Game over?

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.

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.

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.

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:

ultimaThule 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.

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.

Cristobell wrote: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.

Your blog does not seem to host any advertising, so I would be extremely surprised to find that you earned a single penny from it.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Cristobell wrote: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.

Your blog does not seem to host any advertising, so I would be extremely surprised to find that you earned a single penny from it.

I don't WLBTS, I do it because I enjoy writing and because I feel strongly about this case.

Cristobell wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Cristobell wrote: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.

Your blog does not seem to host any advertising, so I would be extremely surprised to find that you earned a single penny from it.

I don't WLBTS, I do it because I enjoy writing and because I feel strongly about this case.

Yes Cristobel.

Thank heavens some people care!

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.

I agree Chippy, it's the best explaination for them shouting "paedophiles". It's obviously something at forefront of everyones mind but IMO the parents did push it too quickly and too loudly.

Cristobell wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Cristobell wrote: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.

Your blog does not seem to host any advertising, so I would be extremely surprised to find that you earned a single penny from it.

I don't WLBTS, I do it because I enjoy writing and because I feel strongly about this case.

and you are greatly appreciated by people like me for your input and optimism,as is ut.keep up the great work and it may very well be game over for our doctor friends.

dantezebu wrote:

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.

I agree Chippy, it's the best explaination for them shouting "paedophiles". It's obviously something at forefront of everyones mind but IMO the parents did push it too quickly and too loudly.

Yes, this is along my lines of thinking. I think they wanted to provide a cover in the event that Madeleine was found - either alive or dead.

 I still think there is a possibility that the intention was for Madeleine to be removed from the resort alive and for there to be some kind of 'handover'. If that had been the case - if she had been heavily sedated but alive when removed - there would have been no cadaver scent. Once away from the resort, Madeleine could disappear almost anywhere. She could, possibly, have assumed a new identity. Or perhaps there were other motives. I shudder to speculate, given the prominence that the parents themselves have given to paedophilia as a motive for her 'abduction'. 

An alive Maddie being removed from the resort would have been much less incriminating for the McCanns as the only real 'evidence' to implicate the McCanns has been the cadaver scent in the apartment.There would be endless 'sightings', a bottomless pit of a Fund and an ensuing media circus. Plus ambassador roles for missing children and the rest of it. It is possible the plan went wrong.. Madeleine either accidentally died in the apartment, maybe had an adverse reaction to drugs and was then removed before the police arrived (but her body returned later - the fridge incident - while the parents decided what to do with it?) Or she was removed from the apartment heavily sedated (and/or possibly grievously ill/dying. And died possibly near the resort somewhere.) The body was then brought back later (hence the cadaver scent behind the sofa) and eventually transported away from the resort by car (cadaver scent in car).

As I have written before, there are so many indications of 'pre-planning' - the speed with which the Fund was set up and so on and other indicators. Many of which have been written about on these forums.

However, IF there had been a glitch to the original plan (and the changing timelines strongly suggest this) - that would account for the inconsistencies, the 'jemmied shutters' that weren't jemmied, Gerry's: 'there's been a disaster'. A few of the friends may (David Payne for instance) have been 'in' on a wider master plan (Gerry's 'wider agenda') while others may have believed they were helping cover up an accident/accidental death.

 Removal of a sedated but alive Madeleine from the resort would have been much less compromising for the McCanns and they may well have got away with this as there would have been no cadaver scent. Of course if there had been third parties involved in removing Madeleine from the resort, and if she had, say, sustained accidental injuries or had reacted adversely to drugs, her predicament would become even more dire than it was already.

Whatever their intention was for Madeleine and whatever actually happened to her, the McCanns are guilty as hell - of neglect and probably much, much more, imo. Their strenuous attempts to 'defend' their reputations when people are asking perfectly legitimate questions, using Fund money, have effectively dug them even deeper into a hole.

The McCanns, in their earlier interviews, alluded to the involvement of other people who might 'hold the key' to where Madleine was and so on. (Read Dr Martin Roberts articles) on her whereabouts and condition. Towards the end of May (again, Dr Roberts has covered this) there appears to be tacit confirmation that Madeleine is dead.

The McCanns very early embraced the roles of 'victim hood' in terms of being the parents of a missing child (despite their obvious negligence) and jumped on the Ambassador band-wagon for quickly indeed. It was a gravy-train that they seemed determined to milk to the full.

I have to say I am also deeply suspicious about the absence of photos of Madeleine on this holiday. And indeed the absence of family photos generally. If Madeleine had been having the lovely time that the McCanns and other members of the party suggest she was having before she was so cruelly 'taken' then where are the photos to prove it?

All we have as 'evidence' are two photos that did not appear until weeks after Madeleine's 'disappearance' - after Gerry had returned to England. Both are suspicious. The pool-side one is obviously heavily photo-shopped and the one of Madeleine on the tennis court is also suspicious, Was it taken at the Ocean Club? Is it even her? (Combine this with Russell and Kate's dodgy filming of another holiday-makers child on Thursday, to which the parent remonstrated.) 

It is strange beyond belief that the photo used of Madeleine in the early 'missing' posters was one of her at a much younger age - clearly not a child who is almost four. Looking nothing like the girl standing on the tennis court holding the tennis balls. 

Surely at least one member of the McCann party would have taken a photo of Madeleine on that holiday and would have had it available in the first instance? Not TWO WEEKS later. That is ridiculous.

What the hell WAS going on that week?

The Gasper statements - withheld for some time. 
Gerry's CATS number.
David Payne's late night phone call to the Met Police child abuse line on 4th May which he can't remember making.
Jim Gamble's insistence that the McCanns 'are innocent'..
David Payne's very odd statement to police.
Inconsistencies between McCann statements and Tapas statements.
Timelines on evening of Madeleine's disappearance are inconsistent.
Jane Tanner sighting not credible, according to police, and indeed anyone else with a single brain cell.
Smith sighting .
No photos of Madeleine on the holiday until......
Two dodgy photos of Madeleine allegedly taken on that holiday only released after Gerry had returned to England.
Holiday maker Nigel approaches members of the McCann group filming his daughter on Thursday telling them it is making him feel uncomfortable.
McCanns and their friends suggesting the motive for the disappearance of Madeleine is paedophilia.
McCanns hire their own firm of detectives, extradition lawyers and experts in libel - but not experts in finding missing children.
McCanns do not look for Madeleine on the night of her disappearance.
Social worker Yvonne Martin finds the behaviour of the McCanns and David Payne suspicious.
Yvonne Martin thinks she recognises David Payne.
McCanns themselves suggest Madeleine and twins were drugged.
Twins are comatose when police search the apartment.

ETC, ETC.......it goes on, and on, and on.....

They REPULSE me. I really DREAD to think what was going on that holiday and probably before that holiday.

Oops - double post. But that is how ANGRY I feel about this case.

Jrob please would you concisely point out in what way the Last Photo was 'obviously PhotoShopped'. I'm not looking for an argument on this, just want you to outline your assertion and evidence for me. Thanks

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Jrob please would you concisely point out in what way the Last Photo was 'obviously PhotoShopped'. I'm not looking for an argument on this, just want you to outline your assertion and evidence for me. Thanks

I can't see that j.rob said photoshopping just that the photos were dodgy. I know you have stated that you believe the photographs are not photo shopped but if I'm right you can't state categorically that the exif data on the photos is genuine so that could possibly render the photos as dodgy - especially as the last photo wasn't released immediately.

I take it back - I didn't read through the whole post. Apologies.

ProfessorPPlum, I have pointed out the rotated reflection in Gerry's sunglasses many times that has never been explained for me. A poster that isn't around now said they would explain it, but it never happened.

I have never seen the effect since and I have checked Google images, looked at sunglasses on TV e.g: Formula 1 driver interviews and even took a picture of my niece a couple of summers ago! 

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Jrob please would you concisely point out in what way the Last Photo was 'obviously PhotoShopped'. I'm not looking for an argument on this, just want you to outline your assertion and evidence for me. Thanks

Let me step into the breach, dear friend  . . . !
I have it on good authority - not mine - that the things people see in the Last Photo and interpret as 'photoshopping'  are artefacts caused by the nature of digital photos, and are part of what happens when you enlarge them and so on.

I also have it good authority - not mine - that the alteration of the EXIF metadata is relatively easy to do, especially for someone used to playing around with images.
The coincidences surrounding and involved in the release into the public domain of the Last Photo are so extraordinary as to defy even Kate's statement that
I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’"

Try this then as a reason why we believe in coincidence !
20 Gerry flies to GB
22 GM returns to PdL
22 CM flies to PdL with GM
22 PR (PM) flies to PdL
22 / 23 Last Photo released to Press agency  (FRENCH  !)
24  Last Photo =released by press, with all the "stuff" about the time being wrong by exactly one hour , blah, blah, blah, look over here , look at the date  . . . .

Add to this the FACT that Kate in her book ADMITS that she had the Canon in her possession on 10th, in the Police Station !  when Gerry was signing a statement in another room that he had handed over all their cameras and photos  . . . .  and add to that the FACT that the Olympus, with all the images we have grown to love,  was at that date in HAMPSHIRE

And start to work it out.

The so-called Last Photo is a mockery. But so too is the "playground pic" which shows a Maddie with literally two left feet, who would be five feet tall if she stood up. Plus shadows all over the place, a man with deformed ballet feet, odd lines and muddles everywhere. A big fat lie of a photo.

PeterMac wrote:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Jrob please would you concisely point out in what way the Last Photo was 'obviously PhotoShopped'. I'm not looking for an argument on this, just want you to outline your assertion and evidence for me. Thanks

Let me step into the breach, dear friend  . . . !
I have it on good authority - not mine - that the things people see in the Last Photo and interpret as 'photoshopping'  are artefacts caused by the nature of digital photos, and are part of what happens when you enlarge them and so on.

I also have it good authority - not mine - that the alteration of the EXIF metadata is relatively easy to do, especially for someone used to playing around with images.
The coincidences surrounding and involved in the release into the public domain of the Last Photo are so extraordinary as to defy even Kate's statement that
I am staggered by how alike they are, almost identical in parts. As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.’"

Try this then as a reason why we believe in coincidence !
20 Gerry flies to GB
22 GM returns to PdL
22 CM flies to PdL with GM
22 PR (PM) flies to PdL
22 / 23 Last Photo released to Press agency  (FRENCH  !)
24  Last Photo =released by press, with all the "stuff" about the time being wrong by exactly one hour , blah, blah, blah, look over here , look at the date  . . . .

Add to this the FACT that Kate in her book ADMITS that she had the Canon in her possession on 10th, in the Police Station !  when Gerry was signing a statement in another room that he had handed over all their cameras and photos  . . . .  and add to that the FACT that the Olympus, with all the images we have grown to love,  was at that date in HAMPSHIRE

And start to work it out.

https://i.servimg.com/u/f57/18/44/63/78/gerry_13.jpg

If it was photoshopped it would have been taken on 12th May. The only photoshopping needed would have been to change Amelie's t shirt to orange ( 2 mins work) and to add in Maddie (much harder). The clothes sunglasses etc are identical.

What was the reason for the last photo being released through a French agency?
Could it be anything to do with Cat Bakers(i think its her) boyfriend who took the printer to France? Was this where the photo dates were altered and not in the UK as some believe?
Who was he,I've never heard his name mentioned or seen.a statement from him?

The photo Juliet is speaking about is very odd given the apparent height difference of Madeleine.

Just to show what my issue is...a side-by-side of the last photo and random Google images photo.

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Jrob please would you concisely point out in what way the Last Photo was 'obviously PhotoShopped'. I'm not looking for an argument on this, just want you to outline your assertion and evidence for me. Thanks

One of Amelie's arms is missing - at least that is how it has appeared to me. 

There are other weird things about that photo - but the missing arm is the most obvious.

Gerry looks utterly repulsive - but that is not unexpected. One of Amelie's arms has disappeared - this is very obvious, while Madeleine looks entirely 'out of the picture' which, unfortunately, I am sure she would have been at the time this photo was alleged to have been taken by Gerry.

The whole photo looks totally bogus. As others have pointed out, the shadows are all wrong. It just looks fake.

Bellisa wrote:What was the reason for the last photo being released through a French agency?
Could it be anything to do with Cat Bakers(i think its her) boyfriend who took the printer to France? Was this where the photo dates were altered and not in the UK as some believe?
Who was he,I've never heard his name mentioned or seen.a statement from him?

The photo Juliet is speaking about is very odd given the apparent height difference of Madeleine.

Hi Bellisa

This information is new to me, do you have any further information or links please.