Re: Game over?

by kevmack 23.03.14 18:45

That's still much slower than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her Sad

by Liz Eagles 23.03.14 18:48

kevmack wrote:That's still much quicker than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her

Madeleine's picture released to the UK press within in a couple of hours.

by kevmack 23.03.14 18:53

aquila wrote:
kevmack wrote:That's still much quicker than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her
Madeleine's picture released to the UK press within in a couple of hours.

But the "last photo" taking about 3 weeks to see the light of day and instead a picture of a (at the most 2 and half year old) beamed round the world, complete with highlighted coloboma that evaporated into a fleck over the passage of time

by ChippyM 23.03.14 19:01

AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

by Guest 23.03.14 19:06

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:It was only a few hours with April.

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

The first post with a newspaper report was just after midnight - less than five hours after she went missing.

Re: April Jones, this from BBC Wales.

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

by canada12 23.03.14 19:13

ChippyM wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

My line of thinking is that the release of the photos was crucial to just the sort of people you mention above. Not any photos - but photos that may have alerted them to the fact that this particular child was missing, this particular child who they may have been familiar with, either through personal contacts, or through photographs and videos they may have been familiar with. And this warning would have given those particular people the time to protect themselves and to put processes in place to make sure the protection was extended to anyone who required it.

In my opinion.

by Guest 23.03.14 20:07

Here's the earliest Madeleine story that I'm aware of - at one minute past midnight on 4th May.

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

Some of it will have been added later as it mentions searches until 4.30 a m and Jill Renwick's appearance in the morning on GMTV.

Tigger, you'll notice that a still from the Snow White video was indeed available very early.

Such speedy coverage has to be absolutely unprecedented with what appeared to be a wandering off child.

by Guest 23.03.14 20:08

canada12 wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

My line of thinking is that the release of the photos was crucial to just the sort of people you mention above. Not any photos - but photos that may have alerted them to the fact that this particular child was missing, this particular child who they may have been familiar with, either through personal contacts, or through photographs and videos they may have been familiar with. And this warning would have given those particular people the time to protect themselves and to put processes in place to make sure the protection was extended to anyone who required it.

In my opinion.

Canada 12, thank you for your bravery in addressing the elephant in the room. I believe the crux of the cover-up lies behind the Gaspar statements and to where they may lead, and I am not merely referring to Payne and McCann.

It is interesting the diversions this thread has taken since your first post on the matter, and perhaps not insignificant. Let's all stop dancing around the handbags and start discussing the possibility of the unthinkable being the reason for the spectre that protects. clapping1

by Liz Eagles 23.03.14 20:13

Dee Coy wrote:
canada12 wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

My line of thinking is that the release of the photos was crucial to just the sort of people you mention above. Not any photos - but photos that may have alerted them to the fact that this particular child was missing, this particular child who they may have been familiar with, either through personal contacts, or through photographs and videos they may have been familiar with. And this warning would have given those particular people the time to protect themselves and to put processes in place to make sure the protection was extended to anyone who required it.

In my opinion.

Canada 12, thank you for your bravery in addressing the elephant in the room. I believe the crux of the cover-up lies behind the Gaspar statements and to where they may lead, and I am not merely referring to Payne and McCann.

It is interesting the diversions this thread has taken since your first post on the matter, and perhaps not insignificant. Let's all stop dancing around the handbags and start discussing the possibility of the unthinkable being the reason for the spectre that protects.

Seconded.

by TMH 23.03.14 20:16

kevmack wrote:That's still much slower than Madeleine's case...reported missing (to the Portuguese police) at 10.40(?) In the UK media by midnight and as you said, in April's case she was seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridger's car and of course sadly, they still didn't find her

Sorry but little April wasn't seen by multiple witnesses getting into Bridgers car, she was apparently seen by her 7 year old friend only

by Cristobell 23.03.14 20:23

Woofer wrote:@ Cristobell - "I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity."

Come on Cristobel ... I`m usually the naive one on this forum   .
I can think of loads but won`t list them here   .

The investigation is huge because there are thousands of people not falling for it all over the world .... and rather than keep quiet the McCanns have perpetuated it by sueing people and going on TV couches. It could have just died a death in the early stages but they have made the stupid decision to take the power and run with it.   In most cases like this, Mi5 would step in and GM would have had an accident but its too far gone for that to happen.

One of the reasons I do not think this will be a whitewash Woofer is the fact that the McCanns are so publicity and fame hungry. Who would trust them enough to work closely with them to hide a secret? They have no loyalty, look how quickly they turned on the press and all their former newspaper buddies. How many of the original Team McCann are left? They certainly didn't have much of a turnout at the Lisbon libel trial, no experts were queuing up to speak on their behalf and none of the tapas group were there.

by Cristobell 23.03.14 20:28

Popcorn wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
It has Aquila, I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity. Also when we get down to the nitty gritty, something I try to avoid, even the worst parents I could imagine would not use their own children for anything seedy. Paedophiles prey on vulnerable children, those without protection, ergo, those in care or those stolen from the streets. They don't use their own children, nor would they use a family resort and bring granny along.

If the VIP is the one who authorised the cover up - I think it unlikely. They will all do as their predecessors have done before them, and point the finger at someone else. No heads will roll within this or any former government, though a prospective tory candidate might find himself out on a limb.

I cannot find any logical explanation that would include hiding the involvement of a VIP and I have tried every line of thinking! My conclusions are that the McCanns like us to think that this case is bigger than them, or that they are more important than they actually are. As we reach the end, myths are being revealed before my eyes. Everything is based on a lie. What they are telling the world (us) and what they are telling the forces of the PJ and SY. They see themselves as champions of the oppressed (themselves) and victims intent of squeezing every last bit of sympathy (and cash) they can out of a public who gave, and moved on years ago.

I agree that they are being protected, but that protection is a shield against the torrent of media intrusion that will be inevitable once this story breaks.

I'm not disagreeing with your general argument Cristobell, nor am I suggesting that any of the individuals in the McCann case are involved in "anything seedy" with their children, but you have only to recall Josef Fritzl or read a few incest survivors stories to know that this statement is sadly not true. "The worst" parents really are pretty bad.

I think you are right Popcorn, as are the other posters who have pointed out that I was being a bit naive. Sadly, there are too many examples where parents have turned out to be monsters where their children are concerned, and we lose a little more faith in humanity. I'm afraid I have fallen into the trap of seeing them as nice, middle class parents but from what we know of them, they are far from it.

by canada12 23.03.14 20:55

aquila wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
canada12 wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

My line of thinking is that the release of the photos was crucial to just the sort of people you mention above. Not any photos - but photos that may have alerted them to the fact that this particular child was missing, this particular child who they may have been familiar with, either through personal contacts, or through photographs and videos they may have been familiar with. And this warning would have given those particular people the time to protect themselves and to put processes in place to make sure the protection was extended to anyone who required it.

In my opinion.

Canada 12, thank you for your bravery in addressing the elephant in the room. I believe the crux of the cover-up lies behind the Gaspar statements and to where they may lead, and I am not merely referring to Payne and McCann.

It is interesting the diversions this thread has taken since your first post on the matter, and perhaps not insignificant. Let's all stop dancing around the handbags and start discussing the possibility of the unthinkable being the reason for the spectre that protects.
Seconded.

Thank you. I think this is the obvious reason for the level of protection that's persisted in this case. I'm only agreeing with Mr. Amaral, who has also consistently raised this point throughout the years following Madeleine's disappearance. I think what's changed has been the Jimmy Saville case bursting a lot of secret balloons wide open. There may be a lot more willingness to address the issue of sexual child abuse now, in the press, in the UK parliament and in peoples' minds.

I think we're slowly approaching the point where the UK public may be ready to hear this sort of thing re: the Madeleine case, and I also think that the focus in the papers a few weeks ago on the PIE revelations may have been extremely relevant as it opened the public's eyes to the subject of paedophilia and child sex abuse in the echelons of power.

It's interesting that back in 2007, when I was posting on the original forums, anyone who dared raise this issue was immediately leaped upon by the "pro's" and accused of having an unnatural interest in paedophilia themselves. To suggest the very idea that the case might have had anything to do with child sex abuse was very risky, and I well remember how some posters were completely intimidated and then bullied off the forums for daring to mention it.

I'm hopeful that times have changed and people are more intelligent now, and also have their eyes opened wider to see why there has been this level of protection to this point.

by petunia 23.03.14 21:38

ChippyM wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse. The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place. I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.
Operation Fairbank was established as a scoping exercise after Tom Watson MP had disclosed the existance of "a powerful paedophile network linked to Parliament and No 10". This resulted in a full investigation, Operation Fernbridge, that has yet to arrest anyone other than Z list celebrities. Perhaps what caused Grange to be upgraded to a full investigation came not from the case files but instead came from Operation Fernbridge. Perhaps the difference between SY the PJ is that SY have to come up with a solution that doesn't involve paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10, whereas the PJ have no such restriction. Of course for this to be the case there has to be a connection between paedophiles linked to Parliament and No 10 and the Maddie case. I will leave it to others to decide if they see evidence of such a connection.

This goes along with my line of thinking. I think it's possible that certain people may have been protected, not because of having dirt on other people but because if they were investigated properly, it would lead to the names of some very prominent people and evidence that there has been large scale, organised child abuse going on for years by those in 'respected' positions.

I do think however, that this type of protection may not last if those higher up have been able to come up with a way to erase their involvement in anything that might have happened a few years ago. I wonder if this is happening now.

Excellent thought take a look at this [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Woofer 23.03.14 22:16

Cristobell wrote:
Woofer wrote:@ Cristobell - "I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity."

Come on Cristobel ... I`m usually the naive one on this forum   .
I can think of loads but won`t list them here   .

The investigation is huge because there are thousands of people not falling for it all over the world .... and rather than keep quiet the McCanns have perpetuated it by sueing people and going on TV couches. It could have just died a death in the early stages but they have made the stupid decision to take the power and run with it.   In most cases like this, Mi5 would step in and GM would have had an accident but its too far gone for that to happen.
One of the reasons I do not think this will be a whitewash Woofer is the fact that the McCanns are so publicity and fame hungry. Who would trust them enough to work closely with them to hide a secret? They have no loyalty, look how quickly they turned on the press and all their former newspaper buddies. How many of the original Team McCann are left? They certainly didn't have much of a turnout at the Lisbon libel trial, no experts were queuing up to speak on their behalf and none of the tapas group were there.

Hi Cristobel - From this perspective, they don`t need to work closely with the McCanns at all - the McCanns just bark orders ... or else they expose what they know. Obviously none of us know what`s behind it all, whether they are involved and had involved MBM in something deeply sinister or could it be that they aren`t involved in anything sinister at all but just need to cover up her death through some sort of neglect - if this is the case and GM did have dirt on a high ranking figure then it would be `help us or *** gets exposed` - they could more or less dictate what they wanted as well as reap publicity and lolly. Just pondering on that one.

I`ve always felt less sure about the paedophile perspective, but if it is that, it could be connected to Operation Ore and JG.

by cockerspaniel 23.03.14 22:38

As we seem to be going down this road at the moment here are a few things that point towards possible paedophile influences in this case, feel free to add any points i have missed.

gaspar statements
GM empty cat file
Amarals belief thismay be involved
madaeline make up photos
yvone martin seemingly recognising DP
body mst not be found
no medical records forthcoming
murat and malinka possibe involvement and malinkas car torched
sedated children?

Now i am no expert but all these things added together certainly seem to me to point in said direction, although on there own i am sure each point can be given a fairly innocent explanation. personally i do not think , and would not like to think, that there is any paedophilia involvement in this case, its just to horrific to contemplate.it does however give a very good reason for protection/cover up. all just my opinion of course.

what do you think

by Jauna Loca 23.03.14 22:42

It has always worried me why the Mcs first insisted on Peado abduction and then pretty much the next morning iirc changed to a couple being responsible. I doubt they would have mentioned
paedos if they had the slightest inkling that such a charge could come home to roost on one of their party, so to speak. But supposing they had information that a famous person, a big name
who had a taint of underage sexual abuse on their character- even if only rumoured. Imagine if the government also knew this big name was abroad in Portugal and new their ilk. Could it be that the
whole initial scaremongering, which resulted in the unprecidented assistence culminating in the provision of Clarence Mitchell, was in fact a kind of blackmail? The british government was aware that
an unsavoury individual with the possibility of being involved in such an abduction was in sitiu and they needed to make sure they were kept out of the picture?
Now, 7 years later, the establishment have investigated the circumstances and realise that the BigWig can't be linked to the case, and has cast the Mcs afloat?
It would explain the unprecidented level of resources given to the couple and perhaps some of the big names who came so quickly to heel. Big reputations were at stake.

by mouse 23.03.14 22:43

Woofer wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Woofer wrote:@ Cristobell - "I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity."

Come on Cristobel ... I`m usually the naive one on this forum   .
I can think of loads but won`t list them here   .

The investigation is huge because there are thousands of people not falling for it all over the world .... and rather than keep quiet the McCanns have perpetuated it by sueing people and going on TV couches. It could have just died a death in the early stages but they have made the stupid decision to take the power and run with it.   In most cases like this, Mi5 would step in and GM would have had an accident but its too far gone for that to happen.
One of the reasons I do not think this will be a whitewash Woofer is the fact that the McCanns are so publicity and fame hungry. Who would trust them enough to work closely with them to hide a secret? They have no loyalty, look how quickly they turned on the press and all their former newspaper buddies. How many of the original Team McCann are left? They certainly didn't have much of a turnout at the Lisbon libel trial, no experts were queuing up to speak on their behalf and none of the tapas group were there.

Hi Cristobel - From this perspective, they don`t need to work closely with the McCanns at all - the McCanns just bark orders ... or else they expose what they know. Obviously none of us know what`s behind it all, whether they are involved and had involved MBM in something deeply sinister or could it be that they aren`t involved in anything sinister at all but just need to cover up her death through some sort of neglect - if this is the case and GM did have dirt on a high ranking figure then it would be `help us or *** gets exposed` - they could more or less dictate what they wanted as well as reap publicity and lolly. Just pondering on that one.

I`ve always felt less sure about the paedophile perspective, but if it is that, it could be connected to Operation Ore and JG.

Hi there Woofer - BIB I have to say that this is the line I've been going with for some time now. And if it is....then we are far from this case being resolve I fear.

by petunia 23.03.14 22:52

When people go down the Paedophile route DP and GM are mentioned first and foremost.WHY? females can and are Paedophiles too..imo

by View-from-Ireland 24.03.14 0:03

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Here's the earliest Madeleine story that I'm aware of - at one minute past midnight on 4th May.

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

Some of it will have been added later as it mentions searches until 4.30 a m and Jill Renwick's appearance in the morning on GMTV.

Tigger, you'll notice that a still from the Snow White video was indeed available very early.

Such speedy coverage has to be absolutely unprecedented with what appeared to be a wandering off child.

That has to be the incorrect date as it references what was said to GMTV? I read that as 12.01am 5 May.

What is interesting about that early article is Mark Warner saying 'no physical evidence of an abduction' and the parents being adamant that she was abducted...why were they so sure their missing daughter would not turn up safe and sound having wandered off.....

by maebee 24.03.14 0:29

View-from-Ireland wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Here's the earliest Madeleine story that I'm aware of - at one minute past midnight on 4th May.

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

Some of it will have been added later as it mentions searches until 4.30 a m and Jill Renwick's appearance in the morning on GMTV.

Tigger, you'll notice that a still from the Snow White video was indeed available very early.

Such speedy coverage has to be absolutely unprecedented with what appeared to be a wandering off child.

That has to be the incorrect date as it references what was said to GMTV? I read that as 12.01am 5 May.

What is interesting about that early article is Mark Warner saying 'no physical evidence of an abduction' and the parents being adamant that she was abducted...why were they so sure their missing daughter would not turn up safe and sound having wandered off.....

"Wandered off" was never entertained by TM, even though Madeleine was known to have gotten out of her bed at night. Had to have been "Abduction". Rubbish.

by Okeydokey 24.03.14 0:30

View-from-Ireland wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Here's the earliest Madeleine story that I'm aware of - at one minute past midnight on 4th May.

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

Some of it will have been added later as it mentions searches until 4.30 a m and Jill Renwick's appearance in the morning on GMTV.

Tigger, you'll notice that a still from the Snow White video was indeed available very early.

Such speedy coverage has to be absolutely unprecedented with what appeared to be a wandering off child.

That has to be the incorrect date as it references what was said to GMTV? I read that as 12.01am 5 May.

What is interesting about that early article is Mark Warner saying 'no physical evidence of an abduction' and the parents being adamant that she was abducted...why were they so sure their missing daughter would not turn up safe and sound having wandered off.....

WE've been over that several times. The Telegraph archive lists everything from a particular day as 12.01am. So it could in fact be anything up to 11.59pm in reality.

by **tigger** 24.03.14 5:13

Okeydokey wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Here's the earliest Madeleine story that I'm aware of - at one minute past midnight on 4th May.

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

Some of it will have been added later as it mentions searches until 4.30 a m and Jill Renwick's appearance in the morning on GMTV.

Tigger, you'll notice that a still from the Snow White video was indeed available very early.

Such speedy coverage has to be absolutely unprecedented with what appeared to be a wandering off child.

That has to be the incorrect date as it references what was said to GMTV? I read that as 12.01am 5 May.

What is interesting about that early article is Mark Warner saying 'no physical evidence of an abduction' and the parents being adamant that she was abducted...why were they so sure their missing daughter would not turn up safe and sound having wandered off.....

WE've been over that several times. The Telegraph archive lists everything from a particular day as 12.01am. So it could in fact be anything up to 11.59pm in reality.

Point is: Kate herself says that by 8 in the morning she was receiving reactions to the news broadcasts.

Point is: how likely is it that photographs were available to Jon Corner with the coloboma pasted in at that early stage?

Point is: why should Jon Corner be so well acquianted with the US protocol as laid down by the National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children?

Point is: a lot of people here have very good memories and recall exactly when they first saw and heard the news.

Point is: why does RM fudge the fact that she was instrumental in contacting the press that night?

The above adds up to the launch of a plan imo, or indeed a product, seeing that the trademark was registered some two weeks later.

by Miraflores 24.03.14 8:25

I remember when I found out: I was on a train going home from work at 4:30 ish and looked over to see someone reading a tabloid with headlines about a toddler being abducted. That definitely implies that the news was with the UK Press in the early hours of the morning. And no, there is no convenient time difference to explain why they could have got the news so soon.

by ProfessorPPlum 24.03.14 8:27

A refreshing look back at a first (albeit edited) report. Note the insistence from the resort that there was no sign of abduction.

Also isn't it mildly amusing that even Jill Renwick's account contains glaring inaccuracies:

"Jill Renwick, told GMTV: “They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine. They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone.” "

Interesting definition of half-hourly checks, Jill - particularly when accuracy about timings could mean the difference between apprehending an abductor within hours or condemning a little 4 year old to 7+ years of hellish lair...

by Guest 24.03.14 9:09

As I've said before, I think that the time and date on the article are correct.

When a news flash comes in, only the barest details are given, with a note that more is to follow.

I surmise that all there was at first were the first two sentences with the rest added later as the details came in.

As regards those of you who are mentioning the possibility of organised paedophilia being involved here, I certainly can't eliminate that idea myself.

by Cristobell 24.03.14 11:19

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:As I've said before, I think that the time and date on the article are correct.

When a news flash comes in, only the barest details are given, with a note that more is to follow.

I surmise that all there was at first were the first two sentences with the rest added later as the details came in.

As regards those of you who are mentioning the possibility of organised paedophilia being involved here, I certainly can't eliminate that idea myself.

I don't think organised paedophilia NFWTD, but I cannot imagine what on earth was going on that pulled all the others into this nightmare. Last week I was trying to find ways in which the tapas friends could be ruled out, but DCI Redwood's announcement about death in the apartment puts Matt, at least, firmly back in the frame.

I've always thought of this case as a runaway train, albeit it was the McCanns who released the brake and gave it a shove, and that people were caught up in the moment, making rash decisions they would later regret. However, no-one has backed down or changed their stories. SY even went so far as to find a stooge to 'fit' Jane Tanner's sighting, so that hers too could remain the same. Bizarre. No-one it appears, was mistaken in any way, they are sticking rigidly to the agreed story.

That none of them are cracking, or changing their stories is damning in my opinion, their insistence that things happened in the way they said it did, all 9 of them, bumps up that 'collective' decision. The British public are paying millions for all these wild goose chases. Lets hope it is all taken into account when it comes to sentencing.

by Guest 24.03.14 12:20

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

A blog from another "child protection expert" which I'll let speak for itself.

by AndyB 24.03.14 12:26

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A blog from another "child protection expert" which I'll let speak for itself.

I've seen that article somewhere else because I left a comment on it earlier today

Edited to add: Found it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Sparklehorse 24.03.14 12:41

Just my opinion but the expert doesn't seem to have noticed that unlike Dutroux in Belgium who was a prolific abductor Madeleine's " abductor" only seems to have abducted once in seven years so not many parallels there to learn from. Also the MO of the latest SY suspect does not fit with the circumstances of her disappearance without a large shoehorn being used. Perhaps not so such an expert after all.