Re: New Heights of insanity - Express

by sallypelt on 05.11.13 10:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Lance De Boils wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.
Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony.
I will send you the document later today.

Things have become more than a tad more interesting now that we know that Martin Smith is a former Unilever exective.

. Tony, there is a log of information on Unilever and their research and development

by jozi on 05.11.13 10:32

@Daisy wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Lance De Boils wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.
Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony.
I will send you the document later today.

Things have become more than a tad more interesting now that we know that Martin Smith is a former Unilever exective.
Indeed. Could I request a copy too please Tony

Me too Tony roses

Please.

by galena on 05.11.13 10:40

@MoonGoddess wrote:ETA @ Cristobel

not quite sure that GM would need a 'decoy' when he had JT's 'bundleman', and if he wanted to create a 'decoy', why supress it for 5 years?..... it all gets a bit complicated lol.... yes, time for bed night night

I'm dubious about the 'decoy' theory as well, believing the risk outweights any potential benefits. Do you actually need a sighting of an abductor carrying off a child to 'prove' an abduction anyway? In most cases I would have thought the abductor takes good care not to be seen by potential witnesses and all that parents know is that the child has disappeared. Nobody ever saw a swarthy abductor carry off Ben Needham. That has never stopped the majority of people in believing that he was in fact abducted.

by columbostogeys on 05.11.13 10:42

@PeterMac wrote:" />

omg that guy on the right is GM no doubt about it, its identical...creeepy....

by Mirage on 05.11.13 10:49

@sallypelt wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Lance De Boils wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Susible, I hope Tony could send it to me too as I am really interested in this.
Yes I will do this.
Haven't caught up on this thread yet, but...

... me too, please, Tony.
I will send you the document later today.

Things have become more than a tad more interesting now that we know that Martin Smith is a former Unilever exective.
. Tony, there is a log of information on Unilever and their research and development

I came across global traceability in connection with this, but cannot find a descriptor for this aspect of industrial management. Anyone know?

by Silver Shuffle on 05.11.13 10:54

Absolutely no idea if this has any relevance whatsoever:

Novartis Young Fellows Travel Award for the 5th European Cystic Fibrosis Society New Frontiers in Basic Science of Cystic Fibrosis, Tavira, Algarve, Portugal, 25-29 April, 2007.

by jozi on 05.11.13 11:02

@galena wrote:
@MoonGoddess wrote:ETA @ Cristobel

not quite sure that GM would need a 'decoy' when he had JT's 'bundleman', and if he wanted to create a 'decoy', why supress it for 5 years?..... it all gets a bit complicated lol.... yes, time for bed night night
I'm dubious about the 'decoy' theory as well, believing the risk outweights any potential benefits. Do you actually need a sighting of an abductor carrying off a child to 'prove' an abduction anyway? In most cases I would have thought the abductor takes good care not to be seen by potential witnesses and all that parents know is that the child has disappeared. Nobody ever saw a swarthy abductor carry off Ben Needham. That has never stopped the majority of people in believing that he was in fact abducted.

This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?

by nobodythereeither on 05.11.13 11:05

@jozi wrote:
This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?

What on earth makes you think they haven't?

They're hardly going to release a blow by blow account of their investigations to the press/public, are they??!!

by sallypelt on 05.11.13 11:06

@columbostogeys wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:" />
omg that guy on the right is GM no doubt about it, its identical...creeepy....

Columbo, also compare him with this pic:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=gerry+madeleine+mccann&hl=en-GB&rlz=1T4GGHP_en-GBGB423GB424&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=qtB4UqmwCOaO7AbVyoG4Dg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1152&bih=595#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=i7f-r04bamZQZM%3A%3Bxy-3IM1e2QFlUM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.standard.co.uk%252Fincoming%252Farticle8884335.ece%252FALTERNATES%252Fw620%252FKate%252Band%252BGerry%252BMccann.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.standard.co.uk%252Flifestyle%252Flondon-life%252Fstefano-hatfield-the-madeleine-mccann-appeal--harnessing-the-true-power-of-television-8884317.html%3B620%3B429

by jeanmonroe on 05.11.13 11:06

@Silver Shuffle wrote:Absolutely no idea if this has any relevance whatsoever:

Novartis Young Fellows Travel Award for the 5th European Cystic Fibrosis Society New Frontiers in Basic Science of Cystic Fibrosis, Tavira, Algarve, Portugal, 25-29 April, 2007.

Hobnob said...
As studier of statement analysis there was one phrase spoken by gerry mccann that stood out and also led me to think of a motive for her disappearance.

Gerry mccann proudly talked about her birth and said the following "She was born ALMOST PERFECT"

This is not the first time he has said this and coming from a parent, even if he is a doctor, it is concerning to say the least.

When a child is born the new parents feel instant love (despite the gunk as one of my friends so succinctly put it)

10 tiny fingers, 10 tiny toes and a set of healthy lungs is what they look for, their new arrival is perfect.

Why does gerry need to tell us Maddie was born almost perfect?

What was wrong with her that was clearly noticeably not perfect?
A missing limb, extra fingers and/or toes, an extra head?

We know all 3 children were IVF and we also know they are fly by night catholics (staunch catholics when they need somewhere to talk/get to meet the pope/collect donations)
IVF is a sin in the catholic church.

by bellum on 05.11.13 11:07

Is working for Unilever a problem? People got to have jobs.

by sallypelt on 05.11.13 11:15

@bellum wrote:Is working for Unilever a problem? People got to have jobs.

No, not a problem. Just as R Brooks's affair with Coulson is her own business, UNTIL it starts interfering in legalities

by Mirage on 05.11.13 11:16

@bellum wrote:Is working for Unilever a problem? People got to have jobs.

Of course. But in a case like this, probably unparalleled in the numbers of connected names and coincidences, you would be foolish not to dissect a voluntary statement of any person coming forward with information.

by Sockpuppet on 05.11.13 11:23

I fail to see any significance in Martin Smith formerly working for Unilever. Is Unilever connected to this case in any other way?

by jozi on 05.11.13 11:26

@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?
What on earth makes you think they haven't?

They're hardly going to release a blow by blow account of their investigations to the press/public, are they??!!

Well we know Gerry had the proud parent moment and Payne had the angel vision but who else has said they actually saw Maddie outside of the T7 group ?

I don't think that the SY team are looking into this as yet ? But it would have saved a lot of time and money if they started at who saw Maddie last !!!

by thetruthbeknown on 05.11.13 11:32

Unilever is huge, even if a connection was made somewhere along the line, coincidence would be difficult to rule out.

by nobodythereeither on 05.11.13 11:34

@jozi wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?
What on earth makes you think they haven't?

They're hardly going to release a blow by blow account of their investigations to the press/public, are they??!!
Well we know Gerry had the proud parent moment and Payne had the angel vision but who else has said they actually saw Maddie outside of the T7 group ?

I don't think that the SY team are looking into this as yet ? But it would have saved a lot of time and money if they started at who saw Maddie last !!!

Jozi, none of us has any idea where SY started or what they're looking at when.

But they are a team of highly experienced detectives, so I hardly think they're all going to suddenly fail to follow obvious lines of enquiry, do you?

By all means diss SY if you have the evidence to do so, but please don't otherwise, it's just a waste of space. Sorry to be blunt.

by **Tony Bennett** on 05.11.13 11:40

@nobodythereeither wrote:
Jozi, none of us has any idea where SY started or what they're looking at when.

But they are a team of highly experienced detectives, so I hardly think they're all going to suddenly fail to follow obvious lines of enquiry, do you?

By all means diss SY if you have the evidence to do so, but please don't otherwise, it's just a waste of space. Sorry to be blunt.

Er, what evidence do you have, if any, that SY are following obvious lines of enquiry?

The fact that they have 30+ detectives on the case does not count.

by BRODFB on 05.11.13 11:40

@thetruthbeknown wrote:Unilever is huge, even if a connection was made somewhere along the line, coincidence would be difficult to rule out.

Agreed, the more complex we make the conspiracy, the last likely it would have been to hang together for 6 years.

by Mirage on 05.11.13 11:45

@jeanmonroe wrote:
@Silver Shuffle wrote:Absolutely no idea if this has any relevance whatsoever:

Novartis Young Fellows Travel Award for the 5th European Cystic Fibrosis Society New Frontiers in Basic Science of Cystic Fibrosis, Tavira, Algarve, Portugal, 25-29 April, 2007.
Hobnob said...
As studier of statement analysis there was one phrase spoken by gerry mccann that stood out and also led me to think of a motive for her disappearance.

Gerry mccann proudly talked about her birth and said the following "She was born ALMOST PERFECT"

This is not the first time he has said this and coming from a parent, even if he is a doctor, it is concerning to say the least.

When a child is born the new parents feel instant love (despite the gunk as one of my friends so succinctly put it)

10 tiny fingers, 10 tiny toes and a set of healthy lungs is what they look for, their new arrival is perfect.

Why does gerry need to tell us Maddie was born almost perfect?

What was wrong with her that was clearly noticeably not perfect?
A missing limb, extra fingers and/or toes, an extra head?

We know all 3 children were IVF and we also know they are fly by night catholics (staunch catholics when they need somewhere to talk/get to meet the pope/collect donations)
IVF is a sin in the catholic church.

I recall some report by Theresa May not long ago. IIRC some areas of the case could not be addressed due to diplomatic sensitivities. I remember thinking how strange, I wonder how we came to be in such rarefied territory over a missing child case?

by jozi on 05.11.13 11:50

@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?
What on earth makes you think they haven't?

They're hardly going to release a blow by blow account of their investigations to the press/public, are they??!!
Well we know Gerry had the proud parent moment and Payne had the angel vision but who else has said they actually saw Maddie outside of the T7 group ?

I don't think that the SY team are looking into this as yet ? But it would have saved a lot of time and money if they started at who saw Maddie last !!!
Jozi, none of us has any idea where SY started or what they're looking at when.

But they are a team of highly experienced detectives, so I hardly think they're all going to suddenly fail to follow obvious lines of enquiry, do you?

By all means diss SY if you have the evidence to do so, but please don't otherwise, it's just a waste of space. Sorry to be blunt.

Oh yes we do......they stated they are investigating from the time she went missing ? Which is BS, everyone and his dog knows its when the said person was last seen and by whom !!!

by StraightThinking on 05.11.13 11:52

The more I read threads like this (or rather, the way it has developed), the more I think it's some posters on internet forums, rather than anyone else, that have turned a simple case into a ridiculously complicated one with thousands of stinking red herrings. Keep it simple, folks

by Mirage on 05.11.13 11:56

@StraightThinking wrote:The more I read threads like this (or rather, the way it has developed), the more I think it's some posters on internet forums, rather than anyone else, that have turned a simple case into a ridiculously complicated one with thousands of stinking red herrings. Keep it simple, folks

It can't be kept simple because the McCanns complicated it. Keeping it simple leads to random suspects being crucified in the press.

by Guest on 05.11.13 11:56

I agree with that to some extent but, thanks to the McCanns and their friends telling increasingly silly and contradictory stories over the years, people will inevitably wonder what was so bad about whatever happened in May 2007 that they couldn't be honest.

by Joss on 05.11.13 11:57

@jozi wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
@nobodythereeither wrote:
@jozi wrote:
This is why I can't understand SY not investigating when Maddie was last seen and by who,I thought that was what the Police do in cases of missing persons ?
What on earth makes you think they haven't?

They're hardly going to release a blow by blow account of their investigations to the press/public, are they??!!
Well we know Gerry had the proud parent moment and Payne had the angel vision but who else has said they actually saw Maddie outside of the T7 group ?

I don't think that the SY team are looking into this as yet ? But it would have saved a lot of time and money if they started at who saw Maddie last !!!
Jozi, none of us has any idea where SY started or what they're looking at when.

But they are a team of highly experienced detectives, so I hardly think they're all going to suddenly fail to follow obvious lines of enquiry, do you?

By all means diss SY if you have the evidence to do so, but please don't otherwise, it's just a waste of space. Sorry to be blunt.
Oh yes we do......they stated they are investigating from the time she went missing ? Which is BS, everyone and his dog knows its when the said person was last seen and by whom !!!

I think in that case they would definitely have to determine when she was last seen and by whom to determine the "when she actually did go missing part".