Re: Sunday Express 9 Feb 2014 - MADELEINE - There REALLY WAS a COVER-UP

by Guest 10.02.14 21:08

Black Moon, you said that the station had been told to stay away from the McCanns. When asked how you know this you say no-one has told Channel 5, but you know it's their editorial policy. How do you know this?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.02.14 21:21

Duplicate post

by **Tony Bennett** 10.02.14 21:23

jozi wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Marcos Aragao Correia...

The journalist then asks Aragão Correia to comment on the PJ investigation. He answered: “The information that I received as a medium didn’t allow for me to understand what the criminal’s motivation was. But information that I obtained later on - especially from consulting an excellent book by criminologist Barra da Costa - led me to believe the theory, admitted by the former PJ Chief Inspector, that the police weren’t interested in finding Maddie, nor in catching the real culprits over her disappearance. Dr Barra da Costa said in his book that there was something like a tacit plan to induce a general sense of insecurity across society, to allow for the micro-chip (a device implanted in human beings that gives out signals to track down where they are) to be produced on a major scale.

“At the beginning I had some reservations concerning that issue, because I had never heard about it, but I was interested enough to go on the internet and to consult several credible websites, including FBI and CIA sources, where I found some amazing things: the micro-chip was indeed being promoted as the ideal weapon to prevent crime. These sources added that the population should be induced into accepting this technological revolution, even if it was at the eexpense of a policy of deliberatley promoting mass public insecurity. Well, the Maddie case fell like ‘manna from heaven’ for the promotion of the microchip, especially as far as children are concerned”.

...his tongue runs away with him doesn't it? - and he reveals all kinds of info

So true! I have read all that I can about Marcos Aragao Correia, mined him for all he is worth - and he 'leaks' useful information all the time.

He was the source for informing us all that he met with Metodo 3 investigator Antonio Giminez Raso at the Arade Dam, Portugal, on 10 December 2007. Just seven weeks later, he had a team of divers searching the Arade Dam for Madeleine's bones, pretending to be a 'Good Samaritan', which is how our mainstream media described him at the time. Funding it all from his own pocket, he said! As if! That turned out to be just one more Correia lie.

But later, under pressure from Portuguese journalists, he told them that the McCanns had paid him, via Metodo 3, for the Arade Dam searches in January and March 2008.

That meeting at the Arade Dam on 10 December 2007 then became a whole lot more interesting.

Antonio Giminez Raso was a Metodo 3 investigator who worked closely on the McCann case, especially with Brian Kennedy (but in February 2008 he was remanded in custody for 4 years, suspected of corruptly assisting a violent gang of career criminals).

Marcos Aragao Correia was also working for the McCanns and Metodo 3 on the criminal claim by child murderess Leonor Cipriano that she had been beaten and tortured by Goncalo Amaral and four of his colleagues - resulting in Amral's May 2009 conviction.

I have often pondered what these two men - Correia and Giminez Raso, both employed by Metodo 3 - were doing at the Arade Dam on 10 December 2007.

Giminez Raso travelled the best part of 1,000 miles to travel there from his Barcelona base.

Correia travelled a similar distance from his island home, Madeira.

Why were they both prepared to travel such a long way to meet each other?

What did they have in mind?

by Guest 10.02.14 21:23

Ladyinred wrote:Black Moon, you said that the station had been told to stay away from the McCanns. When asked how you know this you say no-one has told Channel 5, but you know it's their editorial policy. How do you know this?

I hope you'll understand if I'm reluctant to say how I know. More to the point is that this stance seems to be shared with all other media outlets. Why? I think it's because they sense what is to come and are simply biding their time.

by Guest 10.02.14 21:44

I think the MSM is cowardly and lazy. If it publishes the truth, what do they have to fear?

Are you involved with the meeja?

by Guest 10.02.14 21:59

Ladyinred wrote:I think the MSM is cowardly and lazy. If it publishes the truth, what do they have to fear?

Are you involved with the meeja?

What is the truth? I mean, what actually happend in PDL in 2007? I have suspicions as I'm sure you do. Hopefully, Andy Redwood has a pretty good idea. It's not in the interests of any one publication to go against the grain, stand up and point the finger at the parents. Also, might that not prejudice the investigation? I feel The Sunday Times article on witholding the e-fits was almost two fingers to the parents. Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted. The MSM are content to go along with this view because they know the feeding frenzy to come.

I used to work in meeja and know some who still do.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.02.14 22:16

Black Moon wrote:
Channel 5 currently has two documentaries in production due to be broadcast later this year. One is about Kevin Halligen, not sure about the other but will make further enquiries. The station has been told to stay away from the McCanns and if they do, such as in a news item or paper review, to be 'nice'.

I think I know how this could work.

Irishman, born in Dublin, 1961.

Late 1980s - begins to work on unknown projects for the Ministry of Defence.

March 1991, married Jennifer Darvill.

Carries on working in shadowy role for MoD.

1990s - working for DCB Special Batteries, Aldershot - more MoD related work, arms exports etc.

1998-2003 working for Cap Gemini and Ernst and Young on defence-related work

29 Feb 2000 - his later friend and business partner, Henri Herman Exton, Queen's Police Medal Grade 7, is awarded the O.B.E.

2003 Big break, became a Director at Inkerman

19 Jan 2005 Branches out by founding secretive shadowy company Red Defence International - gets another big break being employed by Carter-Ruck client Trafigura to rescue their executives from Ivory Coast after toxic waste dumping scandal. Fails - at great cost to Trafigura, but starts making big bucks.

Gets other lucrative contracts, high life with girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis (wife of U.S. surgeon of the same name), expensive hotels and hard drinking in New York, London, Italy and elsewhere - doesn't pay his employees - makes even more money.

Founds Oakley International weeks after Madeleine goes missing - a one-man band company bigged up by McCann spokesman Clarence Micthell as 'the big boys of international private detection.

Commits fraud on U.S. company - goes on the run - ends up holed up in 700-pounds-a-night Oxfordshire Hotel - rumbled - spends 4 years in jail 2009-2013.

Basically a scoundrel and a fraudster.

So then, what about this bit [Black Moon]: "The station has been told to stay away from the McCanns and if they do, such as in a news item or paper review, to be 'nice'."

A bit tricky.

I suggest they briefly mention what a scoundrel, fraud and a beast Halligen was, and then say how the naive McCanns, the naive Brian Kennedy, the naive Clarence Mitchell, the naive Freemason Edward Smethurst, their naive lawyers and the naive other Directors of Madeleine's Fund were all cruelly taken in by this master con-man. Probably best to skip over the fact that the Fund - raised from British people's generous donations - paid Halligen 500,000 pounds PLUS expenses for just 4 months' work. (Best to skip over Clarence Mitchell's claims about Oakley as well).

That will all make him look even worse than he already is, and make the McCanns look almost saintly by comparison. Of course, it would be extremely foolish of Channel 5 to suggest that the McCanns and the Directors of Madeleine's Fund should have done any 'due diligence' on Halligen. That could look suspiciously like a criticism of them.

by diatribe 10.02.14 22:20

Black Moon wrote: Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted.

You must mix with some pretty gullible people, do they still believe in Father Christmas.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.02.14 22:24

diatribe wrote:
Black Moon wrote: Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted.

You must mix with some pretty gullible people, do they still believe in Father Christmas.

To be fair to Black Moon, I think her statement would also be factually accurate if she had said: 'Most people in Britain believe Maddie was abducted'.

by RIPM 10.02.14 22:25

comperedna5 wrote:That puzzles me too, tiny. We have had changes of government in both countries. Bye-bye Blair, even more bye-bye Gordon Brown with his 'security adviser' Ex Met boss Stevens (who has been unhelpfully commenting recentl). At the risk of repeatng myself... I know about the Murdoch connection of some of Cameron's posh local friends, but consider that irrelevant. Cameron owes the previous political shower NOTHING, and he is assiduous where the welfare of children are concerned, as I know from personal experience. If he has been led to spend all this public money on a review and re-inestigation of this case, even initially rather unwillingly, I believe he will want to get to the truth. Why wouldn't he? It would be a feather in his cap!

All Politicians need us to believe they have good judgement, Cameron is no different.

Who told him to instigate a review, Rebecca Brooks who is at present on trial. Not good for his image. The press would have a field day. Cameron made Esther McVey a minister in his government, it wouldn't say much for his judgement if the Macs were charged.

His party has appointed Clarence Mitchell as Tory candidate for Brighton, it wouldn't say much for Camerons judgement, if the Macs were charged.
Labours judgement is worse, the last thing any politician wants is the truth, which is why it will be a whitewash.

Clarence was a major cog in the Labour spin machine, to show Labour policies in the best possible light, now he is Tory candidate for Brighton presenting Tory policies in the best possible light. His support for the Macs would reflect badly on both parties so both are content with a whitewash.

by Guest 10.02.14 22:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
So then, what about this bit [Black Moon]: "The station has been told to stay away from the McCanns and if they do, such as in a news item or paper review, to be 'nice'."

A bit tricky.

I suggest they briefly mention what a scoundrel, fraud and a beast Halligen was, and then say how the naive McCanns, the naive Brian Kennedy, the naive Clarence Mitchell, the naive Freemason Edward Smethurst, their naive lawyers and the naive other Directors of Madeleine's Fund were all cruelly taken in by this master con-man. Probably best to skip over the fact that the Fund - raised from British people's generous donations - paid Halligen 500,000 pounds PLUS expenses for just 4 months' work. (Best to skip over Clarence Mitchell's claims about Oakley as well).

That will all make him look even worse than he already is, and make the McCanns look almost saintly by comparison. Of course, it would be extremely foolish of Channel 5 to suggest that the McCanns and the Directors of Madeleine's Fund should have done any 'due diligence' on Halligen. That could look suspiciously like a criticism of them.

Spot on, Tony.

by Guest 10.02.14 22:36

diatribe wrote:
Black Moon wrote: Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted.

You must mix with some pretty gullible people, do they still believe in Father Christmas.

If everyone believed what we believe this forum's membership would be approaching 60 million.

by Guest 10.02.14 22:56

Not necessarily, Black Moon. I know people who don't believe any abduction took place, yet they are not members of this Forum.

by SixMillionQuid 10.02.14 23:04

Black Moon wrote:
diatribe wrote:
Black Moon wrote: Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted.
You must mix with some pretty gullible people, do they still believe in Father Christmas.

If everyone believed what we believe this forum's membership would be approaching 60 million.

And I know many people who couldn't care less anymore despite what 'the media' thinks or prints. Its way down the list on things that are important to them. But we understand why the McCanns need to defend their image, using the press and TV.

by diatribe 11.02.14 0:35

Black Moon wrote:

If everyone believed what we believe this forum's membership would be approaching 60 million.

Not necessarily, that would depend on on many different aspects. ie. how many of the 60 million were children, how many had computers, how many were literate, how many were capable of debate, how many thought McCanns was some kind of lager etc. etc. etc.

One thing I am sure of, if allowed to express their true opinion, one would be extremely taxed to find a solitary policeman on this planet who would subscribe to the Madeleine abduction theory. As with Monsieur le Amaral, the first question they'd ask would be, 'where's the ransom note?' Show me the logo. big grin

Outside of this forum, I've never discussed the McCann case, the only issue anyone in my circles are concerned about is the 40% drop in gold on the Comex Spot mkt. over the past couple of yrs.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 11.02.14 2:33

Ladyinred wrote:Not necessarily, Black Moon. I know people who don't believe any abduction took place, yet they are not members of this Forum.

Yep, me too, I know lots of people that don't believe the McCanns but couldn't give a fig about the case, they're just fed up of all the obvious rubbish in the newspapers.

by Pershing36 11.02.14 7:21

Black Moon wrote:
diatribe wrote:
Black Moon wrote: Most people I talk to on the subject believe Maddie was abducted.

You must mix with some pretty gullible people, do they still believe in Father Christmas.

If everyone believed what we believe this forum's membership would be approaching 60 million.

I don't think everyone would join a forum, lol

No seriously most people I have spoken to accept the McCann's version of events. I can say that this subject popped up in an office more than once I worked in. When somebody said they found the situation suspicious one women went off on one. I can remember her saying "There is a nasty abductor stealing little children and the Police over there are covering it up". She got so angry she stormed out when challenge by somebody. When she returned it was like everyone had been brainwashed and from then on in would of believe the abduction, even if this woman wasn't around.

Like it or not many see people who disagree as conspiracy theorists, they probably think we don't believe NASA landed a man on the moon and that 9/11 was done by the CIA.

The thing is few take much notice or have read the facts. They have just been conditioned to believe this is what happened and that is that.

Why would they be suspicious? They have a 7 million pound SY investigation so far that constantly leaks apparent new leads to abductors and crazy theories. To be honest they sound more like the crazy conspiracy theorists but have the backing of the press and the Government.

Like somebody pointed out earlier there really has to be a reason why they commanded and got so much Government support from the beginning. Why was that? If I recall it was the UK police that suggested that the PJ investigate the parents wasn't it?

What caused this sudden u-turn to turn on the PJ? Who ordered it and why? Could they be hiding a Government secret that could be so bad that people will risk there status and careers to protect it. Even if their was really an abduction by an unknown would a Government really go to these lengths to help?

I really don't know with this case any more or how it will end. I suspect however the ideal for some would accused abductors behind bars. They will obviously will not speak so the hunt can be rejuvenated and money collected on a search to find out who hired these abductors. A horrible thought as this could go on for many years and possibly decades to come.

by NickE 11.02.14 8:14

Joao Carlos Silva Batista's wife, Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista looks to be a good witness.
Are TM trying to scare Batista into silence by hanging out Carlos?

Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 11H20
Maintenance Services Director
Portuguese

FIRST PAGE BATISTA
She works at Ocean Club since 03/03/1986, as a receptionist for about a year and a half, and as head of Reception for about three years. After and until the present date, as a head of maintenance and services .
The head of maintenance and services, in the area of services, is responsible for the admission of employees and, in the area of maintenance, is responsible for the admission of employees and the good functioning of all equipments of the Ocean Club, including : flats, swimming pools, gardens, fences, etc.
Concerning the admission of staff, it is done in the traditional way, ie when an employee is needed for a particular area the situation is discussed between the various
heads and other employees . Usually some employee or head indicates a person he/she knows and, in most cases, resident in Lagos.
The witness, being a native of Lagos and knowing many people in that
town, tries to find out about the reputation and character of the candidate to the job.
It may happen that employees are looked for in the Centre for Employment of Lagos Either way, is always carried out a labour contract with the employee, for a
minimum of six months. A special form is filled that includes all the data
identifying the employee and sometimes informations about his/her previous professional occupation.
The exception is when you hire a company to provide a service : that company is responsible for its employees, who are nevertheless under the eye of the head of works and maintenance, Mr. Joao Carlos Silva Batista .
She is aware of the events that occurred in the Ocean Club resort, having had knowledge of the girl's disappearance, by 22H.30 on 03/05/2007, through
a telephone call from the administrator George Robin Crosland .
She immediately went to the Ocean Club resort where later arrived the GNR. A search started immediately throughout the village. Many residents and employees of OC participated.
On the 03/05/2007 she started working by 09H30, having entered the Ocean
Club through the area of the Club, having walked through the swimming pool area and later having checked the other swimming pools.
At about 13:00 she went to Lagos, with her husband, Mr. Joao Carlos Silva Batista and came back at about 14H30 .
At about18H00 she left the resort and only came back when the circumstances outlined above occurred.
During the day 03/05/2007 she did not detect anything unusual or different.
No strange situation was reported to her.
After the events and in conversation with other employees and heads of the Ocean Club, nothing was reported or commented concerning odd situations, such as the presence of strangers close to the resort.
She states that the Ocean Club Resort has no system of video surveillance.
Ratifies and will sign. ..........................

SECOND PAGE BATISTA
She's here as a witness. She is responsible for maintenance in the Ocean Club Resort located in Praia da Luz - Lagos. Because of her profession she knows many people of the English community, who live in Praia da Luz.
She knows the Murat (sic !) family, who has been there for about 30 years. In particular Mr. Murat and his wife Jenny. Mr. Murat was linked to building business and development of tourism enterprises, in Salema in her opinion. Mr. Murat died some years ago.
The Murat live in a house named "casa Liliana", near the Ocean Club.
Asked, she said not to remember whether the Murats have any child.
Asked, she said that on the night when Madeleine McCain (sic...) disappeared (03-05-2007), she was called by her boss, at about at 22:30. As she lives in Lagos she arrived shortly after at the resort. Close to the apartment A-5 of the OC there were already about 60 people to look for the girl.
She remembers, although she is not absolutely certain, given the time already elapsed, that an individual of about 1,70m, short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses, wanted from the start to help finding the child Madeleine McCann.
She doesn't remember at what time she saw him.
She doesn't remember how he was dressed up.
She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.
Robert speaks fluently English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR of Lagos and later the PJ, translating the testimony of some British persons.
She admits as possible that Paul and June of the bar "Duke of Holland" and Mr. Byron of the firm JNB (management of properties in PDL) should be able to confirm if Robert Murat was there when Madeleine disappeared, and eventually other details.
She states that she spoke for the first time with Robert on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or may be on Monday (07-05-2007), during the breaks between the interviews in which he participated as a translator.
She describes him as a very sympathetic and direct guy. RM was very communicative and extrovert during the conversations they had together. He didn't mention any personal subject.
She ratified and will sign...............................

THIRD PAGE BATISTA
She made already statements concerning this process several times and remembers what she stated earlier, repeating here what the content of previous statements.
She is here because, with the passage of time since Madeleine disappeared she has remembered a few details on the testified facts that she believes may be somehow of interest to the investigation.
As she said earlier she was alerted about the disappearance of Madeleine between 22.30 and 23:00. She was at home and was informed of the event via a telephone call.
She drove immediately to the Ocean Club where she arrived a few minutes before elements of the GNR popped in.
After she arrived she went immediately to the apartment A5 where she found several people inside the apartment and outside of it. She entered in the flat but soon left without having spoken with anyone, because she was informed that elements of the GNR were in the principal reception. She went there to meet them.
When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was
Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember. Then Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand. Then Gerry stand up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment A5.
She entered the apartment and asked for the passports of all elements of the family, and also photographs of the missing girl. She went with Gerry to the GNR car to hand over the requested documents. She mentions she did this, as well
as other tasks, at the request of the GNR Commandant, because she could translate their questions and the missing girl's family's answers.
She remembers Gerry gave the Commandant of several photographs of the missing girl. They were postcard-like pictures, taking into account their size and shape and seemed all the same to her.
She understood also that since the very beginning either Gerry or the others insisted on stating that Madeleine had been snatched, all using the word "abducted" instead of missing, and all showing much interest in informing the press of the situation.
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
Gerry said that when he discovered the disappearance of Madeleine he noticed that the window and the blinds were open and the curtains fluttering.
She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies
were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.
She opened the wardrobes of that room in order to confirm that Madeleine wasn't eventually hiding there.
Then everyone left the room and someone shut the door. She remained for some time in the living room, near the GNR elements, Gerry and other elements of the group
who got in and out and spoke on their cellular phones.
She observed that none of the elements of the group including the father and mother
of the child was concerned with looking for her.
The mother was sitting on the bed of her room, the father was with her (the witness) and the elements of the GNR, and other elements of the group got in and out
and spoke on the phone, anxious, in her opinion, to tell the press what happened.
She thought that the child's mother was devastated, the father was worried and
also asked to notify the press and to get dogs to search.
About the others she only remembers that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical with the situation.
At a certain time, after the arrival of the PJ elements, the parents removed the twins
from the beds in which they were still sleeping and took them to the first floor flat.
At the request of Kate she (the witness) to remove their puppets drink and a blanket that she took to the first floor flat. Only the mattresses remained.
She wanted to mention that around 3h00 Madeleine's parents asked for a priest to be present. They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest.
At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Geny was wearing a dark shirt
and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thins.
And more she did not say. Read the self as the thought, ratified and will sign.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by columbostogeys 11.02.14 8:41

russiandoll wrote:now copied over from where I posted it in a reply to a member discussing a link to it on twitter , [ admin please delete if needlessly duplicated on different threads. ]
posted also on Mitchell's list of suspects topic....now I wonder who made this claim re the stolen keys ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

SO if all the spare keys were stolen for that block, how did the cleaners get in?

by tiny 11.02.14 9:06

NickE,I read her statement the otherday and thought the same,she is in my mind a star witness

by sami 11.02.14 9:12

columbostogeys wrote:
SO if all the spare keys were stolen for that block, how did the cleaners get in?

They broke the shutters and went in through the window, of course.

by Seek truth 11.02.14 9:17

Thanks nickE
So the witness Batista mentions these important points:

1) She observed that none of the elements of the group including the father and mother
of the child was concerned with looking for her.

2) ,the parents removed the twins
from the beds in which they were still sleeping

3) They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest.

4) found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.

5) She understood also that since the very beginning either Gerry or the others insisted on stating that Madeleine had been snatched, all using the word "abducted" instead of missing, and all showing much interest in informing the press of the situation.
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.

by Seek truth 11.02.14 9:26

Did they sue the witness Batista for saying these things or do they only sue portuguese policemen?

by SixMillionQuid 11.02.14 9:58

So there's no independent witness, not even their friends who were in 5a before the police, that can confirm the window was ever open.

by Guest 11.02.14 11:37

Seek truth wrote:Thanks nickE
So the witness Batista mentions these important points:

2) ,the parents removed the twins
from the beds in which they were still sleeping

I remember the first time I read that statement that I was literally sitting here shaking with rage and anger, partly because this case is still not concluded, but mostly because of this bit -

She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.

She opened the wardrobes of that room in order to confirm that Madeleine wasn't eventually hiding there. Then everyone left the room and someone shut the door.

They shut the twins, alone, in the room that they claimed their other daughter had just been abducted from by a paedophile and which now (according to them) had a compromised shutter. I have to stop typing now before my words just degenerate into a stream of every expletive I know.

by Liz Eagles 11.02.14 11:42

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Thanks nickE
So the witness Batista mentions these important points:

2) ,the parents removed the twins
from the beds in which they were still sleeping

I remember the first time I read that statement that I was literally sitting here shaking with rage and anger, partly because this case is still not concluded, but mostly because of this bit -

She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.

She opened the wardrobes of that room in order to confirm that Madeleine wasn't eventually hiding there. Then everyone left the room and someone shut the door.

They shut the twins, alone, in the room that they claimed their other daughter had just been abducted from by a paedophile and which now (according to them) had a compromised shutter. I have to stop typing now before my words just degenerate into a stream of every expletive I know.

Here's a thread that might be of interest to you Clay.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by jeanmonroe 11.02.14 13:02

Pershing36 wrote:
"I can remember her saying "There is a nasty abductor stealing little children and the Police over there are covering it up". She got so angry she stormed out when challenged by somebody."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"stealing little children"? PLURAL! (ask her how MANY little children THE nasty 'abductor' stole)

Should have asked her HOW did 'the nasty abductor' get into 5A.

Was it through the unlocked patio door, the unlocked front door or jemmied shutter/forced window?

Or dosen't she 'do DETAILS'?

by Pershing36 11.02.14 14:09

jeanmonroe wrote:Pershing36 wrote:
"I can remember her saying "There is a nasty abductor stealing little children and the Police over there are covering it up". She got so angry she stormed out when challenged by somebody."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"stealing little children"? PLURAL! (ask her how MANY little children THE nasty 'abductor' stole)

Should have asked her HOW did 'the nasty abductor' get into 5A.

Was it through the unlocked patio door, the unlocked front door or jemmied shutter/forced window?

Or dosen't she 'do DETAILS'?

People like this go back to the Joana Cipriano case. For the people like this woman and the die hard pro's this is the jewel in the crown. The vision of a women proclaiming her innocence and saying a confession was beaten out of her has not helped the PJ at all. In fact I think if it hadn't come to light things would have ended very different.

I agree it bears no relation to this case but once the papers had published those pictures of a beaten women it was all down hill from then.

by jeanmonroe 11.02.14 14:10

Seek truth wrote:Thanks nickE
So the witness Batista mentions this important point:

5) She understood also that since the very beginning either Gerry or the others insisted on stating that Madeleine had been snatched, all using the word "abducted" instead of missing, and all showing much interest in informing the press of the situation.

DP ROG:
Reply "And really didn't think twice about it at the time and that's why it wasn't mentioned then. But she definitely mentioned it to me you know after Madeleine had been abducted and.......

...and if I was to say that she was carrying the child you know like this, rather than like, like that then, you know because again this is something that we've talked about, you know, if she was abducted, you know, sorry if you were carrying your own child any distance, to actually carry a child like....

(IF SHE WAS 'ABDUCTED'?.................."IF I WAS TO SAY THAT SHE WAS CARRYING THE CHILD"................

IF 'abducted'?... SHE was 'carrying'?

"and we were trying to convey that she's been abducted and we...."

"We were trying to impress the importance to the, to the err two Policemen err that you know that she'd been abducted"

"because you know we just didn't feel that we could get this message across to err to anybody that she had been abducted"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So DP tries his utmost to 'convince' people there was an 'abduction' but it seems, strangely, even at that very early stage nobody would 'listen' to him having already established that the shutters had not been 'jemmied' or the window 'forced' as they had been 'told' by the 'missing' childs parents.

I wonder WHY they didn't 'believe' him! winkwink

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The PJ gave up the search for the night at around 3.30am. Gerry went back out again at about 4am with his friend David Payne.

DP Rog: "Me and Gerry you know I'm not sure what time it was, it was you know between three and four o' clock when, again looking for her"

Who would dare 'question' a 'distraught father and his friend' 'looking' for Madeleine at 4:00am, even if they were carrying 'something'?

Strangely, NOBODY seems to have 'seen' them 'looking' just like NOBODY 'saw' K&GM 'searching' at 6:00-7:00am 4th May 2007.

by Guest 11.02.14 15:24

aquila wrote:
Here's a thread that might be of interest to you Clay.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Aquila. Reading that, it truly is amazing that we're all still sat here discussing an unsolved case. There's enough in that one thread to warrant a new and thorough reinterviewing of everybody involved. Maybe such a process has taken place as part of the review, but I'm not hopeful.