Schadenfraud, 30 April 2014

by Guest 30.04.14 10:21

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

By Dr Martin Roberts

30 April 2014

[size=13]SCHADENFRAUD[/size]

According to Tracey Kandohla (Daily Mirror, 25 April), former GP Kate has said: "There is nothing to suggest Madeleine is not alive."

She has also said: "Madeleine is still alive until someone proves otherwise."

As has been pointed out on several previous occasions, it is not actually necessary to prove Madeleine is dead (or 'not still alive') by revealing her corpse. It can be done indirectly by proving that she was not abducted (see: 'There's nothing to say she's not out there alive' – McCannfiles, 27.6.09). Given that condition, there can be only one answer to Gerry McCann's outburst, "Where is the child?" Telekinesis is not, I'm afraid, an option in this case.

Prior to the first of DCI Andy Redwood's 'revelation moments' it could be (and indeed was) established that no abductor could possibly have exited the McCanns' apartment at a time coincident with Jane Tanner's so-called sighting (see: 'No Way Out' and 'No Way Out At All' – McCannfiles, 8.7.13 and 13.7.13). Despite (or perhaps because of) the obviously contrived emergence of an innocent parent portering their own daughter around the streets of Praia da Luz at the time, the McCanns remain of the view that this is not whom Jane Tanner saw on the night of May 3rd, raising the possibility of there having been no end of transient child bearers in the vicinity that night, like a Pierce Brosnan scene from the re-make of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Recent personal experience has confirmed two things in particular: that the introduction of an unverifiable third-party into the account of a crime is a gambit as old as Methuselah and, despite jurors being cautioned against speculation, phrases such as 'could have', 'might have' etc. are as irresistible as bananas are to monkeys. (Their use in deliberation - the phrases not the bananas - should be banned). Nevertheless, in the context of the McCanns' account of Madeleine's 'abduction' they are rife, which would leave any prosecuting counsel the task of discounting limitless flights of imagination before they could address the most probable cause or sequence of events.

So now how do we prove Madeleine was not abducted? Perhaps by focussing on what a child abduction is, or isn't.

Both parents, Kate McCann especially, have expressed remorse at not having been present 'at that minute', when 'it' happened. Needless to say, had they been in attendance at the time then 'it' should not have happened at all. Taking things at face value, it is perfectly obvious that the McCanns would not have stood back while their daughter was abducted by a stranger. No parent would do so (unless faced with Sophie's Choice perhaps). Hence, if the McCanns were seen to have been tacit accomplices to the act of Madeleine's removal from apartment 5A the Ocean Club, they will not have been complicit in abduction, but something else entirely. Either way they would have harboured some fore-knowledge of the event.

And that's the rub. They did exhibit foreknowledge, which means (a) the event in question was not abduction as commonly understood and (b) they knew what it was, just as well as they knew what it wasn't. In the words of an anonymous lawyer, repeated for emphasis by Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine', "One coincidence, two coincidences - maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence."

Coincidentally Kate McCann experienced a sudden aversion to own her camera, following her last photograph of daughter Madeleine, eight hours before she was found to be missing. Coincidentally, Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter (a daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance), was a behaviour he exhibited on May 2nd – over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing. Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing. That's three coincidences where, according to no less an authority than Kate McCann herself, the occurrence of more than two means none of them can be considered chance events (as there's no means of identifying the one that might be).

If Madeleine McCann was not abducted then she is dead. She was not abducted. She is therefore dead, and has been for seven years, since before the establishment of 'Madeleine's Fund' by her parents, who did not ask for money at first but very quickly set up a way of dealing with it that traded on the false premise of the child's unexplained disappearance, and continues to do so.

by lj 30.04.14 16:04

Brilliant title

and piece of course

by worriedmum 30.04.14 23:36

'' Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing''

This is too obtuse for me.Help,please?

by Guest 01.05.14 7:37

I was wondering about this too - could it be the blue sports bag in the wardrobe? Which apparently subsequently 'disappeared'.
I know an image of it in the wardrobe exists (i.e. where the cadaver scent was found by E&K) - but I thought this was taken by the PJ?
Will do some checking of files later.

I can't think what else this could be...

All imo.

by Sparklehorse 01.05.14 9:01

Were the wardrobe photos including the blue bag one not PJ crime scene photos rather family photos?

by Guest 01.05.14 10:16

Sparklehorse wrote:Were the wardrobe photos including the blue bag one not PJ crime scene photos rather family photos?

Yes, I'm sure they were in the PJ files SH and not family photos - I'll try and check later.

by Newintown 01.05.14 10:40

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Sparklehorse wrote:Were the wardrobe photos including the blue bag one not PJ crime scene photos rather family photos?
Yes, I'm sure they were in the PJ files SH and not family photos - I'll try and check later.

All the photos are listed here, the bag in the wardrobe are 2nd and 3rd photos up from the bottom of the page:

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

by Guest 01.05.14 11:38

Newintown wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
Sparklehorse wrote:Were the wardrobe photos including the blue bag one not PJ crime scene photos rather family photos?
Yes, I'm sure they were in the PJ files SH and not family photos - I'll try and check later.

All the photos are listed here, the bag in the wardrobe are 2nd and 3rd photos up from the bottom of the page:

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

Thanks Newintown. It can't be referring to the blue sports bag then. I have no idea what it means otherwise.
Does it mean the family photographs actually taken on the holiday in Pde Luz itself? We have seen so few of them, and they have all been discussed in detail on here.
I really can't think what this refers to.

by diatribe 01.05.14 11:53

By Dr Martin Roberts

30 April 2014

[size=13]SCHADENFRAUD[/size]

According to Tracey Kandohla (Daily Mirror, 25 April), former GP Kate has said: "There is nothing to suggest Madeleine is not alive."

She has also said: "Madeleine is still alive until someone proves otherwise."

As has been pointed out on several previous occasions, it is not actually necessary to prove Madeleine is dead (or 'not still alive') by revealing her corpse. It can be done indirectly by proving that she was not abducted (see: 'There's nothing to say she's not out there alive' – McCannfiles, 27.6.09). Given that condition, there can be only one answer to Gerry McCann's outburst, "Where is the child?" Telekinesis is not, I'm afraid, an option in this case.

Prior to the first of DCI Andy Redwood's 'revelation moments' it could be (and indeed was) established that no abductor could possibly have exited the McCanns' apartment at a time coincident with Jane Tanner's so-called sighting (see: 'No Way Out' and 'No Way Out At All' – McCannfiles, 8.7.13 and 13.7.13). Despite (or perhaps because of) the obviously contrived emergence of an innocent parent portering their own daughter around the streets of Praia da Luz at the time, the McCanns remain of the view that this is not whom Jane Tanner saw on the night of May 3rd, raising the possibility of there having been no end of transient child bearers in the vicinity that night, like a Pierce Brosnan scene from the re-make of The Thomas Crown Affair.

Recent personal experience has confirmed two things in particular: that the introduction of an unverifiable third-party into the account of a crime is a gambit as old as Methuselah and, despite jurors being cautioned against speculation, phrases such as 'could have', 'might have' etc. are as irresistible as bananas are to monkeys. (Their use in deliberation - the phrases not the bananas - should be banned). Nevertheless, in the context of the McCanns' account of Madeleine's 'abduction' they are rife, which would leave any prosecuting counsel the task of discounting limitless flights of imagination before they could address the most probable cause or sequence of events.

So now how do we prove Madeleine was not abducted? Perhaps by focussing on what a child abduction is, or isn't.

Both parents, Kate McCann especially, have expressed remorse at not having been present 'at that minute', when 'it' happened. Needless to say, had they been in attendance at the time then 'it' should not have happened at all. Taking things at face value, it is perfectly obvious that the McCanns would not have stood back while their daughter was abducted by a stranger. No parent would do so (unless faced with Sophie's Choice perhaps). Hence, if the McCanns were seen to have been tacit accomplices to the act of Madeleine's removal from apartment 5A the Ocean Club, they will not have been complicit in abduction, but something else entirely. Either way they would have harboured some fore-knowledge of the event.

And that's the rub. They did exhibit foreknowledge, which means (a) the event in question was not abduction as commonly understood and (b) they knew what it was, just as well as they knew what it wasn't. In the words of an anonymous lawyer, repeated for emphasis by Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine', "One coincidence, two coincidences - maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence."

Coincidentally Kate McCann experienced a sudden aversion to own her camera, following her last photograph of daughter Madeleine, eight hours before she was found to be missing. Coincidentally, Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter (a daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance), was a behaviour he exhibited on May 2nd – over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing. Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing. That's three coincidences where, according to no less an authority than Kate McCann herself, the occurrence of more than two means none of them can be considered chance events (as there's no means of identifying the one that might be).

If Madeleine McCann was not abducted then she is dead. She was not abducted. She is therefore dead, and has been for seven years, since before the establishment of 'Madeleine's Fund' by her parents, who did not ask for money at first but very quickly set up a way of dealing with it that traded on the false premise of the child's unexplained disappearance, and continues to do so.

Which is exactly the premise upon which my belief is founded that there would be a possibilty that the CPS could attain a conviction against the McCanns for fraud in relation to their Foundation Fund,

Alas, as previously stated, there is no intent to prosecute the McCanns in the UK, period.

by lj 01.05.14 13:46

There is one photo from Gerry & the twins seen from behind, going to the beach. Gerry is carrying a big dark blue bag. Maybe that's what he meant. I am pretty sure though that was after Madeleine disappeared.

by diatribe 01.05.14 13:59

lj wrote: I am pretty sure though that was after Madeleine disappeared.

Without wishing to appear pedantic, Ij, how do we know when she disappeared. We know when the world and his wife were informed that she disappeared, but what does that count for when the Town Criers conveying that news may have been of the intent to mislead.

by lj 01.05.14 19:08

diatribe wrote:
lj wrote: I am pretty sure though that was after Madeleine disappeared.

Without wishing to appear pedantic, Ij, how do we know when she disappeared. We know when the world and his wife were informed that she disappeared, but what does that count for when the Town Criers conveying that news may have been of the intent to mislead.

You mean being carried around in a blue bag does not count as disappeared?

Let me adjust the phrasing: after the 3rd of may 2007.

by worriedmum 01.05.14 19:38

'' Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing''

Playground photo?

Tennis photo?

Pool photo?

by canada12 02.05.14 11:04

worriedmum wrote:'' Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing''

Playground photo?

Tennis photo?

Pool photo?

Since I think the reference is to a photo that was purportedly taken during the PDL holiday, I agree we are left with only the above three subject areas - the playground, the pool, and the tennis balls.

"A subject of unique relevance to the search...before she was discovered missing."

If it's the playground, I'm not sure how it's relevant to the search, unless the playground toys (the "playhouses") are in the wrong place for the purported time / day that the photo was taken. I seem to recall someone mentioning a long time ago that the equipment was moved around a lot, which you can see in photos that other people have taken of the general area at different times.

If it's the pool, the famous Last Photo, I can see how the purported time / day of the photo would be extremely relevant, in trying to establish that Madeleine and / or Gerry were both poolside at a particular hour / day. I think it's been pretty well agreed upon that the photo does not accurately reflect the weather conditions at that time and date. If we want to delve further into this, perhaps there's some further information to be gained from very subtle things like:
- the "bead" or "elastic" in Madeleine's hair - didn't the police find a discarded hair elastic or beaded hair thing on the floor in 5A?
- the height of the weeds growing against the stone wall behind Madeleine or the actual positions of the white plastic loungers at that particular time and date - perhaps information which could be ascertained by looking at photos that other guests might have taken at the same purported time and date.

If it's the tennis balls, it's relevant to the search because of the statements of all who would have us believe they were there to witness Madeleine running around picking up the balls on a certain date at a certain time.

I can't think of any other photos which might be relevant to the phrase:
"A subject of unique relevance to the search...before she was discovered missing."

by Guest 02.05.14 13:40

The Coloboma, featuring in just one particular picture?

by worriedmum 02.05.14 14:15

I have a question about the tennis photo.

I have seen it facing both ways.

Does anyone know which is the original? Or can any tennis players read the logo on the balls?

The reason I ask is that there appears to be a brown mark on Madeleine's leg, and the passport records one of her distinguishing features as a birthmark on her left calf. If that is her left leg, then it is her left arm which is visible clutching the balls, and the same arm is visible on the pool photo..

by Guest 02.05.14 17:08

I´m wondering myself every time I take a look at the tennis ball photo
...playing tennis with sandals - I´ve never seen this before!!!
This quite unusual ...even for young kids!!!!!

We have many tennis courses for kids of this age in our tennis club, but it´s impossible
to take picture of one of the kids showing such a big part of the court with no other kids
on the photo or with tennis balls laying around - even if they collect them.

IMO I don´t think this photo has been taken during a group lesson of the kids!!!

Other tennis players might confirm this!

Whenever or wherever this photo has been taken????
They even have the same kind of courts in Rothley!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by missbeetle 02.05.14 21:24

Playground Man...? Can anyone remember if he was ever identified?

by canada12 02.05.14 21:29

Helene1 wrote:I´m wondering myself every time I take a look at the tennis ball photo
...playing tennis with sandals - I´ve never seen this before!!!
This quite unusual ...even for young kids!!!!!

We have many tennis courses for kids of this age in our tennis club, but it´s impossible
to take picture of one of the kids showing such a big part of the court with no other kids
on the photo or with tennis balls laying around - even if they collect them.

IMO I don´t think this photo has been taken during a group lesson of the kids!!!

Other tennis players might confirm this!

Whenever or wherever this photo has been taken????
They even have the same kind of courts in Rothley!
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not only that, but we KNOW Madeleine owned trainers / running shoes - because she was photographed wearing them. So... why wasn't she wearing them for the tennis balls photo?

by TheTruthWillOut 02.05.14 21:41

missbeetle wrote:Playground Man...? Can anyone remember if he was ever identified?

Raj Balu. Is/was a barrister working for Cooper Tuff.

by missbeetle 02.05.14 21:48

Thanks for that, TruthWillOut.

Not that it gets me any further in my thinking and theories...

by TheTruthWillOut 02.05.14 22:02

missbeetle wrote:Thanks for that, TruthWillOut.

Not that it gets me any further in my thinking and theories...

Better start getting used to that! big grin

Just kidding roses

I have been following the case from the beginning and it never ceases to amaze me.

by Guest 02.05.14 22:14

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Playground Man...? Can anyone remember if he was ever identified?

Raj Balu. Is/was a barrister working for Cooper Tuff.

I thought it was established that 'playground man' was Reverend Lars Nowen......

Stand to be corrected...

by TheTruthWillOut 03.05.14 12:25

Andrew77R wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Playground Man...? Can anyone remember if he was ever identified?

Raj Balu. Is/was a barrister working for Cooper Tuff.
I thought it was established that 'playground man' was Reverend Lars Nowen......

Stand to be corrected...

I really don't think so Andrew:

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

The Reverend is in the centre of the pic ^

Unless there is another playground picture I don't know about?

by Carrry On Doctor 03.05.14 13:34

Can anyone confirm the date of the playground photo ?

Thanks

by Guest 03.05.14 13:52

I don't know if the date has ever been established definitely but the clothes the children are wearing are similar to those on the infamous "Eff off I'm not here to enjoy myself" video so it's possibly 28th April 2007.

by TheTruthWillOut 03.05.14 13:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't know if the date has ever been established definitely but the clothes the children are wearing are similar to those on the infamous "Eff off I'm not here to enjoy myself" video so it's possibly 28th April 2007.

I thought that was the case too, but the "official" date according to the files is the 2nd May. I assume that is going by EXIF data which can be easily changed apparently.

by canada12 03.05.14 17:55

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

Look at the trousers the tall man who is walking away from the playground is wearing.

Are these not the same sort of trousers that the Smiths reported seeing their child-carrying man wearing?

by **Nina** 03.05.14 18:08

canada12 wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Look at the trousers the tall man who is walking away from the playground is wearing.

Are these not the same sort of trousers that the Smiths reported seeing their child-carrying man wearing?

No, they are shorts with pockets on the side. The colour is correct though.