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

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.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4127-don-t-wake-up-the-kids?highlight=don+t+wake+up+the+kids

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'?

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.  

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!  
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

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

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4127-don-t-wake-up-the-kids?highlight=don+t+wake+up+the+kids

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.

I've just read the thread too - most interesting. 

Very OT (sorry) but someone there commented that if the PJ reopened the case, then the arguido status would be automatically reinstated. Does anyone know if that is correct? Are the 3As, 3As again?

Pershing36 wrote:


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.

Well, Pershing, one must never underestimate the ignorance of the masses. I remember being castigated by Ultima for asserting that most people can just about manage their own ablutions when I first joined this forum. Of course the ultimate antidote to those advocating the McCanns is to simply ask them to supply one scintilla of evidence to support the theory that their daughter was abducted.

There are many in this country who are still of the belief that it is the greedy arabs who are responsible for the extortionate price of gasoline, as opposed to their own govs. draconian taxation, Successive govs. have been propagating this palpable lie since at least the early 1970's, why, most motorists don't even know how many litres are equivalent to a gal.

When one flips a gold coin there is a distinctive ring to it, as opposed to a dull tone when flipping a snide coin. It is the latter that becomes distinct when listening to the McCanns or their entourage of disciples. Alas, the problem being that the majority of people have papier mache located between their ears and simply do not possess analytical brains. That's why circa 7% of the world's pop. own around 90% of the wealth as opposed to too many chiefs and not enough injuns. 

chilli wrote:I've just read the thread too - most interesting. 

Very OT (sorry) but someone there commented that if the PJ reopened the case, then the arguido status would be automatically reinstated. Does anyone know if that is correct? Are the 3As, 3As again?

I don´t know but I found this from October 2013.

 Former MAI, Rui Pereira:"The McCann couple won't be identified as suspect in the new line of investigation, but Rui Pereira recalls that the ongoing inquest will be the same therefore Maddie's parents should remain as arguidos in the process".

NickE wrote:

chilli wrote:I've just read the thread too - most interesting. 

Very OT (sorry) but someone there commented that if the PJ reopened the case, then the arguido status would be automatically reinstated. Does anyone know if that is correct? Are the 3As, 3As again?

I don´t know but I found this from October 2013.

 Former MAI, Rui Pereira:"The McCann couple won't be identified as suspect in the new line of investigation, but Rui Pereira recalls that the ongoing inquest will be the same therefore Maddie's parents should remain as arguidos in the process".

That's a very interesting and noteworthy observation, the importance of which cannot be lost on my brethren on this Forum. In fact:

IF the inquest goes on (which it does) -> the old arguidos resurface as: the present arguidos.

Or, to put it more succinctly: the once and future arguidos

    

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.

Quite something to consider, alongside:
- KMcC leaving the twins alone in the unlocked apartment to raise the alarm, in their bedroom with an (allegedly) open window;
- the twins being deposited again in the creche the next day

And all supposedly normal, "within the bounds of reasonable parenting" behaviour.

diatribe wrote....
When one flips a gold coin there is a distinctive ring to it, as opposed to a dull tone when flipping a snide coin. It is the latter that becomes distinct when listening to the McCanns or their entourage of disciples. Alas, the problem being that the majority of people have papier mache located between their ears and simply do not possess analytical brains. That's why circa 7% of the world's pop. own around 90% of the wealth as opposed to too many chiefs and not enough injuns. 

Maybe have got things wrong. But appears what you are saying, is that 93% of the worlds population are in their position due to not possessing analytical brains? When in reality those 93% of the population (including myself) are there, because of not having the advantage of inheritance, birth right, connections etc.

I don´t know if this is a old CNN video,but it´s published today on YouTube.
Nothing new about the case,but the couple who stayed in the apartment next to McCann´s speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKFelhBnvzk&feature=youtu.be

All expenses are now for the Yard and the PJ.
The British people were wonderful, giving money to the fund. 
Are the McCanns now willing to give the rest of the money to the suffering Britons, who are victims of the floods?

Chilli, my theory is that if the McCanns are still considered arguidos, a Judge can change their status, classifying them  as witnesess.
That will be 100% better for the investigation otherwise they will have too many rights and they will not answer any question.

NickE wrote:I don´t know if this is a old CNN video,but it´s published today on YouTube.
Nothing new about the case,but the couple who stayed in the apartment next to McCann´s speaking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKFelhBnvzk&feature=youtu.be

They weren't there at the same time. The reporter was using their apartment as reference point.

thanks m8

Châtelaine wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Garrincha wrote:Hello again j.rob – I find your reference to subliminal messages interesting - the details of the Express story itself do not seem to me to justify a banner headline about a “COVER UP”, so I am inclined to believe this is a “teaser” of some kind, designed to send a message to someone, somewhere….

Or maybe just a message to everyone, everywhere!

***
I have no proof, but am convinced, that ALL journalists have enough knowledge of the case.
They're biding their time. And publish teasers, whilst waiting ... IMO
 

Yes. And the Daily Express are going to have quite an axe to grind as they were well and truly Carter-Rucked - in fact, he boasts that it was one of his biggest success cases! Bet there have been some really juicy 'leaks' to the papers, once it became obvious that the British police and McMurdoch press had practically canonized the McCanns and their friends.

columbostogeys wrote:

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 ?  


   

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

I also can't help noticing the headline about the boy dying from 'toxic' flood. It just seems so much of a coincidence that the word 'toxic' is used. In any case the word does not seem that appropriate to the story, as the flood itself isn't toxic in the sense of, say, an environmentally polluted flood  or water that had been polluted by chemicals.  

Amaral's theory was that the parents may have drugged the children. Getting the drug dosage wrong or over-dosing would cause toxicity. It has been suggested that the McCanns were in telephone contact with the partner of a medic in the UK whose speciality is toxicology at around the time (or a few days before) Madeleine's disappearance.

For what it is worth, whether Madeleine was 'abducted', 'stolen' or 'snatched from her bed' seems to revolve around semantics more than anything else. The key question is whether this was the act of a total stranger and they had no prior knowledge of it or involvement in it. 

The McCanns appear to  be convinced that she did not 'wander off' or just mysteriously disappear. On this point, at least, I think we should believe them. 'They have taken her' cried Madeleine's mother. 'She is gone'. Again, I think that is true - someone or some people had indeed taken Madeleine out of the apartment, whether that evening or previously, we do not know.

The behaviours of the McCanns during the evening when they claim Madeleine was abducted strongly suggest that they either thought she was already dead or dying or that she would be in the (near) future. That night they acted as though a bereavement had taken place. And they were very keen to inform the press of the 'stranger abduction' and line up all sorts of 'experts' ready to support them who were not, however, experts in finding missing children.

Interesting questions can be raised when Gerry's later claims that they are working on the basis that 'Madeleine was alive when abducted'.
I suppose he would have to say that, really, in order to get the public to contribute to the Fund and spice up the media coverage. The search for a dead body would not, one assume, garner such media coverage or public support. It would be a murder investigation.

As to how premeditated it all was - there does appear to be more than an element of premeditation. The Fund was set up with unseemly haste and why would you need reputation managers and extradition lawyers if you were simply looking for a missing child? But again, would this be to do with an 'accident covered up' or would it be to do with a 'wider agenda'?

You have to ask why would the friends rally round as surely they would not want to be implicated in a hoax or maybe a 'wider agenda'? 

One theory might be that Madeleine and her siblings were given tranquilizers, to help them sleep or for other reasons. This might have been administered by another member of the tapas group or at least might have implicated them in some way (they brought them to the resort/gave advice etc). Then, unfortunately Madeleine has an adverse reaction as someone else perhaps (mistakenly or otherwise) tops up the dose. Madeleine goes into a coma or has some kind of adverse reaction. The member/s of the group who felt implicated, in some way, in the sedating of the children (and possibly other children in the group were also sedated) might feel a sense of responsibility even if their actions had not been intended to cause harm. And that someone else, unbeknown to them, had somehow interfered or at least not taken appropriate action to avert a tragedy.

That might account for support from some of the Tapas group for the random abduction theory, as they would not want the drugging story to implicate them. Even if their motives had not been to cause harm.

It may be that there were others in the group (or wider group/acquaintances) who were only to happy to implicate others in the toxicology 'disaster' that followed. They may have had another much darker agenda but could hide behind a few scape goats.

Just a theory.

Most definitely there had to be a wider agenda.

I think we have to question why this couple of doctors from Rothley received such incredible support
from Day 1.  It sounds ridiculous to think about the level of support they received now. Therefore it is logical to
suppose hat it was not the couple themselves who were receiving the support but a wider circle of 'more important' people.
The TAPAS 9 were only similar doctors and therefore it is likely that they were not the ones who warranted such high level support.
This would indicate that there were other people / guests who needed high level support and had influential contacts within the government.

Looking at the other guests who were present during that low season week in the Ocean Club , we can perhaps see that there were surprisingly well-connected guests who would be able to call on high level support. I think that is the wider agenda...

Also, it is strange that a very wealthy director of a multi-national company would want to go to PDL OC in the low season, dont you think unless there was an organised event there which attracted him / her.  I would have expected more a week on Mustique.

HelenMeg:

As has been pointed out before, the 'cover up' might not have come at first from Government but by the BMA.

Always 'banging on' about how doctors should ALWAYS report 'neglect' and 'poor child care issues' at all times, and then being faced with at least SIX of 'their OWN' leaving 8 'babies' alone in apartments out of sight, for nights out 'socialising'

Not a good 'headline' for BMA. .........................."SIX BRITISH DOCTORS NEGLECT 8 BABIES, ONE NOW MISSING, FOR NIGHTS OUT IN PORTUGUESE RESTAURANT!"

POT, KETTLE?

For what it is worth, whether Madeleine was 'abducted', 'stolen' or 'snatched from her bed' seems to revolve around semantics more than anything else. The key question is whether this was the act of a total stranger and they had no prior knowledge of it or involvement in it. 

The McCanns appear to  be convinced that she did not 'wander off' or just mysteriously disappear. On this point, at least, I think we should believe them. 'They have taken her' cried Madeleine's mother. 'She is gone'. Again, I think that is true - someone or some people had indeed taken Madeleine out of the apartment, whether that evening or previously, we do not know.


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


j.rob: please explain why we should believe anything the McCanns say.

I am also convinced that MBM did not wander off.  IMO the parents are responsible for her 'mysterious' disappearance, i.e. her death.

You accept the parent's assertion that Madeleine was taken on 3rd May, or previously.  Why do you believe this?

jeanmonroe wrote:HelenMeg:

As has been pointed out before, the 'cover up' might not have come at first from Government but by the BMA.

Always 'banging on' about how doctors should ALWAYS report 'neglect' and 'poor child care issues' at all times, and then being faced with at least SIX of 'their OWN' leaving 8 'babies' alone in apartments out of sight, for nights out 'socialising'

Not a good 'headline' for BMA. .........................."SIX BRITISH DOCTORS NEGLECT 8 BABIES, ONE NOW MISSING, FOR NIGHTS OUT IN PORTUGUESE RESTAURANT!"

POT, KETTLE?

Hi Jeanmonroe
Well my work is heavily involved with doctors and the BMA and the GMC and other regulatory bodies. I feel 100% certain that none of these bodies would even consider a cover up
either to protect the doctors involved or the public. Also, I dont think the 'protection process' from start to finish ever believed it was protecting reputations regarding neglect. The protection
was of 'higher' people against loss of reputation.  These higher people were able to pull strings or request favours. Neglect was never part of this - only in respect of public brainwashing. Have to say it worked very well.

Ladyinred wrote:For what it is worth, whether Madeleine was 'abducted', 'stolen' or 'snatched from her bed' seems to revolve around semantics more than anything else. The key question is whether this was the act of a total stranger and they had no prior knowledge of it or involvement in it. 

The McCanns appear to  be convinced that she did not 'wander off' or just mysteriously disappear. On this point, at least, I think we should believe them. 'They have taken her' cried Madeleine's mother. 'She is gone'. Again, I think that is true - someone or some people had indeed taken Madeleine out of the apartment, whether that evening or previously, we do not know.


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


j.rob: please explain why we should believe anything the McCanns say.

I am also convinced that MBM did not wander off.  IMO the parents are responsible for her 'mysterious' disappearance, i.e. her death.

You accept the parent's assertion that Madeleine was taken on 3rd May, or previously.  Why do you believe this?

I think you perhaps slightly misunderstand what I was trying to get at. Perhaps I was too obtuse. What I wanted to convey is that when Kate McCann cried: 'she has gone.....someone has taken her' and words to that effect then I do believe that was the truth. However, it wasn't a random stranger, it was someone she knew or someone that the McCanns knew or had instructed to take her.

 I do not believe the McCanns - on the contrary, I think they have sent the world and his wife on a crazy witch-hunt and I think that the Portugese police spotted what was going on from the very beginning.

HOWEVER - I think that, although the McCann's overall premise is a lie, they quite often say things that indicate what may have really happened. For instance: 'someone has taken her. she has gone'.

Yes - Kate knew that Madeleine had been taken by somebody and that she had not just wandered off. Yes, I too believe that the McCanns are behind her disappearance, and they know (mostly) what happened to her. But if other people were involved in her disappearance (at the behest of the McCanns) then the McCanns  may not 100% know what happened. The criminal underworld is probably not full of people who are going to necessarily do what they say they will do.

My opinion is that you have to look at what the McCanns say from the perspective that they are lying. However, when people tell lies, they quite often betray themselves by slipping in - between the lies - the truth.

So, for instance - the McCAnns claim Madeleine and the twins were drugged. Yes - I think that might well be the truth. But not by a mystery random person, but by either them or someone they knew. There are several reasons they would have brought this up even though, ironically, it could implicate them. Firstly, it would explain for the twins sleeping so deeply. Secondly, it would explain how a stranger was able to take Madeleine out of her bed without her protesting and thirdly, in the event that the twins were medically examined, it would lead credence to their version of events and get them off the hook (assuming, as I do, that the drugging of their children was done either by them or by their friends/aquaintances).

There are many other examples of the McCanns revealing what probably really happened, but through their lies. You see this all the time in criminal cases. In the case of the McCAnns whatever happened to Madeleine - her 'abduction' her being drugged - was always someone else's fault. But, really, they incriminated themselves from the very beginning by coming up with all these explanation when, in reality, if they really DIDN'T KNOW (because they really didn't know and weren't there to witness it) then they really didn't know.

The Portuguese police would have spotted all these inconsistencies from the word go. None of what they were saying added up. It must have been obvious that they were all trying way too hard to pin their daughter's disappearance on a random abductor. Why try to shoehorn a mystery disappearance into a very specific scenario (eg: abduction into a paedophile ring?)

And all the above is especially mad when you consider that the McCann, prior to the apparently mystery abduction, had never considered that to be a risk factor. ......that being the case, why would they come to that conclusion the moment they found their daughter 'missing'.

The fact that the McCanns themselves constantly bring up the subject of paedophilia and Kate writes about it in her book also raises a few red flags with me. Why harp on about it? Kate herself once said that 'people with dirty thoughts have dirty minds'.

Again - if the McCanns had not brought it up, I would not be suspicious about it. 

In my opinion the McCanns have at lest narcissistic tendencies and maybe psychopathic tendencies. It is as though they are playing a game with everyone. Hinting at the truth, but through their lies. Gerry constantly goading reporters and others. The closer they get to the truth, the more the McCanns and their team attack back. They cannot, will not, accept their culpability instead preferring to pin the blame on everyone else.

HelenMeg wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:HelenMeg:

As has been pointed out before, the 'cover up' might not have come at first from Government but by the BMA.

Always 'banging on' about how doctors should ALWAYS report 'neglect' and 'poor child care issues' at all times, and then being faced with at least SIX of 'their OWN' leaving 8 'babies' alone in apartments out of sight, for nights out 'socialising'

Not a good 'headline' for BMA. .........................."SIX BRITISH DOCTORS NEGLECT 8 BABIES, ONE NOW MISSING, FOR NIGHTS OUT IN PORTUGUESE RESTAURANT!"

POT, KETTLE?

Hi Jeanmonroe
Well my work is heavily involved with doctors and the BMA and the GMC and other regulatory bodies. I feel 100% certain that none of these bodies would even consider a cover up
either to protect the doctors involved or the public. Also, I dont think the 'protection process' from start to finish ever believed it was protecting reputations regarding neglect. The protection
was of 'higher' people against loss of reputation.  These higher people were able to pull strings or request favours. Neglect was never part of this - only in respect of public brainwashing. Have to say it worked very well.

Hmmmmmm........I think there is a tendency to want to 'protect the integrity of the profession' rather than necessarily protect the individual patient. Harold Shipman was a member of the medical professional body right up to the bitter end. And I think there are certain medics who have been struck off because they do not 'tow the Government line' - whatever that particular line might be at the moment (quite often to do with the drug industry or the latest dogma or theory).

Our health authorities would not have wanted a story breaking in the press about a group of doctors neglecting their children and leaving them alone so that an abductor was able to enter the apartment and steal one (not that that is what happened, in my opinion). Especially when you consider how harshly some parents have been treated when their babies have died unexpectedly and, as there has been no explanation, the parents have been blamed (eg: solicitor Sally Clark who was wrongly convicted for the murder of her two baby sons, on the basis of medical evidence that was entirely flawed and put an innocent woman behind bars.)