Re: Game over?

by Cristobell 24.03.14 12:47

AndyB wrote:
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.]

What a load of tosh! There is no comparison whatsoever with the Marc Dutroux case - Belgium were fully aware there was a monster on the loose, children were being snatched from the streets!

One abduction in 7 years and a child who was safely tucked up in bed, has no similarity whatsoever.

by j.rob 24.03.14 16:47

cockerspaniel wrote: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?

The McCanns and their friends strongly suggesting that what happened to Madeleine was connected with a paedophile ring. How could they know that for sure, unless they did know for sure?

2. J Kate's account of Madeleine's final day and evening alive. A fascinating analysis of Kate's witness statements is what turned me from a McCann sympathizer (or perhaps I was getting to the 'sitting on the fence' stage to an all-out sceptic. The analyzer suggests that the language used by Kate points towards the topic of sexual abuse.

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

3. Robert's makes the observation (in the section 5: Dead or Alive) that Kate alludes to a handover. Other indicators in Dr Robert's analysis strongly suggest that other people were involved in 'squaring the situation' as he puts it.

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

4. Kate writes in her book about an incident whereby a father (Nigel) is filming with a video-recorder his three year old daughter playing mini-tennis on the day that Madeleine allegedly 'disappeared'. Kate is, apparently, talking to Russell ("who I'd found there"). She describes Nigel as "looking a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man." She then describes how this "led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles".

I have always found this a very odd account on all sorts of levels, not least because it is an strange thing for a father filming his daughter to say. I pondered on exactly why Kate included this in her book. I also found her description of the (alleged) conversation that followed between the three of them on the subject of paedophilia most peculiar. (page 64, Madeleine). At first I assumed Kate included this passage to raise in the reader's mind the subject of paedophilia and thus the possibility of a paedophile abduction - "it would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation."

However, Russell in his police statement gives a completely conflicting account of this encounter which makes both his and Kate's behaviour look suspicious as well as confirming that either Kate or Russell or both of them are lying. In Russell’s statement he describes the father (Nigel) approaching the McCann group, one of whom (Russell?) is filming his daughter playing mini-tennis, and telling them that their filming of his daughter is making him uncomfortable.

However, when questioned by the police, Russell cannot remember seeing a video-recorder!

Well, well, well. How very peculiar!

So this, then starts to shed some light on the episode as described by Kate. Russell is caught red-handed by Nigel filming his three year old child playing mini tennis without asking for Nigel’s permission on the day that Madeleine ‘went missing’ Kate must know that it is likely that Nigel will give a statement to the police. So she is obliged to put her own very heavy spin on the incident to make it look innocent. Judging by the level of deception involved in all this, this incident is one hell of a hot potato!

And of course this explains why Kate's version of events has never made any sense. There is nothing 'dirty old man like' about a father filming his own daughter playing tennis. However, there is, or could be, something 'dirty old man like' about a male adult stranger choosing to film a three year old child he does not know and without the permission of the parent. No wonder Russell tells police he 'can't remember' seeing a video camera! He doesn’t want to look like the dirty old man that Nigel thought he was, imo!

Notice how Kate has cunningly sanitized the event and possibly placed Nigel’s thoughts (why is that man filming my child – is he a dirty old man?) into words coming out of his mouth – but words, allegedly, about himself?!

The pair – Russell and Kate – then minimize and trivialize the whole episode and manage to, apparently, get Nigel to shift from his position of suspicion to the extent that he agrees with their sentiments that ‘the world had become paranoid’ and it was a ‘ridiculous’ situation. Effectively, they have managed to persuade Nigel, if their account has any credence whatsoever, that he was being ridiculously paranoid!

My God, I just can’t believe how cunning and duplicitous certain people can be! Breathtaking. I would love to hear Nigel’s version of events.

Still, Russell and Kate really should get their stories straight! Perhaps it is a magic video-recorder that flies from Russell to Nigel and that only Kate and Nigel can see, but in different places!

And given that much prominence has been given to a photo allegedly of Madeleine taken during the holiday playing mini-tennis, you wonder what connection this incident might have with that all-important photo. At the very least it might provide ‘proof’ that the McCann group were filming children (including Madeleine presumably) playing mini-tennis during the holiday. Although, interestingly maybe, the photo of Madeleine playing tennis was allegedly taken on Tuesday (I think). Whereas this incident took place on Thursday.

Talking of photos, Kate also makes a strange comment in the context of this encounter and their conversation that: “I mentioned not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer.”

Again, I have always been curious about this statement. Apart from the fact that it is complete nonsense (although that is not unexpected) it does takes one’s thought-process over to the alleged ‘final photo’ of Madeleine sitting beside the pool with Gerry and her sister, allegedly on the day she disappeared. Given that this photo was supposedly taken by Kate and shows her children next to a swimming pool, but not in it, are we to deduce that it is fine to take photos of your children sitting next to the pool, but just not in it? Or does she mean you can't take photos of your children in swim wear, which again is nonsense.

So what does she mean and why did she write that? Is it an odd thing to say. I've got porbably hundreds of photos of my children in swimming pools - it's what they do when they are having fun on holiday.

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

5. David Payne’s 100 second phone call to the Metropolitan police child abuse team late on the evening of 4th May which, when questioned about later, he cannot remember having made.

by j.rob 24.03.14 16:53

Oh, I forgot, as Gerry said: "I'm not here to have fun." Neither, apparently, was Madeleine.

by ultimaThule 24.03.14 19:24

It would seem to have been in the nature of a working holiday with tennis to be played, vino to be quaffed, and the serious business of a child to be whooshed and a lifestyle fund to be launched, jrob... no wonder the wee one was conflicted when asked if he was having a good time.

by ChippyM 24.03.14 19:55

Cristobell wrote:
AndyB wrote:
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.]
What a load of tosh! There is no comparison whatsoever with the Marc Dutroux case - Belgium were fully aware there was a monster on the loose, children were being snatched from the streets!

One abduction in 7 years and a child who was safely tucked up in bed, has no similarity whatsoever.

I think the similarities are in the apparent cover up. Dutroux did what he did and many a blind eye was turned. Around 300,000 people took to the streets to protest what they saw as a cover-up - but nothing much came of their protest.

A 'monster' who abducts children off the streets is part of the mythology of this subject. Who were the 'monster's that may have been funding the films he made, who were the monsters that watched the films? who were the monsters in authority that decided not to answer the publics questions? It is very rarely just one creepy, horror film-esque weirdo.

I remember reading about a house were filming equipment was found in Praia da Luz...then we have the creepy Jon Corner photos. There could well be paralels in my opinion.

by j.rob 24.03.14 20:12

Indeed. And it makes me wonder if Kate's account of her going swimming with Madeleine on the day they arrived at the resort is also a work of fiction. On page 47, she describes how Madeleine wanted to go swimming with her. As the water was freezing, apparently Kate comments to a dad lying on a sun lounger nearby with his two sons: "The things you do for your kids!"

Hmmm.

Still, although there are three witnesses, apparently, to this event, there are no photos, presumably because Kate is under the unfathomable illusion that 'you are not allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer.'

This is all so weird. Were any photos taken on this holiday at all of Madeleine and the twins? What about the rest of the group - what photos did they take of this happy family holiday? There is the recording of Madeleine boarding the plane, but after that, what?

We have an independent witness approaching some members of the group who is 'uncomfortable' that they are filming his own daughter. Why weren't the McCanns and their friends filming and photographing their own children?

I remember going on family holidays when our children were young and the first day was always really exciting, even if everyone was tired. I can't imagine why the camera would not be out to record a dip in a freezing pool.

by j.rob 24.03.14 21:44

canada12 wrote:
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.

But the McCanns themselves and their friends from the very beginning suggested that a motive for the 'disappearance' of Madeleine was paedophilia. So why would they or their supporters have a problem with anyone who agreed with them that Madeleine's disappearance was, indeed, motivated by paedophilia. After all, they suggested it.

by ultimaThule 24.03.14 23:02

j.rob wrote:Indeed. And it makes me wonder if Kate's account of her going swimming with Madeleine on the day they arrived at the resort is also a work of fiction. On page 47, she describes how Madeleine wanted to go swimming with her. As the water was freezing, apparently Kate comments to a dad lying on a sun lounger nearby with his two sons: "The things you do for your kids!"

Hmmm.

Still, although there are three witnesses, apparently, to this event, there are no photos, presumably because Kate is under the unfathomable illusion that 'you are not allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer.'

This is all so weird. Were any photos taken on this holiday at all of Madeleine and the twins? What about the rest of the group - what photos did they take of this happy family holiday? There is the recording of Madeleine boarding the plane, but after that, what?

We have an independent witness approaching some members of the group who is 'uncomfortable' that they are filming his own daughter. Why weren't the McCanns and their friends filming and photographing their own children?

I remember going on family holidays when our children were young and the first day was always really exciting, even if everyone was tired. I can't imagine why the camera would not be out to record a dip in a freezing pool.

Having at very long last turned every page of the turgid tome, jrob, I am less than impressed by that part of it which deals with the happy family holiday where no querulous little voices were heard saying 'why do we have to go to the kids club, why can't we play tennis/loll around the pool/prop up the Tapas bar with you?' and 3 young children were sound asleep within seconds of being put to bed for the night when it was daylight outside.

Given that the McCann family did not arrive at 5A until gone 3pm on Saturday 28 April, where they immediately set about moving furniture before meeting their friends at the Tapas Bar in time for the 4pm 'kids club' welcome meeting, I do not give any credence to the tale of the first day swim with Madeleine in an unheated pool.

However, as I am convinced that there are nuggets of truth hidden behind the writer's contrived artlessness, I have now set myself the task of reading this tedious volume again aided by a highlighter, which I suspect will turn every page yellow. smilie

While my overall impression of the bewk is that it is another unwelcome addition to those works of fiction known as the 'pity genre' where readers are made to feel sorry for themselves for parting with their hardearned cash to feed those emotionally needy would-be authors whose tales of torment are nothing more than a pastiche of more moving accounts of the genuine suffering of others, nevertheless, it serves as that valuable document for the prosecution Exhibit KH1 so fittingly described by PeterMac, and the writer has ensured that the defence will have their work cut out for them.

What possessed Kate to write this bewk herself? Vanity? Greed? A combination of both coupled with a need for self-promotion? Or could it be that shedloads of flattery persuaded her to give her account to the world 'in her own words'?

by ProfessorPPlum 24.03.14 23:18

What possessed her to write the bewqkk UT? A desperate need to 'fix' the glaring anomalies and inconsistencies raised first by the PJ and afterwards by 'haters' like us. This strategy is both arrogant and naive along with being cringe-inducingly transparent.

by ultimaThule 25.03.14 0:06

In the 'cringeworthy fiction stakes' KM's offering has to be up there with the most dire volumes of the 'pity genre' and there's no shortage of candidates in this particular category, Prof. Plum.

I can see there was need for TM to add further embellishment to that which was already in the public domain in order to revitalise the lifestyle fund but, nevertheless, I wouldn't have expected the cake to be overegged quite so much, nor for what was clearly intended to disguise the truth to be little more than a sheer net curtain through which all can be seen with remarkable clarity. big grin

by canada12 25.03.14 1:36

j.rob wrote:
canada12 wrote:
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.

But the McCanns themselves and their friends from the very beginning suggested that a motive for the 'disappearance' of Madeleine was paedophilia. So why would they or their supporters have a problem with anyone who agreed with them that Madeleine's disappearance was, indeed, motivated by paedophilia. After all, they suggested it.

IIRC the suggestion at the beginning was that she'd simply been abducted, for an assortment of reasons - there wasn't a full-on assertion that it was paedophiles who'd taken her, though the suggestion was definitely there. At the very beginning, nobody dared discuss the subject except in very general and removed terms. And if there was a paedophile connection, it was a dastardly anonymous abductor. Certainly nobody dared to approach the idea that there might have been a paedophile component at work with the parents' knowledge. To do so invited immediately bullying and hounding off the discussion group.

by j.rob 25.03.14 11:55

There are many references and insinuations throughout Kate's book that the motivation for Madeleine's abduction could be paedophilia. She brings up the subject on page 64 with an alleged conversation about paedophiles between her and Russell and another guest - Nigel - and writes that "it would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation."

That is not ambiguous. The insinuation is very clear.

Obviously, she cannot state that she is 100% certain that paedophilia is the motive, because that would mean she was implicated in Madeleine's disappearance in some way.

Although they did pretty much claim they were certain that she had been abducted by a third party. Which pretty much implicated them from the very beginning, anyway. Because how could they be certain if they weren't there or were't implicated? From the very outset the red flags were billowing madly in the Algarve breeze. Which is what has made the subsequent cover-up so extraordinary. It really is ' The Emperor's New Clothes'.

While Kate writes at some length about other cases of child molestation and/or abduction, including the Algarve cases in the previous years, she does not mention the Casa Pia scandal as far as I am aware. This was a massive case that was rocking Portugal at the time of Madeleine's disappearance and probably has much more relevance to the Madeleine case than a pimply, smelly random pervert.

Paul Rebelo one of the lead detectives in the case, was also leading the Madeleine case before it was shelved in the summer of 2008. As this report says: Robelo and his team of forensic investigators were called 'the cleaners' as they left 'no stone unturned.'

The Casa Pia scandal involved an elite paedophile ring which included a former ambassador, a doctor, a lawyer, a chat show host, former deputy principle of one of the orphanage.

Not one mention of this in Kate's book, despite the fact that Robelo was leading the investigation into the disappearance of her daughter at one time. Given that both Kate and Gerry and their friends made frequent allusions to the possibility of a pedophile abductor, you would think they would have welcomed a detective who had cracked a massive high level paedophile ring in his own country. One that had been covered up for decades.

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

by Bishop Brennan 25.03.14 12:09

I think it is helpful to note that Amaral in his book and recent TV interviews doesn't give any credence at all to child sex networks. No, the only person he specifically states as suspicious in this regard is Payne. He mentions it repeatedly and seems to attribute great signicance to the Gaspar statements.

The wilder tales of networks and stealing to order, Kate's insistence on it, and the recent arrival of smellyman could all be seen as distractions designed to keep everyone looking for bogeymen rather than at those closest to Maddie at the time of her disappearance...

by j.rob 25.03.14 12:12

But while Rebelo does not get any coverage in Kate's book, Amaral most certainly does. She is very keen to discredit him writing on page 348: "Why is this man being allowed a platform from which to peddle his absurd and offensive ideas? They say what goes around comes around. For Madeleine's sake, I certainly hope so."

Quite so. From the horses' mouth, as always.

Would have been interesting what Kate had to say about Rebelo before the case was shelved in the summer of 2008. After all, his crack team of forensic investigators would have left 'no stone unturned' in their efforts to find out what had happened to Madeleine.

by j.rob 25.03.14 13:24

Bishop Brennan wrote:I think it is helpful to note that Amaral in his book and recent TV interviews doesn't give any credence at all to child sex networks. No, the only person he specifically states as suspicious in this regard is Payne. He mentions it repeatedly and seems to attribute great signicance to the Gaspar statements.

The wilder tales of networks and stealing to order, Kate's insistence on it, and the recent arrival of smellyman could all be seen as distractions designed to keep everyone looking for bogeymen rather than at those closest to Maddie at the time of her disappearance...

Interesting. I suppose even if Amaral considers that *only* Payne is suspicious in this regard, that still would, presumably, implicate GM (and KM?) in some way as they were there when the Gaspers saw Payne's behaviour. In particular GM who, the Gaspers noted, did not take offence at Payne's gestures which they both found lewd and inappropriate.

And of course Kate on page 67 of her book writes how David Payne visits her apartment at around 6.30pm on the evening of Madeleine's 'disappearance'. He choice of words in relation to this visit which occurs, apparently, as she is showering, is interesting. David 'had popped' his head around the patio door' looking for me. Dave 'had nipped up' to see if he could give me a hand.

David doesn't really strike me as a man who 'pops' and 'nips' and I find Kate's choice of words highly revealing. Given that this period of time should be highly charged for Kate, as being the final hours of being with Madeleine, you would expect her to select words with more gravitas appropriate for this hugely emotional period of time. And without fluffy embellishment. For instance you would expect her to write: "David visited the apartment to see if I wanted help taking the children down to the play area. But I told him they were too tired."

It's also a bit odd that she describes David as "nipping up" as the McCann apartment is on the ground floor. Or did she mean 'nip up' from the tennis court? Why didn't Gerry go - why David?

These are sort of 'minimizing,' 'trivializing' words as though David's visit to the apartment was of no consequence. Why would she feel the need to do that? There can only be one reason. It is deceptive.

And given that in her book she describes how she steps into the sitting room wearing only a towel to greet Dave, you would think he would have recalled this in his police statement, but he doesn't.

I find his description of this visit to to the McCann apartment that evening hugely revealing.He is far too keen to give an impression of three happy, contented little children enjoying an idyllic family holiday. Kate in her book describes Madeleine as being 'very tired' so it would not be unreasonable to find quite a chaotic scene with Madeleine and the twins all a little fractious. But, according to Payne, all is sweetness and light:

The three children were all you know dressed you know in their pyjamas, you know they looked immaculate, you know they were just like angels, they all looked so happy and well looked after and content and I said to Kate, you know it’s a bit early for the you know, for the three of them to be going to bed, she said ah they’ve had such a great time, they’re really tired and you know err so I say, you know I can’t remember exactly what, what you know the night attire, what the children were wearing but white was the predominant err colour, but you know just to reinforce they were just so happy, you know seeing you know obviously Gerry wasn’t there but they were just all, just so at peace and you know they looked like a family who’d had such a fantastic time and err yeah then I left there,

Why is he so keen to portray the three children as 'immaculate', 'angels', 'at peace' well looked after', 'content', 'they'd had such a great time'?

He reinforces this 'looking happy' - even using the word 'reinforce' and he also reinforces 'having a great/fantastic time'.

I am particularly suspicious of the use of the words: 'angels,' 'at peace' and 'well looked after'. 'Angel' and 'at peace' is hugely suggestive of a particular scenario. And why on earth would he say 'well looked after'? This is what you would expect, surely? Why would the children not be 'well looked after?'

Payne has used hugely evocative words and is trying way too hard to convey a happy, contented family scene. There can only be one reason. It is a deceptive description designed to portray a scene that did not exist.

by Bishop Brennan 25.03.14 13:36

His unconscious word choice does perhaps suggest something more sinister at play. In fact for an unrelated male adult, his entire description seems somehow inappropriate on more than one level.

Amaral has him as a key player. CW airbrushed him out. The accusations against him have been significant and undisguised - repeated in print and on tv. And not once has there been a whiff of a libel suit. Given the T9s previous experience in successfully getting a libel payout or injunction, this in itself is probably significant.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 13:53

ProfessorPPlum wrote:What possessed her to write the bewqkk UT? A desperate need to 'fix' the glaring anomalies and inconsistencies raised first by the PJ and afterwards by 'haters' like us. This strategy is both arrogant and naive along with being cringe-inducingly transparent.

Money Professor Plum! In November 2010, they were rattling the collection tins with a vengeance, appearing on any program that would have them, with Gerry telling us £1 keeps their hotline running for 24 hours and £10 buys thousands of posters and prayer cards. They were almost broke. Up to this point they had got through somewhere in the region of £3m! Probably another reason why the media has been saturated with Maddie stories for 7 years, it brings hits to their website and paypal button.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 14:17

Bishop Brennan wrote:His unconscious word choice does perhaps suggest something more sinister at play. In fact for an unrelated male adult, his entire description seems somehow inappropriate on more than one level.

Amaral has him as a key player. CW airbrushed him out. The accusations against him have been significant and undisguised - repeated in print and on tv. And not once has there been a whiff of a libel suit. Given the T9s previous experience in successfully getting a libel payout or injunction, this in itself is probably significant.

The three McCann children don't sound like any toddlers I have ever known! As Jerry Seinfeld said, having a toddler in the house is like leaving the top off the liquidisor.

Kate's book is like the Disney version of parenthood. I could never take a bath or shower when mine were toddlers, unless they were asleep or someone else was watching. I attempted a bath once when older son was a tot, though I kept the door open so I could chat to him. He seemed happy enough, he was drawing he kept shouting back when I asked what he was up to. He was indeed drawing, all over the wallpaper! Doh!

Every mother knows, you can't go and have a bath and leave a toddler on the loose, let alone 3, especially in a holiday apartment that hasn't been toddler proofed, plug sockets, cupboard locks, etc! The reality is, a young family on holiday would be even more chaotic than a young family in their own home. The idea that all three little angels were sitting on the sofa and he didn't notice that the serene Kate was half naked is in the realms of cuckooland.

by ultimaThule 25.03.14 14:21

I've never had time to get my brain round the economics of the world wide web and can't see that sorry state of affairs being remedied any time in the near future.

Is there a going rate for hits on a website? Does any such rate depend on whether the site carries advertisements for other sites/sellers? What do you get for hits on your website and does this forum receive payment for allowing you to advertise it here, Cristobell?

I read somewhere that the lifestyle fund's website got umpteen millions of hits within a short time of its launch. The figures I saw made me think that £3-4 million was a relatively paltry sum to have been raised from so much interest in the site.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 14:34

ultimaThule wrote:I've never had time to get my brain round the economics of the world wide web and can't see that sorry state of affairs being remedied any time in the near future.

Is there a going rate for hits on a website? Does any such rate depend on whether the site carries advertisements for other sites/sellers? What do you get for hits on your website and does this forum receive payment for allowing you to advertise it here, Cristobell?

There is no money involved UT, I do a blog, as many do, there are no adverts on my blog, and there is no paypal button, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at? Are you suggesting that I, or indeed this forum, are doing this for money?

by Clocker 25.03.14 15:04

Cristobell wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:His unconscious word choice does perhaps suggest something more sinister at play. In fact for an unrelated male adult, his entire description seems somehow inappropriate on more than one level.

Amaral has him as a key player. CW airbrushed him out. The accusations against him have been significant and undisguised - repeated in print and on tv. And not once has there been a whiff of a libel suit. Given the T9s previous experience in successfully getting a libel payout or injunction, this in itself is probably significant.
The three McCann children don't sound like any toddlers I have ever known! As Jerry Seinfeld said, having a toddler in the house is like leaving the top off the liquidisor.

Kate's book is like the Disney version of parenthood. I could never take a bath or shower when mine were toddlers, unless they were asleep or someone else was watching. I attempted a bath once when older son was a tot, though I kept the door open so I could chat to him. He seemed happy enough, he was drawing he kept shouting back when I asked what he was up to. He was indeed drawing, all over the wallpaper! Doh!

Every mother knows, you can't go and have a bath and leave a toddler on the loose, let alone 3, especially in a holiday apartment that hasn't been toddler proofed, plug sockets, cupboard locks, etc! The reality is, a young family on holiday would be even more chaotic than a young family in their own home. The idea that all three little angels were sitting on the sofa and he didn't notice that the serene Kate was half naked is in the realms of cuckooland.

Indeed Christobell, the patio door cannot have been locked as DP was able to 'pop his head around the door'...

by ultimaThule 25.03.14 15:18

Cristobell wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:I've never had time to get my brain round the economics of the world wide web and can't see that sorry state of affairs being remedied any time in the near future.

Is there a going rate for hits on a website? Does any such rate depend on whether the site carries advertisements for other sites/sellers? What do you get for hits on your website and does this forum receive payment for allowing you to advertise it here, Cristobell?
There is no money involved UT, I do a blog, as many do, there are no adverts on my blog, and there is no paypal button, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at? Are you suggesting that I, or indeed this forum, are doing this for money?

I'm simply trying to understand the economics of the world wide web, Cristobell, and my interest in the subject was sparked when it seemed to me that the millions of hits the fund's website received within the the first months of its inception may have raised more than the sums accounted for in its less than transparent accounts.

As limited as my understanding is of such matters, it's abundantly clear to me that this forum, which is blissfully free of advertising, is not a money making venture but I wouldn't find it objectionable if the owner received payment for allowing members to ply their wares, as it were, in a discreet manner such as the link which is present on all of your responses and which, presumably is an option open to other members who seek to promote their blogs or other such internet ventures here.

The mccannfiles.com site, to which I'm a more than frequent visitor, has a facility whereby users can donate to its upkeep which I avail myself of on a regular basis by way of showing my appreciation of the time and effort taken to provide such an invaluable resource and, similarly, I would willingly contribute to the upkeep of this forum if its financial or other maintenance is a consideration for the owner(s).

by Cristobell 25.03.14 15:36

ultimaThule wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:I've never had time to get my brain round the economics of the world wide web and can't see that sorry state of affairs being remedied any time in the near future.

Is there a going rate for hits on a website? Does any such rate depend on whether the site carries advertisements for other sites/sellers? What do you get for hits on your website and does this forum receive payment for allowing you to advertise it here, Cristobell?
There is no money involved UT, I do a blog, as many do, there are no adverts on my blog, and there is no paypal button, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at? Are you suggesting that I, or indeed this forum, are doing this for money?
I'm simply trying to understand the economics of the world wide web, Cristobell, and my interest in the subject was sparked when it seemed to me that the millions of hits the fund's website received within the the first months of its inception may have raised more than the sums accounted for in its less than transparent accounts.

As limited as my understanding is of such matters, it's abundantly clear to me that this forum, which is blissfully free of advertising, is not a money making venture but I wouldn't find it objectionable if the owner received payment for allowing members to ply their wares, as it were, in a discreet manner such as the link which is present on all of your responses and which, presumably is an option open to other members who seek to promote their blogs or other such internet ventures here.

The mccannfiles.com site, to which I'm a more than frequent visitor, has a facility whereby users can donate to its upkeep which I avail myself of on a regular basis by way of showing my appreciation of the time and effort taken to provide such an invaluable resource and, similarly, I would willingly contribute to the upkeep of this forum if its financial or other maintenance is a consideration for the owner(s).

I think this is a matter you should take to pm and to admin UT.

I get a considerable number of hits from this forum with readers returning again and again - ergo, the members of this forum find the link useful.

Can we stay on topic please, this thread is entitled Game Over. Now that Scotland Yard have mentioned death in the apartment, that is exactly what we are looking at.

by Guest 25.03.14 15:57

I agree with you Cristobell.

Please let's stay on topic and not deal with personal issues relating to posters.

by ChippyM 25.03.14 16:03

Jrob - "But the McCanns themselves and their friends from the very beginning suggested that a motive for the 'disappearance' of Madeleine was paedophilia. So why would they or their supporters have a problem with anyone who agreed with them that Madeleine's disappearance was, indeed, motivated by paedophilia. After all, they suggested it."

Maybe they were hedging their bets in case a body was found or any other evidence (maybe a damning statement such as the Gaspar's) that suggests their daughter had been abused. They would be acknowledging the possibility but saying it's nothing to do with them, it's an evil twisted stranger and not anyone closer to home. I think this is supported by their strange insistence that M was probably taken but still alive an kept in some kind of lair, it's part of the mythology they created around what they say happened to their daughter, all about having control of the story....In my opinion of course.

by ultimaThule 25.03.14 16:35

ChippyM wrote:Jrob - "But the McCanns themselves and their friends from the very beginning suggested that a motive for the 'disappearance' of Madeleine was paedophilia. So why would they or their supporters have a problem with anyone who agreed with them that Madeleine's disappearance was, indeed, motivated by paedophilia. After all, they suggested it."

Maybe they were hedging their bets in case a body was found or any other evidence (maybe a damning statement such as the Gaspar's) that suggests their daughter had been abused. They would be acknowledging the possibility but saying it's nothing to do with them, it's an evil twisted stranger and not anyone closer to home. I think this is supported by their strange insistence that M was probably taken but still alive an kept in some kind of lair, it's part of the mythology they created around what they say happened to their daughter, all about having control of the story....In my opinion of course.

Madeleine has to stay alive to keep the money rolling in to fund the search of 5* hotels around the globe.

The question of why the McCanns rushed to claim she could have been 'taken' by a paedophile may be as you've initially suggested, Chippy, or it could be that, as paedophiles can be found in every location around the world, they saw it as a way of pinning the blame on an anonymous individual who the public would be only too ready to believe was responsible for the crime, albeit that it is stretching credibility to suggest that a common or garden paedophile would do anything other than dispose of the body once the child had served their purpose.

"Confusion is good" and that mantra has certainly paid dividends for Gerry.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 16:53

Well my stalker in chief has retired today and the very few remaining shills on twitter are blocking their accounts. I think Scotland Yard are way ahead of what they are actually telling us and I see dramatic new developments sooner rather than later.

by DIBarlow 25.03.14 17:12

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood said: "We need to establish the identity of this man. These offences are very serious and no one has been charged. We also need to eliminate this man from our inquiries and ascertain whether these offences are linked to Madeleine's disappearance."

Portuguese police later leaked that the person being sought was identified by their officers as Monteiro, although he was never formally charged with any of the offences because of insufficient evidence.

However, the information offered by the Yard suggests it is far from convinced by the evidence uncovered by Portuguese detectives. They have Monteiro's DNA as the Cape Verde immigrant had served time for theft.

British officers have pointed out to the Portuguese that a key sighting of a man holding a child in Luz at 10pm, shortly after Madeleine was taken, was not of a black man. Irishman Martin Smith and family saw him.

Former Portuguese inspector Goncalo Amaral was about to fly Mr Smith to Portugal when he was removed from the case. DCI Redwood said last week: "We still need to establish the identity of a man seen by three witnesses, carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description towards the beach or town at about 22.00 on the night Madeleine disappeared.

"The witnesses have described the man in the e-fits as being white, aged in his 30s, with short brown hair of medium build, medium height and clean shaven."

The Sunday Express is informing it's readers that SY is at odds with the claim that the PJ is considering Monteiro and that SY itself is pointing out that Smithman needs to be identified.

Step forward Gerry McCann, if only to eliminate yourself from the enquiry.

by ultimaThule 25.03.14 18:02

Cristobell wrote:
ProfessorPPlum wrote:What possessed her to write the bewqkk UT? A desperate need to 'fix' the glaring anomalies and inconsistencies raised first by the PJ and afterwards by 'haters' like us. This strategy is both arrogant and naive along with being cringe-inducingly transparent.
Money Professor Plum! In November 2010, they were rattling the collection tins with a vengeance, appearing on any program that would have them, with Gerry telling us £1 keeps their hotline running for 24 hours and £10 buys thousands of posters and prayer cards. They were almost broke. Up to this point they had got through somewhere in the region of £3m! Probably another reason why the media has been saturated with Maddie stories for 7 years, it brings hits to their website and paypal button.

As a point of a clarification and to refute what I believe to be an unjust accusation, if I had quoted the above in my response (below) it would clearly be seen that I was staying on topic with the, albeit unrelated to this thread, issue of the McCanns finances, but Cristobell made a further post unrelated to the above at 2.17pm which made it appear that I'd transgressed when I subsequently added the response I'd been writing prior to that time:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 2:21 pm
I've never had time to get my brain round the economics of the world wide web and can't see that sorry state of affairs being remedied any time in the near future.

Is there a going rate for hits on a website? Does any such rate depend on whether the site carries advertisements for other sites/sellers? What do you get for hits on your website and does this forum receive payment for allowing you to advertise it here, Cristobell?

I read somewhere that the lifestyle fund's website got umpteen millions of hits within a short time of its launch. The figures I saw made me think that £3-4 million was a relatively paltry sum to have been raised from so much interest in the site.

Having read various accounts which have it that donations to the fund amounted to £2 or £3 million, and having read that hits on the website reached astronomical figures, this sum seemed to me to be disproportionately low and, as stated, sparked my curiousity as to the economics of the worldwide web.

As Cristobell implied, as she has done elsewhere, that the McCanns have spent virtually all of the money they raised, I saw opportunity to ask her whether the McCanns may have accrued extra sums simply by virtue of their website receiving 'hits'.

Insodoing I was mindful of the fact that Cristobell has her own website which she promotes here and I assumed she was the most appropriate person to ask.

It was not my intention to cause any offence and I apologise should my earlier response seem somewhat presumptious as it was written while the thought of the McCanns having possibly cleaned up in yet another way was foremost in my mind.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 18:16

Just to clarify. Hits on a website or blog, do not equate to cash. I do not run a website, I have a blog, I am not selling merchandise nor am I asking for donations.

The McCanns run a website which collects donations and sells t-shirts and good quality wristbands. The more hits they get, the more likely they are to get donations and sell their tat.

Latest topics