What binds them?

tigger wrote:

roy rovers wrote:But if it happened on a 'rolling' basis much more makes sense. Everybody apart from the parents were rolled into it as time progressed then couldn't readily get out. First the T7 then the government etc etc.

That's exactly what I meant, but didn't put clearly. If a fatal accident did happen to Maddie, the said connections could easily have covered it up.
Therefore a cover-up was not wanted. Third parties were asked to back up the story, the 'connections' were functioning within hours but could not stop the juggernaut so the only option was to get on board and try to take over the steering wheel. Once on board, no way out.

Events do indeed seem to have happened on a rolling basis.  Although CRG and reputation management were on the ground almost immediately, they were already trumped by the media juggernaut launched in the immediate aftermath.  Before Clarence "I control the media" had boarded the plane the story had already been shaped as a stranger abduction by the T9.  If the McCs did have powerful connections, they would have been at the helm prior to the amatuer press blitz instigated by the T9 in the first hours, which would surely have resulted in more measured media management than the frenzy that was unleashed.  Within the fist 24 hours it appears there were conflicting groups trying to gain control of this story, including:

• the T9, pushing the stranger abduction story, even at risk of being labelled negligent parents or even professionals in the process
  
• media management, put in place by the UK government to control the story but arriving too late on the scene
  
• the wider press, including the heavily involved NI
  
  

IMO a cover up to a greater or lesser degree was wanted by the UK powers that be, but the situation had accelerated too quickly therefore they had to try to manage what was already happening rather than exercise any control.  By that time the McCs were well aware of their own power, bolstered by the likes of NI, massive public and celebrity support, not to mention a very large "fighting fund".   Throw in close and extended family as campaigners and spokespeople and you have a situation so out of control Svengali would have given up and gone home.  There must have been more than a touch of the Mr Bean about what went on behind the oft quoted scenes.  Hardly surprising that much of the media management has seemed somewhat ludicrous.

  MontyHeck and Roy Rogers!

The PR in the shape of Woolfall played down the abduction, I believe Woolfall stated that abduction wasn't even mentioned in the first few weeks.
What a circus.
There's only two people the powers that be would really like to shut up and there's not much chance of that, unless SY succeed.

What binds them? 


1) On the evening of May 3rd, which couple, between them, were absent from the Tapas restaurant, more or less the entire time, from just before 9.15pm until after MM was discovered missing at 10pm?

2) Which of the Tapas group was observed by Jez Wilkins waiting outside the front of the apartment block around 8.30pm wearing a purple dress? (No, not Gerry!) 

3) Which of the Tapas group gave evidence that she had seen someone carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartments at 9.15pm?

4) Which of the group said she walked straight past GM and JW talking on the pavement, although neither of them (nor another witness who only saw GM and JW) saw her?

5) Who identified Robert Murat as the man she had seen carrying a child even though her initial description looked nothing like him?

6) Who said he had seen Murat around the area of the apartments on May 3rd?

7) Who had visited Portugal (approx 30-40 miles from PdL) several times over the previous few years, and may have had friends in the region / access to transport?

8) Which couple wanted to alter the statements they had made to the police?

If I were SY, I would arrest these two and then see what they had to say for themselves.

"  If I were SY, I would arrest these two and then see what they had to say for themselves"

        so would I .

very well put suzyjohnson

suzyjohnson wrote:What binds them? 


1) On the evening of May 3rd, which couple, between them, were absent from the Tapas restaurant, more or less the entire time, from just before 9.15pm until after MM was discovered missing at 10pm?

2) Which of the Tapas group was observed by Jez Wilkins waiting outside the front of the apartment block around 8.30pm wearing a purple dress? (No, not Gerry!) 

3) Which of the Tapas group gave evidence that she had seen someone carrying a child in the vicinity of the apartments at 9.15pm?

4) Which of the group said she walked straight past GM and JW talking on the pavement, although neither of them (nor another witness who only saw GM and JW) saw her?

5) Who identified Robert Murat as the man she had seen carrying a child even though her initial description looked nothing like him?

6) Who said he had seen Murat around the area of the apartments on May 3rd?

7) Who had visited Portugal (approx 30-40 miles from PdL) several times over the previous few years, and may have had friends in the region / access to transport?

8) Which couple wanted to alter the statements they had made to the police?

If I were SY, I would arrest these two and then see what they had to say for themselves.

Gerry had also been to Portugal on his own on at least one previous occasion - it seems without Kate and allegedly for a golfing weekend.
The Paynes had friends or friends of friends close enough to supply mobiles at short notice.
The Camerons? one set of family anyway were able to borrow a car from friends in Portugal as well on their way down to help the McCanns.

There was also a very early report (long whooshed no doubt) that Kate said that she felt safe in leaving the children because they had been there before.

That could explain the last pool photo taken on a blazing hot day (unlike May 2007) and the children looking very young for their ages, not to mention that it wasn't produced until after Gerry made a trip back to the U K.

Agree. just thought JW stated he saw JT in purple and she was bending down ????? could this have been to hide from him seeing her I thought at time, then thought, no she was probably just tying her shoe laces, if had any, Seems  Strange !!!:: now don't know what to think.

Is it usual for guy's jumper to be purple? Didn't she say she was wearing her partner's coat?

tigger wrote:  MontyHeck and Roy Rogers!

The PR in the shape of Woolfall played down the abduction, I believe Woolfall stated that abduction wasn't even mentioned in the first few weeks.
What a circus.
There's only two people the powers that be would really like to shut up and there's not much chance of that, unless SY succeed.

Quite.  It must have been quite an experience for any experts drafted in to advise or manage the situation.  Despite CM's claim to the perfect PR campaign, it would be interesting to know what he or others involved really think of a couple apparently so unaccepting of advice in such circumstances.  Excepting legal advice, it seems.

Monty Heck wrote:

tigger wrote:  MontyHeck and Roy Rogers!

The PR in the shape of Woolfall played down the abduction, I believe Woolfall stated that abduction wasn't even mentioned in the first few weeks.
What a circus.
There's only two people the powers that be would really like to shut up and there's not much chance of that, unless SY succeed.

Quite.  It must have been quite an experience for any experts drafted in to advise or manage the situation.  Despite CM's claim to the perfect PR campaign, it would be interesting to know what he or others involved really think of a couple apparently so unaccepting of advice in such circumstances.  Excepting legal advice, it seems.

I suppose it depends on who CM is PR for

presumably the Board of Trustees, the Mcs ?if includes maddy as well !  and the current investigation ?if still has government links /connections.Some of the daft things he has said make it hard to know what his role is. He got involved in movie deal talks, Mr Amaral as well etc so one could not be sure imo his relations with general Public appears to be not to good and public bodies links seem strange !changing/ withdrawing what suits

IMO there is definitely a "common purpose" that binds them all together, no pun intended.  What I cannot forget is the photo of Gerry laughing on the balcony shortly after Madeleine's disappearance and the subsequent happy, carefree look of the couple as they strolled around Praia da Luz immediately after. If a genuine accident had happened to Madeleine, subsequently successfully covered up, I still do not think such nonchalance is possible by grieving innocent parents who really loved their child imo.  If Maddy was accidentally overdosed, and her parents, even though grieving, had covered it up, they would have surely at least have been grieving for a long long time. Perhaps even longer under the circumstances.  They would also surely be feeling tremendous remorse, (which we also have not seen them display to date imo.).  Add this to all the other anomalies, such as the unprecedented help they received from various powerful, wealthy, untouchable? people. In fact everything about the Mccanns behaviour, and that of their 'facilitators' smacks of what some would call a "conspiracy".  There are just too many strange coincidences and unusual behaviours.  Very powerful people are involved in Madeleines disappearance and to be sure they know exactly what has happened to her.  

After all imo. the truth may be conceived to be a conspiracy theory, and not the actual truth, when it becomes unthinkable to accept that a certain scenario could actually be possible or happen. This imo is a way we avoid the repulsion/revulsion it induces in us and protect ourselves from some horrible truth. For example; (Just using the following as an analogy, not saying this is what happened to Madeleine):- How many people would believed Jimmy Savile to have been an evil satanist paedophile and necrophiliac, and the higher echelons of Britain to be infested with paedos just a few years ago?  Anybody who believed this behaviour of Savile to be possible would probably have been slapped with the 'scary' "conspiracy theorist" label.  The same kind of fear labels such as loony/prude/racist/anti semitic/religious/fanatic induce in some) imo.

Imho (although one hopes against hope).  There is not much hope of any justice for Madeleine, the same we are not seeing much justice for all the children who were abused/went missing in care.  It is very difficult for many people to see the ugly reality, because it goes against all they have valued as good and great.  
There should be no sacred cows, even if they generate money.

IMO there is definitely a "common purpose" that binds them all together, no pun intended.  What I cannot forget is the photo of Gerry laughing on the balcony shortly after Madeleine's disappearance and the subsequent happy, carefree look of the couple as they strolled around Praia da Luz immediately after. If a genuine accident had happened to Madeleine, subsequently successfully covered up, I still do not think such nonchalance is possible by grieving innocent parents who really loved their child imo.  If Maddy was accidentally overdosed, and her parents, even though grieving, had covered it up, they would have surely at least have been grieving for a long long time. Perhaps even longer under the circumstances.  They would also surely be feeling tremendous remorse, (which we also have not seen them display to date imo.).  Add this to all the other anomalies, such as the unprecedented help they received from various powerful, wealthy, untouchable? people. In fact everything about the Mccanns behaviour, and that of their 'facilitators' smacks of what some would call a "conspiracy".  There are just too many strange coincidences and unusual behaviours.  Very powerful people are involved in Madeleines disappearance and to be sure they know exactly what has happened to her.  

After all imo. the truth may be conceived to be a conspiracy theory, and not the actual truth, when it becomes unthinkable to accept that a certain scenario could actually be possible or happen. This imo is a way we avoid the repulsion/revulsion it induces in us and protect ourselves from some horrible truth. For example; (Just using the following as an analogy, not saying this is what happened to Madeleine):- How many people would believed Jimmy Savile to have been an evil satanist paedophile and necrophiliac, and the higher echelons of Britain to be infested with paedos just a few years ago?  Anybody who believed this behaviour of Savile to be possible would probably have been slapped with the "conspiracy theorist" label. 

Imho (although one hopes against hope).  There is not much hope of any justice for Madeleine, the same we are not seeing much justice for all the children who were abused/went missing in care.  
It is very difficult for many people to believe the ugly reality, because it goes against the comfort of tradition, and all that has been valued as good and great.  There should be no Sacred Cows, even if they generate money.

Snifferdog wrote:IMO there is definitely a "common purpose" that binds them all together, no pun intended.  What I cannot forget is the photo of Gerry laughing on the balcony shortly after Madeleine's disappearance and the subsequent happy, carefree look of the couple as they strolled around Praia da Luz immediately after. If a genuine accident had happened to Madeleine, subsequently successfully covered up, I still do not think such nonchalance is possible by grieving innocent parents who really loved their child imo.  If Maddy was accidentally overdosed, and her parents, even though grieving, had covered it up, they would have surely at least have been grieving for a long long time. Perhaps even longer under the circumstances.  They would also surely be feeling tremendous remorse, (which we also have not seen them display to date imo.).  Add this to all the other anomalies, such as the unprecedented help they received from various powerful, wealthy, untouchable? people. In fact everything about the Mccanns behaviour, and that of their 'facilitators' smacks of what some would call a "conspiracy".  There are just too many strange coincidences and unusual behaviours.  Very powerful people are involved in Madeleines disappearance and to be sure they know exactly what has happened to her.  

After all imo. the truth may be conceived to be a conspiracy theory, and not the actual truth, when it becomes unthinkable to accept that a certain scenario could actually be possible or happen. This imo is a way we avoid the repulsion/revulsion it induces in us and protect ourselves from some horrible truth. For example; (Just using the following as an analogy, not saying this is what happened to Madeleine):- How many people would believed Jimmy Savile to have been an evil satanist paedophile and necrophiliac, and the higher echelons of Britain to be infested with paedos just a few years ago?  Anybody who believed this behaviour of Savile to be possible would probably have been slapped with the "conspiracy theorist" label. 

Imho (although one hopes against hope).  There is not much hope of any justice for Madeleine, the same we are not seeing much justice for all the children who were abused/went missing in care.  
It is very difficult for many people to believe the ugly reality, because it goes against the comfort of tradition, and all that has been valued as good and great.  There should be no Sacred Cows, even if they generate money.

Good Post Snifferdog, hope you are all well. I tend to agree with all your comments. I have wondered if a common purpose was formed before the holiday in Pria de Luz, just seems strange that all those medical people were there, maybe it was a convention to do with pharmacuticals ect, or a convening of another sort.

This may have been posted before, but any way it a list if friends or connections to the McCanns,

:http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FRIENDS.htm

I'd not seen it before but found it very interesting

PeterMac wrote:

sally66 wrote:
I suppose it depends on who CM is PR  for

Certainly NOT madeleine.  Or Madeleine, to use her proper name, rather than the dismissive lower case version used by her mother in the autobiography.    

'Madeleine' = 635 mentions in the main text.  . . . . . 'I' = 2134 times in body text,

Madeleine Beth Mccann has no official spokesperson; she has no one who speaks for her interests: there is no one shwho insists that the search continues to find her or her mortal remains.
She has been abandoned; by her parents - for 5 nights in a row - or so they say ;  by the Fund, which has withdrawn any pretence at paying for private detectives to find her;  by Grange, who say they had evidence 2 YEARS AGO of her being taken by a rich English couple , but didn't bother following it up ( if we can believe that nonsense story - which obviously we cannot)
Not the PJ, who gave up in the face of implacable opposition to the investigation by the Parents and the Tapas group, and endless political and financial interests.

Madeline deserves her own PR.  And we need to continue to provide it.

You have summed it up perfectly there PeterMac.  To think that all those people have abandoned the search for the truth about a little girl who went excitedly on holiday, never to return - it's quite upsetting really.  Madeleine never stood a chance with these people and was forgotten a long time ago.

Well Kate and Gerry, your Families and Friends - some people are not like you in giving up on Madeleine and will continue to fight for truth and justice for her.

LIES,perhaps at first some didn't know what happened to Madeleine,but after the release of the files they would have known who had lied.

tiny wrote:   LIES,perhaps at first some didn't know what happened to Madeleine,but after the release of the files they would have known who had lied.

  or put all actions or any untruths/ facts down to confusion, misunderstanding,interpretation issues, or even agree with kates mother perhaps, evidence was planted she suspected ! who would known :spin:they seem to have well moved on from files as quickly as possible.?Running even as don't wish to deal with their files

I am getting a bit paranoid about posting here, being a newbie, I will most likely cover very old ground that will be boring to the veterans here, if so please ignore this post and apologies.

I have a theory as to what might bind all the couples who were with the McCann's.

Joseph Moura, a private detective, went undercover, interviewed staff at the Ocean club where he was to discover from a witness that Jane Tanner never left the table, a waiter also states that the nine adults never did anything like 30 minute checks. A chef who worked at the Tapas restaurant gave a witness statement which concluded that their table was empty at 9.30 apart from one woman.

Here's what I think could of happened..... no one went off to do any checks until about 9.20-30. Madeleine probably heard her parents leave the apartment at around 8-.15 to 8.30, got up to look out of the window to see where they would disappear for hours on end( like they did every night) fell behind the sofa, had a fatal injury and lay there until 9.20-ish. The Carpenters tell us that on leaving the Tapas (at 9.30) they crossed by 5a where Mrs Carpenter remembers hearing someone calling the name 'Madeleine', obviously whoever (ROB?) was doing the first real check could not find Madeleine in bed and was searching for her in the apartment when he then made the awful discovery.

I read somewhere( I cannot find now) that a witness saw GM go only to the wall of 5a on his 9.10 check and  listened there instead of actually going into the building, I can believe this as he does rather over egg the situation when he tells us about the last time he saw Madeleine. GM then meets Jeremy Wilkins who had 'assumed' that GM had just come back from 5a, I say he didn't go in so would be unaware of Madeleine's demise. 
Perhaps is was ROB who ran back to the Tapas to inform the McCann's what had happened, everyone apart from Dianne Webster( who couldn't be trusted to keep quiet) rushed off to 5a at just after 9.30, the charge, death of a minor due to neglect would be the driving force to act quickly without time to think it through.

The fact that not one of the nine adults had bothered to do a physical check on their own children before the grim discovery had put them all in the same boat as it were, I can imagine GM telling them that this 'disaster' could easily have happened to one of them as they were guilty of neglect also.

I think the Smith sighting threw up a false lead, I don't believe it was Madeleine.
I wonder if MBM was taken to the rocks and left somewhere hidden until the McCann's went out at first light. Kate always make a reference to the rocks in some way being the place she feels closest to M.

speaking about kate, we often read that she is callous, cold and indiferent and I don't agree with those comments.
Kate is a very sad woman we can see it in her eyes. Also stressed.
Her life is hell and she misses Madeleine, more and more. Guilty or not, both parents are suffering.
Psychiatrist José Cabrera told, on an interview, that Kate had psychological problems, before the accident, and that she was taking medicines.
Medicines can change people's  personality and Kate's behaviour is of a boring, lifeless person.
On the other hand, Gerry often looks bored and arrogant. 
But there is a video, Gerry and Mrs. Hubbard at Faro airport, where he behaves as a funny and happy person.
She is not spontaneous at all. Maybe she was born like that and that is not a sin.

I certainly think that everything about Kate's behaviour (including the book about herself though supposedly about her daughter) screams out mental illness and / or personality disorder of one sort or another.

Why have none of her friends or family intervened to protect her from herself I wonder?

More from Paulo Sargento  blog (translation by Joanna Morais):

Let’s recall the episode of the washing of Cuddle Cat, on the 12th of June 2007, which is mentioned in her diary. What meaning does that episode have within this story? It’s very likely to be the first expression of a grieving process, which can be compared with the fact that Kate apparently didn’t recognise her daughter in the age progression images that she was shown on Oprah’s Show. Why? Because in the first situation, according to her own words, Kate practically doesn’t admit that Maddie may return (cf. post about Cuddle Cat in this blog), and in the second one, the non recognition seems to signify Kate’s incapacity to picture an older Maddie, because her last image is that of a 3-year-old girl.

Therefore, whatever happened, shows through in Kate as an IRREPARABLE LOSS.

Alas, concerning this matter, Clarence Mitchell’s lapsus linguae, in his last interview with BBC is extraordinarily clarifying: when confronted with the possibility of an opportunistic abduction, after the child left the house on her own to look for her parents (a rather unwise theory, it should be said), the Spin Doctor said – “that didn’t happen, Kate knows it”. In short, whatever happened was certainly very hard and I’m not surprised that Kate is, in fact, suffering a severe emotional disturbance. I hope that the decision concerning the maintenance of pacts take into account the cost/benefit relationship of these sufferings. I know that I had already written about this issue but I felt the duty to explain the arguments, and to appeal for borderline situations to be avoided.
unquote