Re: THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett

by plebgate 22.03.13 11:08

I do not feel pity for them.

I feel pity for Maddie.

Why should I feel pity for people who seek to make others feel fear?

Why should I pity for people who seek to bankrupt and imprison a pensioner and have leagle eagles monitoring websites to make sure that their "directions" are adhered to. If they are not woe betide TB for he will be locked up for 3 months. That is the man I feel pity for.

by **PeterMac** 22.03.13 11:22

russiandoll wrote:
My position :
Kate does not ramble in her book imo. It was clearly written with an agenda, that being to attempt to explain away certain contentious issues.
There is in the book as in the witness statements a clear attempt to "back-fill" or "retro- fit", . . .

Exactly my thoughts. What is interesting is that the lawyers did not advise that people would see through it.

by celtclogs 22.03.13 11:44

plebgate wrote:I do not feel pity for them.

I feel pity for Maddie.

Why should I feel pity for people who seek to make others feel fear?

Why should I pity for people who seek to bankrupt and imprison a pensioner and have leagle eagles monitoring websites to make sure that their "directions" are adhered to. If they are not woe betide TB for he will be locked up for 3 months. That is the man I feel pity for.

THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 351181

by Guest 22.03.13 14:07

PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
My position :
Kate does not ramble in her book imo. It was clearly written with an agenda, that being to attempt to explain away certain contentious issues.
There is in the book as in the witness statements a clear attempt to "back-fill" or "retro- fit", . . .
Exactly my thoughts. What is interesting is that the lawyers did not advise that people would see through it.

***
Interesting indeed.
I remember a lawyer, having problems to suppress a big grin on his face when presenting his freshly declared "arguido" client to the press.
I also remember a lawyer, complaining that her friends don't want to see her anymore as they are in favour of Dr. Amaral.
And I remember a lawyer, having assisted the pair for 4 years, but not able to testify whether she had any knowledge or proof of an "abduction" ...

by aiyoyo 22.03.13 14:13

Châtelaine wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
My position :
Kate does not ramble in her book imo. It was clearly written with an agenda, that being to attempt to explain away certain contentious issues.
There is in the book as in the witness statements a clear attempt to "back-fill" or "retro- fit", . . .
Exactly my thoughts. What is interesting is that the lawyers did not advise that people would see through it.
***
Interesting indeed.
I remember a lawyer, having problems to suppress a big grin on his face when presenting his freshly declared "arguido" client to the press.
I also remember a lawyer, complaining that her friends don't want to see her anymore as they are in favour of Dr. Amaral.
And I remember a lawyer, having assisted the pair for 4 years, but not able to testify whether she had any knowledge or proof of an "abduction" ...

All expensive lawyers helping their own pockets.

by **PeterMac** 22.03.13 14:42

Châtelaine wrote:
*
Interesting indeed.
I remember a lawyer, having problems to suppress a big grin on his face when presenting his freshly declared "arguido" client to the press.
I also remember a lawyer, complaining that her friends don't want to see her anymore as they are in favour of Dr. Amaral.
And I remember a lawyer, having assisted the pair for 4 years, but not able to testify whether she had any knowledge or proof of an "abduction" ...

And we remember a lawyer who helped with the preparation of the book, but did not read it.

by Casey5 22.03.13 18:50

I've never been able to visualise a situation such as theirs where I or my husband would cover up the death of one of our children. In such a scenario, if my husband was guilty I wouldn't protect him and he wouldn't protect me if I was guilty. How could it be any other way?
I can only imagine that if I was responsible I would be so consumed with guilt and anguish that I would confess all to the nearest policeman and know that any punishment I would be given would be insignificent compared to how I would feel for the rest of my life knowing that my child was dead and I was responsible, either directly or indirectly.
I would feel that my other children would be safer and better off with other family members, if I couldn't look after their sister.
What I wouldn't have done was what the McCanns did do, not in a million years.

by **Nina** 22.03.13 19:08

Casey5 wrote:I've never been able to visualise a situation such as theirs where I or my husband would cover up the death of one of our children. In such a scenario, if my husband was guilty I wouldn't protect him and he wouldn't protect me if I was guilty. How could it be any other way?
I can only imagine that if I was responsible I would be so consumed with guilt and anguish that I would confess all to the nearest policeman and know that any punishment I would be given would be insignificent compared to how I would feel for the rest of my life knowing that my child was dead and I was responsible, either directly or indirectly.
I would feel that my other children would be safer and better off with other family members, if I couldn't look after their sister.
What I wouldn't have done was what the McCanns did do, not in a million years.

Good post Casey5 roses

by russiandoll 22.03.13 19:34

quote casey5 " I've never been able to visualise a situation such as theirs where I or
my husband would cover up the death of one of our children. In such a
scenario, if my husband was guilty I wouldn't protect him and he
wouldn't protect me if I was guilty. How could it be any other way? "

the above are not the only scenarios for death though, what about the one where neither parent is guilty, a case of accidental death? Are there any scenarios there where you could envisage a cover-up?

by Dr What 22.03.13 20:08

Throughout the parents' actions since this plot was hurriedly devised , I can see one overwhelming imperative.That was to protect their position as career doctors.
They needed to protect their position with their respective families, who have invested much in ensuring the successful careers of Kate Healy and Gerry McCann.Hence the need for phone calls back to the UK almost immediately after the 'abduction', to convince them that a violent entry to the flat had happened.Then leave the rest to an overactive media only too willing to accept the version of events from a pair of British doctors on an innocent holiday with fellow British doctors.Who would possibly disbelieve British doctors!
They needed then to protect their legal position.They probably could not believe their luck when money started arriving in such quantities that they could then pay for the 'best' legal protection.They now knew that they could play the long game, hang around the place 'looking' for their daughter, knowing that the financial gifts enabled them to fight any legal battle should the need arise.They could even control any media publicity via their paid mouthpiece.
They then needed to calculate what image the public saw.This quickly proved a problem, as truly independent minded journalists posed difficult, awkward questions to them which made them look very calculating and false.As a result, appearances in front of the media were limited and very controlled.
They then needed to attack and destroy any voices that questioned the version of events that they required people to swallow.The money that had been previously donated, plus the monies from the legal actions and book, took care of this.
They have calculated that they can play the long game.People will forget, get bored, move on to something else.All designed to protect careers that other people have made sacrificies to create.These 'doctors' do not need help.They have received enough of that.They might deserve pity, but only when they have acknowledged their failings and their involvement in this plot.
And only when they have paid up in full for the attempt to destroy those who have sought to expose the nonsense of their various versions of events.

by littlepixie 22.03.13 22:01

O/T But I found this interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21806911

I am still convinced that the DNA may be a key to all this and would explain the high levels of support.

by **PeterMac** 22.03.13 22:16

russiandoll wrote:. . . the above are not the only scenarios for death though, what about the one where neither parent is guilty, a case of accidental death? Are there any scenarios there where you could envisage a cover-up?

There is a scenario where BOTH parents are guilty - - - - and the death is "accidental", though caused by negligence at best, or unlawful activity at worst.
Then there might well be a cover-up.
And any other persons so involved might also wish to contribute to the setting up and maintenance of the "official story".

by T4two 22.03.13 22:23

littlepixie wrote:O/T But I found this interesting http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21806911

I am still convinced that the DNA may be a key to all this and would explain the high levels of support.

Oh Good find! Well worth reading and yes, I can see the connection, but is it possible to have a mix of healthy/unhealthy children?

by Casey5 23.03.13 16:11

Thanks Nina. THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 3885497126

russiandoll

the above are not the only scenarios for death though, what about the
one where neither parent is guilty, a case of accidental death? Are
there any scenarios there where you could envisage a cover-up?

In a case of accidental death, then they should surely have contacted the relevant authorities. If they knew how she died, a fall etc would have been obvious, then because of the frequency of the checks they say were made, they could have said Madeleine was perched on the sofa and fell as they arrived. If there wasn't a huge delay in finding her it's unlikely an autopsy could give the time of death to a very short interval. Kids do have accidents, mine certainly did - although never fatal ones I hasten to add.
A problem arises, of course, if the children were sedated. This would definately be picked up in an autopsy. Still it would be difficult for both to agree to an elaborate scheme of abduction and to involve at least some of their mates. You would think their Catholic sense of guilt would have made them confess though, and not just to a priest.

by **PeterMac** 23.03.13 16:50

Casey5 wrote:
A problem arises, of course, if the children were sedated. This would definately be picked up in an autopsy.

Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann entered the apartment in the holiday resort and reported Madeleine missing. The younger twins were still in their travel cots in the same room, and were asleep.

What followed is a matter of public record. The apartment was searched, several times, by many people, the surrounding area was searched by large numbers of police and ex-pats and villagers, and huge amount of activity was directed to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts. All were in vain.

BUT . . . during all of this commotion -

despite a window and shutters having been open for an hour on a cold night,
despite the door slamming shut,
despite curtains blowing into the room,
despite their mother frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards
despite their mother rushing out screaming for help,
despite the entire Tapas 7 group searching throughout the apartment,
despite Kate and the Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside,
despite Gerry McCann’s closing and opening the shutters multiple times
despite Mrs Webster’s similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing,
despite the Police investigating the scene,
despite Gerry’s “roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor,
despite both parents repeating this action and wailing
despite Kate’s checking the twins for vital signs,
despite the twins being lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and
despite their being carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment.

Despite all of this . . . the twins did not wake

Kate McCann stated in 2011 that she had suspected sedation from the very first. Given the above perhaps this is understandable.
In her book, Madeleine, which she described as “A Version of the Truth”, she says this explicitly.
3 May 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until May 2011)
p. 75 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too ?”

She also reported this to the Officer in the case

by Liz Eagles 23.03.13 17:15

Snipped from PeterMac's excellent post:

'Kate McCann stated in 2011 that she had suspected sedation from the very first. Given the above perhaps this is understandable.
In her book, Madeleine, which she described as “A Version of the Truth”, she says this explicitly.
3 May 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until May 2011)
p. 75 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too ?”

If that's the case would you

a. Get your twins to hospital quickly to find out if your suspicions are correct and to ascertain what had been administered to them?

or

b. Get them back to the creche fairly soon after their sister's 'abduction' to be placed in the care of 'trustworthy' strangers again?

by **PeterMac** 23.03.13 18:03

And never forget

Reminder
The McCanns, and many of their Tapas7 friends are medically trained.
Both Dr. Kate McCann and Dr. Fiona Payne are trained to a high standard in anaesthetics. In fact both were Junior Registrars.

Their continued insistence on sedation by an ‘intruder’ as a viable proposition, when combined with the unambiguous admission in their statements, in interviews, and in the book, of clearly defined professional negligence in their manifest failure to provide, or even consider, any form of resuscitation or aftercare, is baffling.

But these qualified anaesthetists simply put a palm on a child’s back, or a finger under its nose. There is no record that of whether each child was turned, undressed and examined minutely for needle stick marks, or had its mouth, nose and throat cleared or checked for the presence of a chloroform soaked rag, had its breath smelled for evidence of drugs, gas or ketones, had its pupil response monitored, had its heart rate taken, had other reflexes tested, or was roused until fully conscious. These would be standard procedures.

On the contrary, what evidence there is points to the twins’ having simply been left for a considerable period unattended, and then some two hours later scooped up out of their travel cots, in the bedclothes in which they slept, and being carried, still sleeping, out into the cold night air and round to an adjacent apartment where they were left to sleep.

Neither doctor performed any of the usual and medically required tests or procedures appropriate to recovery from anaesthesia. It is a matter of record that the twins were not taken to a hospital for assessment.

On the facts therefore the doctors were in serious and negligent breach of a whole series of medical protocols for which nurses have been struck off the register.
And even more strangely, they have admitted this in statements and in the book. They have made no attempt to suggest that they acted correctly.

by brilynn 23.03.13 20:09

Peter Mac and Aquila,I thank you both,for the obvious truth you relate so well.As a grandma of 12 ,the only reason in my eyes,for Kate to have felt the need to check the twins were still breathing so soon,was because she,d seen the horrific outcome of a "little sleeping aid" administered to all 3 babies earlier,and realised she could be facing an even bigger disaster!.Peter,in your mind ,do you really believe there isn,t ,at least one member of the SY team ,investigating this crime,who will ,if he is "allowed",stand up and be counted? Or ,do they really just work their socks off to get the result demanded from the people in charge?

by Guest 23.03.13 20:15

Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

by Casey5 23.03.13 20:16

Given that Kate McCann thought the twins appeared to have been sedated and Gerry saying that Madeleine had been abducted by a paedophile gang wouldn't it have been normal to strip the twins and examine them just in case they had been molested in any way? Or demand that they go to hospital to be checked over?
But we shouldn't be too hasty to judge them, after all the McCanns were very busy arranging for important people to be contacted to help them, the media to be alerted and legal experts to protect their backs. Priorities eh? THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 110921

THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 110921

by Guest 23.03.13 20:17

Super post Brilynn
I'd like to know as well!
kindest regards
parapono

by Guest 23.03.13 20:25

Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Maybe one of these 'close-to-retirement' police officers will tell all once they've left the force....maybe write a book called 'Maddie: The truth about the review'.

by Guest 23.03.13 20:36

admin wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Maybe one of these 'close-to-retirement' police officers will tell all once they've left the force....maybe write a book called 'Maddie: The truth about the review'.

***
Good one, Admin THE SENTENCING JUDGMENT in the case of McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 160807

by Newintown 23.03.13 20:50

Dr What wrote:Throughout the parents' actions since this plot was hurriedly devised , I can see one overwhelming imperative.That was to protect their position as career doctors.
They needed to protect their position with their respective families, who have invested much in ensuring the successful careers of Kate Healy and Gerry McCann.Hence the need for phone calls back to the UK almost immediately after the 'abduction', to convince them that a violent entry to the flat had happened.Then leave the rest to an overactive media only too willing to accept the version of events from a pair of British doctors on an innocent holiday with fellow British doctors.Who would possibly disbelieve British doctors!
They needed then to protect their legal position.They probably could not believe their luck when money started arriving in such quantities that they could then pay for the 'best' legal protection.They now knew that they could play the long game, hang around the place 'looking' for their daughter, knowing that the financial gifts enabled them to fight any legal battle should the need arise.They could even control any media publicity via their paid mouthpiece.
They then needed to calculate what image the public saw.This quickly proved a problem, as truly independent minded journalists posed difficult, awkward questions to them which made them look very calculating and false.As a result, appearances in front of the media were limited and very controlled.
They then needed to attack and destroy any voices that questioned the version of events that they required people to swallow.The money that had been previously donated, plus the monies from the legal actions and book, took care of this.
They have calculated that they can play the long game.People will forget, get bored, move on to something else.All designed to protect careers that other people have made sacrificies to create.These 'doctors' do not need help.They have received enough of that.They might deserve pity, but only when they have acknowledged their failings and their involvement in this plot.
And only when they have paid up in full for the attempt to destroy those who have sought to expose the nonsense of their various versions of events.

Thank you Dr What for your very interesting and succinct contribution. You seem to have summed up in one post what everyone has been discussing for the past 6 years.

You're not a journalist by any chance are you? From reading your post I get the impression that you may be as you refer to journalists in your post feeling frustrated that no questions could be put to the McCanns that they weren't forewarned about.

ETA: If you are a journalist if would be interesting to hear your views on G McCann hijacking "Hacked Off" and why he's disappeared into a black hole never to be heard or seen since the deal was done.

by Guest 23.03.13 21:08

Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Ho, here; do they not stand in danger of losing their pensions if they do not toe the party line?

by T4two 23.03.13 21:47

Portia wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Ho, here; do they not stand in danger of losing their pensions if they do not toe the party line?

I fear that this is no longer the case. Today's force seem to be in it for what they can get out of it moneywise. Apart from that there has been a trend towards a culture of promotion based on political correctness i.e. toeing the party line since at least 1997. I imagine it's not so difficult for all 30 SY detectives to forget about any ideas of a mission for truth - having been conditioned for the past 16 years to do just that.

by Guest 23.03.13 22:05

Portia wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Ho, here; do they not stand in danger of losing their pensions if they do not toe the party line?

Yes they do
parapono

by Guest 23.03.13 22:33

If that would be true, there would be no confidence in any matter regarding law and justice ...

by loopzdaloop 24.03.13 1:18

With regard to the poster who mocked the idea of a 'Kate Code',
i agree entirely with the other poster who mentioned 'retrofill'.
We have lots of examples of questions being answered that have not openly been asked. This includes the Seabass in the car; coincidently releasing similar chemical scent to cadaver, tea stains on the Jimjams; coincidently containing a compound contained in blood, the DNA in the car; which Gerry laughing explains to journalists in a video that it could have been mixed up with 5 people. Strange answers considering these unscientific dogs, which only yesterda were used again by british police to find a body in a landslide in cornwall, are totally inaccurate. Yet signalled behind the sofa and in the wardrobe. Did anyone ever answer what happened to the tennis bag in that photograph which was stored in that wardrobe?

I do think Kate, whose specialism is already mentioned here would be the person most likely to recognise whether someone may have been 'drugged'. I do believe that is more 'retrofill', just incase any evidence ever turns up. Maddie being drugged as well would make sense in the context of her being asleep durig each check, especially in a strange appartment as whilst in te comfort of her own own the mccanns had awful trouble keeping her in bed. They even had a behaviour reward chart to try and encourage her to stay in bed at home. Perhaps the phantom child drugger did not give maddie enough, being somewhat careless and she woke up and climbed o the sofa to look out the window for her parents, yet slipped in between the sill and the back cracking her head open.

A tragic accident.

What would normally happen here is that she would be taken to hospital and her parents would get lots of sympathy, despite the neglect as anyone sympathetic to their current plight will say 'your not perfect, nobodies perfect, we all make mistakes, it could happen to anyone. they can never suffer more than they are now'.

However, what if she was drugged? An autopsy would show whether she had anything in her system. If she was druggged, those sympathetic voices would be much less. Social services would be obliged to act and there would be a child protection conference and public outrage over how two people could neglect AND drug their children.

Suddenly, theres more to lose.
Those children, desired so much after going through the trauma of IVF could be taken away.
Not only that but the misuse of medication could cost them their careers.
They spent years getting to where they were,
Missed their most fertile time of life for their careers and now that eould be lost too.
Suddenly when your caught between a rock and a hard place
You start to look at your options.
It all happens quickly, but your friends know your plight and what you've been through and they know its a tragic accident. It could have been one of them.. Could it? It could if they were acting in a manner similar to the mccanns. The other friends also have things to hide... David Payne for one. The gaspars remembered a previous holiday and inappropriate jokes with sexual undertones about children. Yvonne Martin also thought she saw a familiar face, through her work as a social worker specialising in child protection in plymouth. Plymouth isnt that big... Most people know everyone else, you would definitly have to be sure to breach confidentiality, however they have things to hide too.

So:
We have setting events -
IVF, high powered careers, a pattern of poor sleep hygiene
Next you have:
That holiday, a time for peace, with friends who are likeminded who have had similar experiences
You desire:
To maintain that peace
You think:
Just a little something to keep her in bed, everybody does it, it'll be fine this is my speciality in medicine i've only had a little to drink, i know the right amount
Suddenly:
Time goes by, you go home and theres a tragic accident
Your up all night, shocked, everything you have to lose flashes before your eyes
But:
Someone has an idea to make it go away,
Dont worry il take the other children to the creche and sign everyone in, they all look the same anyway...

And then it starts, the 'creche'-endo of events culminating in 'they' whomever they may
Be 'taking her'.

I always thought that the way kate describes how she wanted to end it all, was very specific.. Her description of how she wanted to drown. Retrofill.

I do have faith in Scotland Yard, especially after the Stephen Lawrence case i feel that they have earnt the benefit of the doubt. I also dont like to see them criticised for following every lead as when they do and rule it out, its one less excuse the mccanns can have in court. Consider SY digging up the retrofill.
After all, forensic training is similar the world over. Leicestershire police also helped the portugese to 'develop' the evidence. We all know what it suggests! However SY have been watertight we have got little info from them and I would consider that a positive!

I do have sympathy for the poor graduate minions in pr companies or carterrick reading this expecting the work to help them on their career ladder. When it all blows up in their face their CV is going to be ruined!
The nuremberg does not apply. This sort of work would be considered conspiracy.

(Sorry for any typos am on mobile)

by aiyoyo 24.03.13 1:59

T4two wrote:
Portia wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Brilynn, I cannot for the life of me imagine that not at least one of the 30+ SY detectives, most of them close to their retirement, would toe a party line and bury evidence. Apart from retirement and nothing to lose, one is / becomes a detective because IMO one has a mission for truth ...

Ho, here; do they not stand in danger of losing their pensions if they do not toe the party line?

I fear that this is no longer the case. Today's force seem to be in it for what they can get out of it moneywise. Apart from that there has been a trend towards a culture of promotion based on political correctness i.e. toeing the party line since at least 1997. I imagine it's not so difficult for all 30 SY detectives to forget about any ideas of a mission for truth - having been conditioned for the past 16 years to do just that.

I fear you might be right.
Individualism, with its strong principles and ideas of truth has no place in the real world of corruption.
Any individual rank and file who wishes to go against the might of collective forces - that of Head in Charge, Police Commissioner, and Policiticians combined - will find himself going against the tsunami.
It will be uphill struggle to stand up to the collective might if you only have truth on your side. You will have to have another force behind you, equally strong, if not stronger, as the corrupted force to counter that before you even attempt to stand up to the corrupted force publicly.

Most individual coopers with strong principles and ideas of truth would probably moan about their inept bosses and corrupted system in private, but does not have the means/force or might or guts and bravery to counter the corruption even if they have the will. It would take a very special individual to come out, stake everything in his life, lay down his life so to speak, to stand up to the truth. And most individuals would not do it on the principle of truth as an ideology, not in context of missing child, especially one where her parents were involved and doing everything they can to suppress the truth.