Re: Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann

by sami 02.11.13 19:33

Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?

Almost as ludicrous as building an entire abduction theory around an impossible timeline and a dubious innocent British crèche father sighting. Almost but not quite.

by Carver 02.11.13 19:38

sami wrote:
Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?
Almost as ludicrous as building an entire abduction theory around an impossible timeline and a dubious innocent British crèche father sighting. Almost but not quite.

You're saying an abduction would have been impossible?

by Hongkong Phooey 02.11.13 19:44

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
juliet wrote:That's exactly what they had, sonic - the "crisis management gold package".
Why?
What happened must have been of more significance than a bunch of cold-hearted midland docs being caught out neglecting their kids on holiday.
This is my thinking too. Almost like both police investigations are tip toeing their way round something very sensitive that is not directly connected with this case.

If that is the case, it could explain the "power" they've had all these years. But what could it be?

What sort of issue actually warrants all the help they received, what sort of issue gets 'D' notices, there's a clue in the Gaspers statements. It's allegedly rife in the higher echelons and that includes judges, politicians, lawyers and DOCTORS.

by secrets and lies 02.11.13 19:53

If that IS the case, and the Gasper's statements really do shine a light on the nub of this case, then how can we ever expect to see the McCann's tried and brought to justice. Too much for the powers that be to loose.

Can we expect any resolution at all?

by Hongkong Phooey 02.11.13 20:00

secrets and lies wrote:If that IS the case, and the Gasper's statements really do shine a light on the nub of this case, then how can we ever expect to see the McCann's tried and brought to justice. Too much for the powers that be to loose.

Can we expect any resolution at all?

From the get go (within hours) the McCanns claimed Maddie had been taken by Paedos, why would that even cross a parents mind? Surely that would be the last thing you would say out loud, unless there was another reason.

by juliet 02.11.13 20:09

A lot depends on whether Redwood is on the side of the angels - the unexpected discovery of creche dad was possibly an anti-mccann masterstroke - or whether he' s a corrupt tool.

by TheTruthWillOut 02.11.13 20:11

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
juliet wrote:That's exactly what they had, sonic - the "crisis management gold package".
Why?
What happened must have been of more significance than a bunch of cold-hearted midland docs being caught out neglecting their kids on holiday.
This is my thinking too. Almost like both police investigations are tip toeing their way round something very sensitive that is not directly connected with this case.

If that is the case, it could explain the "power" they've had all these years. But what could it be?
What sort of issue actually warrants all the help they received, what sort of issue gets 'D' notices, there's a clue in the Gaspers statements. It's allegedly rife in the higher echelons and that includes judges, politicians, lawyers and DOCTORS.

There is that elephant in the room, granted. But in light of the recent high profile cases (Saville, Smith) coming out after their deaths and the condemnation of secrecy, cover ups and 'D' notices etc, would the "free" press, also fighting their own corner ATM!, allow the same sort of thing to happen today and again?

Wouldn't the journalists be shouting from the rooftops if another cover up was happening in front of their eyes when their freedom is being eroded? Or am I too naive.......

by Casey5 02.11.13 20:44

I don't believe there's been any live politicians "outed" in paedophile scandals, dead ones yes and plenty of live show biz personalities but a dearth of live politicians certainly.
Maybe politicians are classed as too important to be "outed".

by pennylane 02.11.13 21:05

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
juliet wrote:That's exactly what they had, sonic - the "crisis management gold package".
Why?
What happened must have been of more significance than a bunch of cold-hearted midland docs being caught out neglecting their kids on holiday.
This is my thinking too. Almost like both police investigations are tip toeing their way round something very sensitive that is not directly connected with this case.

If that is the case, it could explain the "power" they've had all these years. But what could it be?
What sort of issue actually warrants all the help they received, what sort of issue gets 'D' notices, there's a clue in the Gaspers statements. It's allegedly rife in the higher echelons and that includes judges, politicians, lawyers and DOCTORS.
There is that elephant in the room, granted. But in light of the recent high profile cases (Saville, Smith) coming out after their deaths and the condemnation of secrecy, cover ups and 'D' notices etc, would the "free" press, also fighting their own corner ATM!, allow the same sort of thing to happen today and again?

Wouldn't the journalists be shouting from the rooftops if another cover up was happening in front of their eyes when their freedom is being eroded? Or am I too naive.......

I believe some journalists are exposing this whitewash in a clever way, and public opinion has noticeably shifted as a result. They are putting the squeeze on SY by reporting their absurd leads, and shameful waste of taxpayers money, which also has a detrimental effect on the McCann abduction facade. It's effective baby steps.

Plus, in his exhaustive efforts to elevate the McCanns credibility, DCI Redwood has only succeeded in destroying his own.

(imo)

by Lolamanola 02.11.13 21:34

Please read, maybe it will all make more sense as to how why, Gold package available to them?.

by TheTruthWillOut 02.11.13 21:38

pennylane wrote:I believe some journalists are exposing this whitewash in a clever way, and public opinion has noticeably shifted as a result. They are putting the squeeze on SY by reporting their absurd leads, and shameful waste of taxpayers money, which also has a detrimental effect on the McCann abduction facade. It's effective baby steps.

Plus, in his exhaustive efforts to elevate the McCanns credibility, DCI Redwood has only succeeded in destroying his own.

(imo)

If some of these journalists do have an idea what is really going on in this case (And I believe they do) they should grow a pair and report on it IMO.

I keep referring back to this telling video of Klara lethbridge and Yvonne radley:

What is she scared of and why hasn't she talked about it since? It frankly boils my piss that some journalists know things and say nothing. banghead

by pennylane 02.11.13 22:15

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
pennylane wrote:I believe some journalists are exposing this whitewash in a clever way, and public opinion has noticeably shifted as a result. They are putting the squeeze on SY by reporting their absurd leads, and shameful waste of taxpayers money, which also has a detrimental effect on the McCann abduction facade. It's effective baby steps.

Plus, in his exhaustive efforts to elevate the McCanns credibility, DCI Redwood has only succeeded in destroying his own.

(imo)
If some of these journalists do have an idea what is really going on in this case (And I believe they do) they should grow a pair and report on it IMO.

I keep referring back to this telling video of Klara lethbridge and Yvonne radley:

What is she scared of and why hasn't she talked about it since? It frankly boils my piss that some journalists know things and say nothing.

Thanks, TTWO, I hadn't seen that for ages! hello

Everyone was reigned in fast, and Clarence knew how the system worked, and exploited his connections shamelessly.

Sky News and BBC have been exposed as the worst of the worst.

Hopefully The Times will keep up the good work it has began, and we will begin to see more, significant facts about this case reported in the coming weeks. It's long overdue. pray2

by russiandoll 02.11.13 22:21

Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?

It is good to have an abduction believer on this forum as far as I know the Justice forum is the only place apart from here where doubters and believers are welcome on one site.

I am open to persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs, so could you please tell me, given the witness statements and rogatories, why you are convinced that this is a case of stranger abduction ?

btw I note that in another of your posts you mention beliefs of doubters that Maddie was killed by one of her parents. That is not the only theory apart from an abduction which would account for her disappearance.

by ProfessorPPlum 02.11.13 22:41

russiandoll wrote:
Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?
It is good to have an abduction believer on this forum as far as I know the Justice forum is the only place apart from here where doubters and believers are welcome on one site.

I am open to persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs, so could you please tell me, given the witness statements and rogatories, why you are convinced that this is a case of stranger abduction ?

btw I note that in another of your posts you mention beliefs of doubters that Maddie was killed by one of her parents. That is not the only theory apart from an abduction which would account for her disappearance.

Well said russiandoll.
Yes, Carver. I think the thing that distinguishes the people here from the so-called 'pro-McCann' people is that we're capable of discussing this case without needing to resort to abuse. In fact, the first one to give up and be rude to the other LOSES thumbsup

Seriously though, it's great to debate this. I don't KNOW what happened. I know what I think happened based on what I know (and I recognise that isn't everything). There are reasons that I hold that view and those are based on a mixture of fact, logic and intuition as, I'm sure are your views.
So often those who don't accept the abduction 'theory' (btw it isn't a strong theory at all since there is no evidence for it whatsoever) are often called 'haters'. The only thing I hate is that anyone feels so attached to a view of the McCanns (pro or anti) that they feel it entitles them to abuse another human being. There's been enough of that already.

by Bookworm 02.11.13 22:59

Chatelaine I hope so too. (Sorry - in reply to your post at 6.20 - I haven't got the hang of this yet... )

One thing that leads me to believe that a clever game is being played by SY, is when Rewood said " we're doing this for Madeleine" (or words to that effect). You'd have to be a very cynical, morally bereft, individual to say something like that about a 'missing' child and not actually mean it.

First post by the way.....

by Guest 02.11.13 23:10

Bookworm

by Cerinthe 02.11.13 23:18

pennylane wrote:
Everyone was reigned in fast, and Clarence knew how the system worked, and exploited his connections shamelessly.

I hadn't thought about this but it's really interesting. Why were the McCanns sent someone whose experience wasn't just liaising with the press but who knew how to control the press and stop stories getting published? Why would anybody in government want to offer them that service?

Martin Luther King, Jr. · by bodiddly 02.11.13 23:21

Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?

I am sure she is taking all the other factors involved in as well and not just basing it on that.

by whmon 02.11.13 23:24

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?
It is good to have an abduction believer on this forum as far as I know the Justice forum is the only place apart from here where doubters and believers are welcome on one site.

I am open to persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs, so could you please tell me, given the witness statements and rogatories, why you are convinced that this is a case of stranger abduction ?

btw I note that in another of your posts you mention beliefs of doubters that Maddie was killed by one of her parents. That is not the only theory apart from an abduction which would account for her disappearance.
Well said russiandoll.
Yes, Carver. I think the thing that distinguishes the people here from the so-called 'pro-McCann' people is that we're capable of discussing this case without needing to resort to abuse. In fact, the first one to give up and be rude to the other LOSES Seriously though, it's great to debate this. I don't KNOW what happened. I know what I think happened based on what I know (and I recognise that isn't everything). There are reasons that I hold that view and those are based on a mixture of fact, logic and intuition as, I'm sure are your views.
So often those who don't accept the abduction 'theory' (btw it isn't a strong theory at all since there is no evidence for it whatsoever) are often called 'haters'. The only thing I hate is that anyone feels so attached to a view of the McCanns (pro or anti) that they feel it entitles them to abuse another human being. There's been enough of that already.

Too true PPP I am reminded of Mark Twain: 'Never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference'

by Carver 02.11.13 23:25

russiandoll wrote:
Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?
It is good to have an abduction believer on this forum as far as I know the Justice forum is the only place apart from here where doubters and believers are welcome on one site.

I am open to persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs, so could you please tell me, given the witness statements and rogatories, why you are convinced that this is a case of stranger abduction ?

btw I note that in another of your posts you mention beliefs of doubters that Maddie was killed by one of her parents. That is not the only theory apart from an abduction which would account for her disappearance.

Thanks for the welcome. I'm not convinced of stranger abduction, I just believe it to be the most likely explanation. People like to say there is zero evidence for abduction. Well we have witness sightings of men carrying sleeping children. We have numerous witness statements claiming to see suspicious men stalking the apartments before Madeleine disappeared, the unidentified 'charity collectors' going to doors around the apartments. Then there's the fact that apartment break-ins had increased x4 in the time leading up to Madeleine's disappearance (so it's a confirmed fact that people were at least breaking into these very apartments). What evidence do you expect to have in an abduction case? Has anybody compared it with the evidence available in similar abduction cases in the past? Do we know that this lack of evidence isn't the norm in such cases? I have no problems believing that a man wearing gloves or group of men took a sleeping 3 year old child out of her apartment while her parents were gone and left no evidence of them being there. I am also open to persuasion but have yet to see any real evidence of parent involvement, other than the obvious child neglect, which I think is the reason for any Tapas inconsistencies.

Edit - I'm not pro-McCann in the slightest, for the record.

Edit #2 - So does this mean I'm the first/only person on here who's an abduction believer? beware

by sonic72 02.11.13 23:39

Gerry McCann...

"As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition."

by maebee 02.11.13 23:42

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
pennylane wrote:I believe some journalists are exposing this whitewash in a clever way, and public opinion has noticeably shifted as a result. They are putting the squeeze on SY by reporting their absurd leads, and shameful waste of taxpayers money, which also has a detrimental effect on the McCann abduction facade. It's effective baby steps.

Plus, in his exhaustive efforts to elevate the McCanns credibility, DCI Redwood has only succeeded in destroying his own.

(imo)
If some of these journalists do have an idea what is really going on in this case (And I believe they do) they should grow a pair and report on it IMO.

I keep referring back to this telling video of Klara lethbridge and Yvonne radley:

What is she scared of and why hasn't she talked about it since? It frankly boils my piss that some journalists know things and say nothing.

Hi TTWO. Ta for this vid. I emailed both of these journos at the time. Never got a reply from either of them. They should both be added to the Shame List of those who have let MBM down Sad

by Issy 02.11.13 23:53

sonic72 wrote:Gerry McCann...

"As usual, every half hour and considering that the restaurant was close to the apartment, the deponent or his wife went to check if the children were ok. Thus, at 9.05 pm, the deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition."

What condition would he have expected to find them in - imperfect condition? They do say the oddest things.

Mind you, he did say Madeleine was 'almost perfect' when she was born, nice of him to qualify the adjective. sad

by ultimaThule 03.11.13 0:33

Carver wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
Carver wrote:An entire theory based around the fact she doesn't believe an innocent parent would describe the abduction of their child as a disaster?
It is good to have an abduction believer on this forum as far as I know the Justice forum is the only place apart from here where doubters and believers are welcome on one site.

I am open to persuasion that I am wrong in my beliefs, so could you please tell me, given the witness statements and rogatories, why you are convinced that this is a case of stranger abduction ?

btw I note that in another of your posts you mention beliefs of doubters that Maddie was killed by one of her parents. That is not the only theory apart from an abduction which would account for her disappearance.
Thanks for the welcome. I'm not convinced of stranger abduction, I just believe it to be the most likely explanation. People like to say there is zero evidence for abduction. Well we have witness sightings of men carrying sleeping children. We have numerous witness statements claiming to see suspicious men stalking the apartments before Madeleine disappeared, the unidentified 'charity collectors' going to doors around the apartments. Then there's the fact that apartment break-ins had increased x4 in the time leading up to Madeleine's disappearance (so it's a confirmed fact that people were at least breaking into these very apartments). What evidence do you expect to have in an abduction case? Has anybody compared it with the evidence available in similar abduction cases in the past? Do we know that this lack of evidence isn't the norm in such cases? I have no problems believing that a man wearing gloves or group of men took a sleeping 3 year old child out of her apartment while her parents were gone and left no evidence of them being there. I am also open to persuasion but have yet to see any real evidence of parent involvement, other than the obvious child neglect, which I think is the reason for any Tapas inconsistencies.

Edit - I'm not pro-McCann in the slightest, for the record.

Edit #2 - So does this mean I'm the first/only person on here who's an abduction believer?

Carver and I hope you'll stick around as there's need for an exception to prove the rule yes

I don't believe any parent's first words on phoning to appraise relatives their niece/grandchild has been abducted would be 'There's been a disaster' as those words, to me, are more suited to a multiple vehicle pile up, 'plane/train crash, or similar.

With the passing of time it may be the day/night itself would be referred to as 'disastrous', but even so I would still find the word inappropriate.

From day one I've held the view that in this case the parents, aided and abetted by one or more of their friends, engineered the disappearance of their eldest daughter and, to date, I've seen no reason to alter my opinion.

Have you visited www.mccannfiles.com ? The site is as good a road as any for those who seek the truth in this matter.

by ProfessorPPlum 03.11.13 0:39

Carver wrote:we have witness sightings of men carrying sleeping children. The Smiths and Jane Tanner (if we believe SY). We have numerous witness statements claiming to see suspicious men stalking the apartments before Madeleine disappeared. Untraced therefore unproven. The unidentified 'charity collectors' going to doors around the apartments. Untraced and therefore unproven. Then there's the fact that apartment break-ins had increased x4 in the time leading up to Madeleine's disappearance (so it's a confirmed fact that people were at least breaking into these very apartments).

I think you're making a mistake here Carver. By listing these things one after another this way you're implying they build to a cumulative 'likelihood' of there being an abduction. This is not the case. Only one of these groups of people would logically be responsible for an abduction; either the suspicious stalkers OR the 'charity' collectors OR the burglars. The fact you think there were three groups of dodgy people around does NOT increase the probability for abduction.

By contrast, the dogs' alerts to blood and cadaverine in 5A alone constitute more evidence against abduction (and thereby for a simulated abduction) than the set of 'possibilities' you outlined. Your men carrying children, charity collectors and burglars are just 'could haves' - the kind of speculations that have gone wild in the latest 'Tractorman' nonsense. You know: 'He could have abducted MM...he could have done it as revenge for being sacked... he could have panicked when the police came...he could have ...etc....'

by Sietah 03.11.13 0:44

Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?

by TheTruthWillOut 03.11.13 0:47

maebee wrote:Hi TTWO. Ta for this vid. I emailed both of these journos at the time. Never got a reply from either of them. They should both be added to the Shame List of those who have let MBM down

Well done for trying maebee:thumbup:

I have to wonder why a news reader for a local radio station goes to all that trouble and expense of doing a Jessica Fletcher and then posts a video like that.

by tracey1270 03.11.13 0:49

Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?

Yeh why if he was looking for revenge did he not grab one of the twins? why would it matter which child he took, going to destroy the parents anyway logically it would have been easier for Tractorman to take one of the twins, so why didn't he?

by Carver 03.11.13 0:52

Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?

Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?

by Sietah 03.11.13 0:55

Carver wrote:
Sietah wrote:Carver, what is your opinion why he choose to take Madeleine instead of one of the twins?
Because he was a paedophile attracted to little blonde girls and not babies perhaps?

ahh, a paedophile that don't like a one year younger kid

Criminal profiler Pat Brown's latest blog 1/11/13 - "It's a Disaster" - Gerry McCann