

[quote="aquila"][quote="happychick"]

aquila wrote:IMO what they do is to make people give up and move along. It's a slick operation (of course this is my humble opinion).

On the other side of the coin there are many people on forums, blogs, facebook, twitter etc who are determined to stick with this case to the end because they can see for themselves what is going on. NSY may well have been commissioned, with millions of pounds of tax payers money to do a cover up in these times of austerity when people are dying because they can't afford to eat anymore, but there is always Snr Amaral who wants to see justice done for a little girl whose death her parents want covered up for some bizarre reason. No matter how much of the McCanns publicly donated money it takes to silence people with libel lawyers people are intrigued to know why the McCanns are so special that government, media and police are at their beck and call and Madeleine is being denied justice right in front of our very eyes.

I'm here for the long haul. We long-haulers must be very irritating to TM.

I do hope we irritate them aquila and I am too for the long haul

Gillyspot wrote:Donal Mcintyre follows @greenink211 on twitter. Need I say more?

GOOD GOD Is Donal Mcintyre that bad Gilly he follows that TROLL

Has Mcintyre slit Gerry's throat (so to speak)?

If there was a person already in Madeleine's room which Gerry McCann says he had left just a few minutes earlier and he also stated the abductor must have been in that room when he was there. If a lone abducter was in that room and he had carefully picked Madeleine up from her bed then Madeleine's legs would be pointing out the opposite way to what Jane Tanner said.

Look at the picture of Madeleine's bed up against the wall, the head board on his right hand side of the abductor as he leaned over to pick her up, her legs would be draped over his left arm, he would have then scooped her up carefully so as not to arouse her (and of course stopped to smooth the blankets),then faced great difficulty in getting Madeleine out of the small shuttered front window, having to step on the foot of the bed under the window to do so, yet that bed near the window was not disturbed where his foot would have touched it.

Had he risked putting her down again on the direct opposite bed under the window, her legs would still be on his left hand side, now facing the headboard of the opposite bed, but still on his left hand side as he climbed out of the window (unless he was a contortionist) her legs draped over his left hand,

Jane Tanner saw the guy walking across her path to her right, that would have made Maddie's legs draped over the right arm of the abductor an impossibility if he worked alone, unless someone was waiting in the room to hand Madeleine over to an accomplice. that accomplice standing outside would have taken Madeleine from the insider, her legs then draped over his right hand, the same side as Jane Tanner said she saw..

That would mean there were two abductors, double the risk of being seen, unless, there was an insider who handed Madeleine to the abductor, someone who would have seen danger in Jes Wilkins walking up towards the escape route and knew he had to delay him, but did not bank on Jane Tanner strolling up that route.

The abductor now praying Jes Wilkin's attention could be diverted, then peeking around the corner to see if he could chance it saw Tanner walking up the hill towards him and he had to take his chances and strides across the road to get away.

Jane made a statement stating, she saw the man carrying a small child, with her legs facing toward her and draped over the abuductors right arm. an impossibility if the man acted alone.

As to a a copy key to the apparment.

Looking at the layout of Madeliene's bedroom, I would say that if the abductor entered the appartment via the front door with a key, he would have entered with Madeleine's bedroom to his right hand side of him, he loops to his right around the interior wall, walks straight into Madeleine's bedroom, turns to his left left where Madeleine's bed is situated, picks her up with her feet draped over his left arm, turns walks out of the door now on his right, loops left around the interior wall, into the passage, walks through the passage through the front door. her head still on his riight arm, to make his get away he turns to the right to cross the path of Jane Tanner, Madeleine's head should still be on his right arm as he crosses Jane Tanners path.

He crosses Jane Tanners path his right side showing to Jane Tanner, Madeleine's head still on his right side.

Jane Tanner said the childs legs were draped over the abductors right arm right NOT HER HEAD.

sijm wrote:As to a a copy key to the apparment.

Looking at the layout of Madeliene's bedroom, I would say that if the abductor entered the appartment via the front door with a key, he would have entered with Madeleine's bedroom to his right hand side of him, he loops to his right around the interior wall, walks straight into Madeleine's bedroom, turns to his left left where Madeleine's bed is situated, picks her up with her feet draped over his left arm, turns walks out of the door now on his right, loops left around the interior wall, into the passage, walks through the passage through the front door. her head still on his riight arm, to make his get away he turns to the right to cross the path of Jane Tanner, Madeleine's head should still be on his right arm as he crosses Jane Tanners path.

He crosses Jane Tanners path his right side showing to Jane Tanner, Madeleine's head still on his right side.

Jane Tanner said the childs legs were draped over the abductors right arm right NOT HER HEAD.

You described it so well, I felt I was there.

One problem. There was no abductor!

Thank you.

I think I have proved that exact point, its not based on theory but a logtistical fact , Jane Tanner could not have seen what she said she did and if she did, then who was the insider that handed Madeleine to the abductor dead or alive.

sijm wrote:Has Mcintyre slit Gerry's throat (so to speak)?

If there was a person already in Madeleine's room which Gerry McCann says he had left just a few minutes earlier and he also stated the abductor must have been in that room when he was there. If a lone abducter was in that room and he had carefully picked Madeleine up from her bed then Madeleine's legs would be pointing out the opposite way to what Jane Tanner said.

Look at the picture of Madeleine's bed up against the wall, the head board on his right hand side of the abductor as he leaned over to pick her up, her legs would be draped over his left arm, he would have then scooped her up carefully so as not to arouse her (and of course stopped to smooth the blankets),then faced great difficulty in getting Madeleine out of the small shuttered front window, having to step on the foot of the bed under the window to do so, yet that bed near the window was not disturbed where his foot would have touched it.

Had he risked putting her down again on the direct opposite bed under the window, her legs would still be on his left hand side, now facing the headboard of the opposite bed, but still on his left hand side as he climbed out of the window (unless he was a contortionist) her legs draped over his left hand,

Jane Tanner saw the guy walking across her path to her right, that would have made Maddie's legs draped over the right arm of the abductor an impossibility if he worked alone, unless someone was waiting in the room to hand Madeleine over to an accomplice. that accomplice standing outside would have taken Madeleine from the insider, her legs then draped over his right hand, the same side as Jane Tanner said she saw..

That would mean there were two abductors, double the risk of being seen, unless, there was an insider who handed Madeleine to the abductor, someone who would have seen danger in Jes Wilkins walking up towards the escape route and knew he had to delay him, but did not bank on Jane Tanner strolling up that route.

The abductor now praying Jes Wilkin's attention could be diverted, then peeking around the corner to see if he could chance it saw Tanner walking up the hill towards him and he had to take his chances and strides across the road to get away.

Jane made a statement stating, she saw the man carrying a small child, with her legs facing toward her and draped over the abuductors right arm. an impossibility if the man acted alone.

If anyone from here is planning on sending Scotland Yard any details unearthed on this website or from elsewhere, make sure this post goes along with it too.

Good analysis sijm!

i didnt read past the first part, the guy has not got a clue! hes a clown . Even the most basic facts are wrong.

Really interesting sijm. Certainly would have shown up in the reconstruction if there had been one.
The whole thing just wasn't thought out very well, was it?
Holding your arms at an 90 degree angle and with a load of 3 - 4 stone at least, an impossible way to carry anything.
Maddie should have woken up with all that manipulation and she did wake up frequently, so it's all nonsense that she slept through the whole thing.

What sticks in my mind is that way of carrying a child makes more sense if the child is dead. Then you would not want to clutch it closer to your body. So did JT actually describe what she saw? At another time and/or another location?
I do remember her demonstrating on video how the child was carried. Yet another instance of sticking to the truth as much as possible?

Maybe he thinks there was a whole gang of them that popped into PDL from a local lawless village?

Jean wrote:For those who've forgotten or didn't know, Donal McIntyre and Jeremy Wilkins know each other. They both worked on the series Britain's Toughest Cities.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433705/fullcredits

How odd!

Now, why would Donal McIntyre feel the need of writing his piece of drivel at the very moment Jeremy Wilkins must be preparing to partake in the videoconferenced wittness hearings in the GA trial in Lisbon?

And how truthfull, with hindsight, were Wilkins's original PJ witness statements (let alone his wife's newspaper hagiography of the McCs) to start with?

It was worth having a burnt dinner to spend an hour going throught the alleged abduction that Jane Tanner said she saw, just to get some clarity.

In a reconstruction video conducted by the McCanns for a documentry, Jane tells (even argues a little) with Gerry about how she had passed him as he was speaking to Jes Wilkins also she made the point that Kate had got worried about the lenght of time he (Gerry) had taken to check Madeleine and Kate had thought he was watching the football.

Now we have destroyed or rather cast a major doubt about the sighting by Jane Tanner there is only one more sighting everyone seems to be taking in by, that of the Smiths and Murats alibi, if someone could brake this sightiing then what viable sighting have McCanns got that Madeleine was abducted on third of May? 0

We know we can challenge the other sighting of a child being dragged away by a man and a woman on Lagos Marina, this sighting was reported by Wright months after the event. He allegedly told how he had been informed that a witness who worked in a Pizza Bakery was arriving very early the morning after Madeleine's alleged abduction, that witness told of a child being dragged away by a man and a woman on the Marina.

Well it seems Kate herself may have put paid to that sighting, She allegedly had already made a statement to a British policeman just days after the alleged abduction how a friend of her aunt and uncle's knew a psychic, this psychic had told how she (the psychic) had seen Madeleine on a boat in Lagos Marina with two men, even naming a boat called Sheewater, apparently (its alleged ) they then had visited the Marina somtime between the 4th to the 8th of May and althought they recognized the boat, the psychic did not recognize the man.

No wonder the PJ police discarded this sighting, it had already been noted and checked out by the psychic and allegedly Kate herself.

By the way, its conceivable that the psychic involved is non other than Amanda Hart or Diane Lazarus, Harts agents was once voted one of the UK most influential people in the UK. Lazurus's husband was/is a UK legal aid lawyer.

Amanda told us she was on the case until she was told to go home (back to the UK) in June, maybe by her contact in Spain or maybe others who employ her, June 13th she started spouting out about police strategies and her visions of police searching a barn and how Madeleine had found peace at last, she had also set up a web site just days before Madeleine disappeared.

As I have stated before it is my belief, based purely on evidence and structure of the unfolding events, Madeleine was secreted away as a commodity and did not meet with her final fate until June, when it become impossible to contain a four year old screaming, kicking child.

Time may have passed and with it any remains of Madeleine, but what will remain is scraps of evidence at the scene where Madeleine was secreted dead or alive, Mcintrye tells us that a US Satellite was covering the area at the time Madeleine was taken and his views on this, but does he have all the evidence that proves Madeleine was abducted and killed on the 3rd of May, I know he has not.

sjim wrote: As I have stated before it is my belief, based purely on evidence and structure of the unfolding events, Madeleine was secreted away as a commodity and did not meet with her final fate until June, when it become impossible to contain a four year old screaming, kicking child. unquote

Sorry, this just doesn't work. In the first place the dogs' evidence clearly pinpointed a live body in 5 a which became a dead body.
Why should it be not until June for it to become impossible to contain a four year old screaming kicking child.
Five minutes is usually the limit.

tigger wrote:sjim wrote: As I have stated before it is my belief, based purely on evidence and structure of the unfolding events, Madeleine was secreted away as a commodity and did not meet with her final fate until June, when it become impossible to contain a four year old screaming, kicking child. unquote

Sorry, this just doesn't work. In the first place the dogs' evidence clearly pinpointed a live body in 5 a which became a dead body.
Why should it be not until June for it to become impossible to contain a four year old screaming kicking child.
Five minutes is usually the limit.

Agreed one hundred percent tigger.

It doesn't work... in absence of the dogs findings, it could be conceivable she was 'secreted away as a commodity' but I believe she met her 'final fate' before May 3rd... Could well be she was 'disposed of' in June, though...

Hi Tigger hope you are better.

I agree with you 100/% about Eddie sniffing out that cadavar in the flat.

However I have read on the web, the defence lawyers only have to prove the dogs with react to any cadaver, animal or human to rule this out.

Whether we like it or not we are dealing with a in-depth, complex plot here and somehow every avenue draws me back to the reading material that Dr Gerry McCann so conveniently left on his bedside table, especially that superb novel The Interpretation of Murder, almost as if a mocking gesture for the foreign police force to drool over, so, yes mind games come to mind, lord knows they are good at them.

After an in-depth research of this case since May 3rd 2007 and also sharing some information with the police like thousands of other people, those who have been aroused and determind to help find out the fate of little Madeleine, we all have (I am sure) a different aspect of this case.

Athought my research is based mostly on fact, If you have not read the book Gerry left on his bedside table let me give you a very brief insight, the book is based or rather more, a study of a complex story of deceit and murder with one of the main charactors being Viennese psychiatrist Dr Sigmund Freud and his disciple Carl Jung, The book is full of intrigue about a murder and an attempted murder that never happened, I wont tell you anymore about it other than in the book Freud relates mainly to the OEDIPUS syndrome.

You probably already know that the name OEDIPUS in Greek Mythology, a king of Thebes who unwittingly killed his father and married his mother.

In another version, Laius king of Thebes was warned by the oracle that his son would slay him, When his wife bore a son he exposed the baby on a mountainside, in the story the infant called Oedipus was saved by a shepherd and was adopted by the king of Corinth


I wiil refer to just one more part of a line in the book, the text reads (who put those pages into the manuscript, the ones with the bible stuff on them) it also mentions a the marked text.



1.Kate had a marked text in her bible, one supposedly loaned to her by a friend?

2. Kate have a weird dream of a dead Madeliene exposed on a cliff overlooking the sea?

3. Kate & Gerry dined with one Clement Freud, decendant of Freud, so where is the proof of this?

We are dealing with complex minds here and a complex plot hence my research tells me, if the book was a plant, how many other props were used to stall the case, like a bit of dead pork as Kate suggested the dogs could smell.

It is a well known factor that forensic evidence based on the dogs picking up cadaver cannot be used in a Portuguese court of law, So if I knew it, everyone who is involved in the case would.

Who cares what people think, we know it cannot be used against us, is that the game.

As to why June for being the date Madeleine,s fate was decided, We shall leave those Satellite images speak for themselve at the end of the review, when movements in and around Praia da Luz would have been systematically captured on that Satellites data for the period it was active over Luz.

snip from sijm:

We know we can challenge the other sighting of a child being dragged away by a man and a woman on Lagos Marina, this sighting was reported by Wright months after the event. He allegedly told how he had been informed that a witness who worked in a Pizza Bakery was arriving very early the morning after Madeleine's alleged abduction, that witness told of a child being dragged away by a man and a woman on the Marina: end snip

where did you get this info from? I can't find the report in the P.J. Police Files.

sjim wrote:
I agree with you 100/% about Eddie sniffing out that cadavar in the flat.

However I have read on the web, the defence lawyers only have to prove the dogs with react to any cadaver, animal or human to rule this out.

unquote.

Whether this can be used in a court of law is beside the point. The PJ have established that no-one died in 5a in recent years.
Therefore there is a very high probability that the cadaver odour and the blood traces found by the dogs are from Madeleine.

The defence lawyers would have a hard time proving that these particularly highly trained dogs, with a 100% success rate, could confuse human with animal cadaverine. But if what you say is true, and the dogs' evidence cannot be used in court, why have the dogs been used to find human remains in so many cases? Surely the manner in which the remains were traced is of interest to a court?

But this is all academic, because the DNA evidence cannot be used in court.
This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice, since the findings of the dogs and the DNA analyses initially agreed 100% or as near as makes no difference.

As far the the Oedipus/Freud connection goes. They had contact with Freud and it's quite possible that that particular book was borrowed from him after the 3rd May, when they started to meet quite a few 'celebrities'.
I cannot see how the Oedipus story figures here, or even a faint parallel. Personally, I don't credit anyone in TM with even a faint knowledge of Greek mythology or either Freudian or Jungian theory.
I'm a Jungian myself - Freud's nephew was the inventor of spin, no recommendation imo.

tigger wrote:sjim wrote:
I agree with you 100/% about Eddie sniffing out that cadavar in the flat.

However I have read on the web, the defence lawyers only have to prove the dogs with react to any cadaver, animal or human to rule this out.

unquote.

Whether this can be used in a court of law is beside the point. The PJ have established that no-one died in 5a in recent years.
Therefore there is a very high probability that the cadaver odour and the blood traces found by the dogs are from Madeleine.

The defence lawyers would have a hard time proving that these particularly highly trained dogs, with a 100% success rate, could confuse human with animal cadaverine. But if what you say is true, and the dogs' evidence cannot be used in court, why have the dogs been used to find human remains in so many cases? Surely the manner in which the remains were traced is of interest to a court?

But this is all academic, because the DNA evidence cannot be used in court.
This is an outrageous miscarriage of justice, since the findings of the dogs and the DNA analyses initially agreed 100% or as near as makes no difference.

As far the the Oedipus/Freud connection goes. They had contact with Freud and it's quite possible that that particular book was borrowed from him after the 3rd May, when they started to meet quite a few 'celebrities'.
I cannot see how the Oedipus story figures here, or even a faint parallel. Personally, I don't credit anyone in TM with even a faint knowledge of Greek mythology or either Freudian or Jungian theory.
I'm a Jungian myself - Freud's nephew was the inventor of spin, no recommendation imo.

Tigger, I wasn't aware that the DNA evidence is inadmissable in a Portuguese court. I obviously need to read a lot more of the research that's been done. The striking contrast here for me is that the dogs could be invited, discredited, rubbished and disgarded 'ask the dogs Sandra' because inevitably their findings are not admissable anyway - so nothing to lose (well if you discount the fact that they might actually help find out what happened to Madeleine but hey ho). Fantastic ploy IMO, invite them in, get them out of the way before anyone else could suggest it. Invite psychics, dwell on that, do the dramatic scene because once again nothing's going to come of that either other than it's great reading matter for a book.

Just to add, I too can't see how the Oedipus story is relevant so sijm would have to explain that.

Aquila, The DNA has to be 100% match in Portugal. The match was sufficient for US and UK courts however, which is why I suppose we were treated to the unaccountably compromised sample at the FSS, which generated the second report. Then the samples were thrown out because of the 'contamination'.

That alone, quite frankly stinks. Last year we saw a conviction in the Stephen Lawrence case - based on a microscopic sample which had been kept by the police for 15 years. This is normal practice - future advances in technology might be able to separate the 'contamination' from the original sample. It is standard practice to keep this kind of evidence.

That's why I think they'll never go to prison, the best I'm hoping for is that the fund will be closed and people will know - hopefully they'll go to New Zealand for the rest of their lives.

What has New Zealand done to deserve the McCanns?!!!