Re: chris spivey

by Guest 12.05.13 9:16

September 2007:

The family and friends of Kate and Gerry McCann described suggestions that they could have anything to do with their daughter's disappearance as a "ludicrous, insulting farce".

Mrs McCann's mother, Susan Healy, said in Liverpool: "This is a set-up. Maddie is Kate and Gerry's world. They would never do anything to harm her.

"If there is any evidence to implicate Kate and Gerry in any way then it has been planted.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-480635/Kates-shocked-family-friends-This-set-up.html#ixzz2T42toxy3

by GRACEFUL1 12.05.13 9:19

Brilliant detecting - straight from the horses mouth - so to speak!

by Guest 12.05.13 9:21

I don't believe for a millisecond that Brian Healy ever said that - it can only be a misquote of his wife's comment that any evidence would have been planted.

It's impossible to take anything that Stephen Birch says seriously - mind you he's certainly not the only one you can't believe.

I like the mysterious son of Russell O'Brien he's invented!

by Guest 12.05.13 9:39

Well, he DID say that, NFWTD in a Sky News interview he gave September 7, 2007, outside his house. The video is no longer available [surprise ...], but I found a transcript [published by Bren Ryan chris spivey - Page 3 302873

]

Snippet:

Brian Healy: “The thing is Kate and Gerry are not involved and the stuff must have been planted there, you know the DNA is there, its just unbelievable.”

ETA But this is only proof that he's said it, of course. Nothing more.

BTW underlining of DNA is mine.

by Guest 12.05.13 9:52

[quote="Ayniia"]
Yes I was reading about that yesterday,very strange and the deeper you go,the stranger it gets chris spivey - Page 3 1287980906

And back to topic,I don't believe the body is in Murat's garden, seems nonsense. Stephen's theory seemed credible to me until he said : "Twenty five days after Madeleine went missing, hair and body
fluid removed off Madeleine’s corpse was planted in the Renault hired
by the McCann’s. This was later confirmed by Brian Healey, Kate McCann’s
father. The planting of this DNA by Portuguese Police is the single
most important reason the case was closed 15 months after it was opened." (quote]#

The barking mad theory (25 days after....) comes from the creative mind of Stephen Birch in 2012. He reckons that the police found the body, took samples to incriminate the McCanns and then left it where they found it......

I take Brian Healy's comment in 2007 to refer generally to the various DNA evidence that was found in the apartment and elsewhere; it could not have been aimed at this particular bizarre claim.

by GRACEFUL1 12.05.13 10:18

Enough disinformation intentionally added to this long and winding tale leads to false or inaccurate information being spread deliberately amongst known facts. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth - according to Wikipedia.

by loopzdaloop 12.05.13 11:32

Thanks for the link re the actual quote.
I do not believe he was actually suggesting a conspiracy on the side ofvthecpolice.
What I feel he was actually doing is grasping at straws to explain away the findings to protect himself from further grief, as it must be terrible enough for him to lose a grandchild, let alone entertaining the thought that his daughter has a greater awareness of what happened.

Whatvaboutvgerrybbeing friends with 'Rastaman' and rastamans statement being withheld?

by **tigger** 12.05.13 15:49

Châtelaine wrote:Well, he DID say that, NFWTD in a Sky News interview he gave September 7, 2007, outside his house. The video is no longer available [surprise ...], but I found a transcript [published by Bren Ryan ]

Snippet:

Brian Healy: “The thing is Kate and Gerry are not involved and the stuff must have been planted there, you know the DNA is there, its just unbelievable.”

ETA But this is only proof that he's said it, of course. Nothing more.

BTW underlining of DNA is mine.

Thanks. That just illustrates how Spivey et al manipulate the truth.
At this moment in time, leaving aside the lying under oath at Leveson re 'there were no body fluids in the car', we have an admission that the DNA is there, at the time the Healy's gave their opinion. The planted evidence story gave way to rotting meat and dirty nappies and as late as one of the Swedish interviews last year Gerry admitted of course Maddie's DNA was in the car because our DNA was in it as well and it was all mixed up (not litt. transcript).
The smartie aproach to DNA as I like to call it, forgetting all about the very individual alleles that distinguish one sibling from another.

So: NO 'confirmation' from Mr. Healy at all, a second hand explanation for the admission that DNA was present.

by Guest 12.05.13 20:38

No confirmation at all, indeed.

by Beanie 12.05.13 21:22

Wasn't it Clarence who said any evidence found had an innocent explanation, no mention, as far as i am aware, from his lips that the evidence was planted.

by Guest 12.05.13 23:01

IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

by aiyoyo 13.05.13 3:13

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Meaning, he, and by extension his clients, did not deny the existence of DNA. Just that there is an innocent explanation for them like nose bleed and rotten meat etc. I have never heard such tripes in my entire life on a case history of abducted child where the parents explained human DNA away as rotten meat, despite forensics lab concluding 13 out of 19 markers match.

When we look back at Mcspin historical pattern of retro-fitting every statement, the rotten meat statement was made when they were still suspects not knowing which way the investigation will conclude, and the 180 degree turnaround "there is no DNA" uttered in front of Leveson was post shelving. It's easy to see the mind game they play - always retro-fitting their statements to suit each stage.

Another example is their so-called active search using (allegedly) big crack PIs in the hey days then suddenly when their fund is exhausted by expensive legal fees, the search is stopped/suspended excused to the Review. Which makes absolutely no sense at all because if we were expected to believe their tale that Maddie is in the hands of paedo*** then what good is suspension for Maddie as her abuse at the hands of her captor is very unlikely to be parallelly suspended just because MET is looking for a paper abductor.

Her parents stupidly latched onto the Cleveland's horrific case of the three captive women serially raped by their captor for a decade as example that Maddie could be alive. Citing this case as example means implying she could be kept alive in the same situation hence their suspension of the search with that mindframe is total madness, cruel and inhumane to Maddie.

by tiny 13.05.13 11:15

Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

by Smokeandmirrors 13.05.13 11:17

tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

by Guest 13.05.13 11:27

I don't think that the sane and sober citizen Stephen Birch has ever stated in so many words who he thinks is responsible for Madeleine's "death and burial" so he is safe from the long arm of Carter-Ruck.

Mind you, TB has never said that the McCanns were responsible either........

It's quite obvious that people like Stephen Birch can say what they like because nobody will take them seriously whereas there are others whose knowledge is a threat to those with a lot to hide.

by tiny 13.05.13 11:57

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't think that the sane and sober citizen Stephen Birch has ever stated in so many words who he thinks is responsible for Madeleine's "death and burial" so he is safe from the long arm of Carter-Ruck.

Mind you, TB has never said that the McCanns were responsible either........

It's quite obvious that people like Stephen Birch can say what they like because nobody will take them seriously whereas there are others whose knowledge is a threat to those with a lot to hide.

could it be that he claimed the PJ did it and the mccanns are ok with that as long as he is not saying they(mmcanns) did it. but if people believe SB then surely he has hampered the search for Madeleine.

by aiyoyo 13.05.13 12:01

He made up a theory to fit around to his snooping activity; the Mccanns will be mad to bring attention to themselves to take him seriously.

His theory is not plausible even as fictional story.

by Beanie 13.05.13 22:36

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Thank you Chatelaine for remembering the exact quote, Clarence certainly covers all possibilities doesn't he.

If Madeleine met her demise and the PJ planted her DNA to try to frame the McCanns and their friends, where exactly is Madeleine's body being kept and why on earth would any police force do such a thing. I just can't believe there would be such a cover up.

by Guest 13.05.13 22:54

Beanie wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC Clarence said that there would be an innocent explanation for any evidence found or not found ...

Thank you Chatelaine for remembering the exact quote, Clarence certainly covers all possibilities doesn't he.

If Madeleine met her demise and the PJ planted her DNA to try to frame the McCanns and their friends, where exactly is Madeleine's body being kept and why on earth would any police force do such a thing. I just can't believe there would be such a cover up.

***
Neither can I, Beanie.
And it's "funny" to recite Clarence from time to time. He has a way with words, hasn't he? I guess one has to have an academic degree to come up with negative evidence ... chris spivey - Page 3 3139096799

by aiyoyo 14.05.13 2:12

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

Not this chap apparently because the Mrs deemed him a total waste of time, not worth time of the day.
When asked during an interview about SB's claim, this is what the Mrs said “…I mean, who is this person at the end of the day, you know, so…”

by Smokeandmirrors 14.05.13 15:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
tiny wrote:Has SB ever been pulled up by the mmcanns for saying Madeleine is dead and buried,IF NOT WHY NOT.

Excellent point. Anyone else who dares utter the possibility in public seems to get a letter delivers in a Limo by CR!!

Not this chap apparently because the Mrs deemed him a total waste of time, not worth time of the day.
When asked during an interview about SB's claim, this is what the Mrs said “…I mean, who is this person at the end of the day, you know, so…”

Pffff…..and with her copious demands and criticism, this is a question she would do very well to level at herself!!!

by Guest 14.05.13 17:35

I think it's a safe bet that if Stephen Birch had come up with a bonkers scenario that Madeleine was alive in a certain area (whether or not being treated like a princess by paedos) the McCanns would have given him credence.

Any scenarios that she is dead won't be given the time of day.

by sami 14.05.13 18:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I think it's a safe bet that if Stephen Birch had come up with a bonkers scenario that Madeleine was alive in a certain area (whether or not being treated like a princess by paedos) the McCanns would have given him credence.

Any scenarios that she is dead won't be given the time of day.

Neither was he carter rucked because of his accusations though. Thus far mentioning the "d" word and Madeleine in the same sentance has been enough for Healy and McCanns to set the dogs on the offender. Why was Birch totally ignored. He made some fairly brutal accusations. Perhaps he was so far off the truth team McCann saw no reason to bother with him. That being the case, there must be something worrying in what T Bennett and Amaral has said at some point in time.

They have never bothered to visit the area of a sighting, why bother visiting an area allegedly a grave ? One would think most parents would want to rule out every possibility no matter how crazy, just to put ones mind at rest. Not Healy and McCann though. no doubt they said a prayer, then did a run, followed by a game of tennis. then all was well. Just my opinion of course.

by lj 14.05.13 18:52

He is too far away, physically I mean.
To squeeze some money out of him is complicated since he is South African. They rather have someone, with restricted means, who is within the reach of their claws.

by Guest 14.05.13 19:33

I agree. IMO One of the reasons he was singled out.
[Too] close to home ...

Log in for more topics