Re: "Digging" with a helicopter (continued from 'digging at resort')

by Guest 10.05.14 11:35

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
sofieellis wrote:
I was about to post that I remember Vilamura being mentioned in Brian's first dream post - I'm quite embarrassed that I remember that!

It really would put the tin lid on this case if a psychic had it solved right from the off.

Yes it would CR but what was the real role of the psychics? I find this the most bizarre thing about this case.

Was it to steer the investigation/suspicion in certain directions i.e. away from themselves? For example the Lagos sighting and vision:-

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

was the sighting/visions fabricated just in case a body was washed up then they could say ah yes the pyschics SAID she was on a boat with a man thus nothing to do with us.

Would team Mccann honestly think that people would take any notice of pyschics (especially ones that look like complete harridans when researched) when the case was already under a cloud of suspicion fairly early on?

Can anybody else explain the role of the pyschics?

by Lance De Boils 10.05.14 12:04

Incredible how there is next to nothing in the news/papers today about these latest developments.

Looks like the media are adhering to requests. Interesting....

by Guest 10.05.14 16:21

I just finished reading here and I'm going to have some fresh air too.

I've lost all credibility in Markus 2 objectives here, since he changed his comment I objected to earlier and then went on to react to my post. NFWTD can testify, that he was writing about the PJ's sordid affairs and then changed that to "cover up". Unfortunately, the thread has completely derailed since.

S/he also continues to quote tabloid and blog articles to bring his "points". I've always thought, that this is not the way to have a proper debate.

by stargazer59 10.05.14 16:22

I don't post often but read a lot.

Sorry but i think kevmack is right, Markus has derailed this thread about the digging in PDL to Murat/malinka,

Why not start a thread if you want to discuss Murat /Malinka? Although over 7 years it has been discussed many times .

Right back to lurking

by cockerspaniel 10.05.14 16:31

plebgate wrote:I wasn't mocking you Kevmac and sorry if it came over that way, but there are pointers that there may well be connections between certain people and an open mind should be kept imo.

yes, i feel the same. at the moment there are no certainties in this case. and until we have a "result" i shall also be keeping an open mind to this being a much larger play that has has more actors involved in it than just the mccanns.

by sallypelt 10.05.14 16:45

David Miliband opens up about IVF battle and adoption as battle with his brother for Labour leadership heats up

In response to Tony's post above, and without posting the entire post, what has often baffled me about the McCann's IVF treatment is how easy it was for Kate to get pregnant by this method. Taking into account what we've been told, that Madeleine appeared to have been a "difficult" baby, it's been stated that Kate was exhausted with Madeleine's lack of sleep etc, yet her and Gerry went ahead and had more IVF treatment, when Madeleine was little more than a year old, resulting in a girl AND boy. Call me cynical, but I can't quite get my head around how "perfect" this IVF treatment turned out to be for the McCann's, whereby it fails for so many people.

by Guest 10.05.14 16:46

@ Tony

I am absolutely convinced, that if ever there would be a similar case here in my little sleeping village in the deep French countryside and many people would be interviewed or interrogated, there would be lots of unexpected yet non-related "dirt" surfacing. Old peasants watching porn, former friends finding a board to blacken each other, attention-seekers making up stories, you name it. Which wouldn't mean, that any of them would be related to the case ...

by Cristobell 10.05.14 16:54

In answer to an earlier question - I'm sorry I can't find it, that the PJ are not assisting the investigation - I simply had to respond as it sounds so much like a McCann planter! We don't really know whether the PJ are assisting the police or not, anything that comes from the McCanns is questionable in view of their track record, and its highly unlikely that the police are keeping us (and Team McCann directly or indirectly) up to date with what they are doing. This case is surrounded in deceit, it is based on deceit,

We have been told 'officially' there is to be a dig. We have seen DCI Redwood and his team arrive in PDL and return to the UK, and we have seen a military helicopter flying over the area taking photographs. None of this can be hidden or done behind closed doors. If we take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture, we see the PJ and SY working together. Lets take the scene of the crime to quiet Norfolk resort, and imagine the Portuguese Police being given permission by the CPS to go in with heavy digging machinery on their own whilst SY and the local police, stood by and sulked?

I have no doubt the PJ are discarding requests in their hundreds, its my belief those requests come from the McCanns and their lawyers and that SY don't care a jot about them being dismissed - I am sure they don't really want to spend the next 10 years interviewing everyone who ever worked at Warners or holidayed on the Algarve at the behest of the parents.

by Gillyspot 10.05.14 16:58

Cristobell wrote:

I have no doubt the PJ are discarding requests in their hundreds, its my belief those requests come from the McCanns and their lawyers and that SY don't care a jot about them being dismissed - I am sure they don't really want to spend the next 10 years interviewing everyone who ever worked at Warners or holidayed on the Algarve at the behest of the parents.

When you think that during the original investigation the PJ were sent from pillar to post with spurious "sightings" it is no wonder that they are more selective this time when agreeing to requests IMO.

by sallypelt 10.05.14 17:00

Cristobell wrote:In answer to an earlier question - I'm sorry I can't find it, that the PJ are not assisting the investigation - I simply had to respond as it sounds so much like a McCann planter! We don't really know whether the PJ are assisting the police or not, anything that comes from the McCanns is questionable in view of their track record, and its highly unlikely that the police are keeping us (and Team McCann directly or indirectly) up to date with what they are doing. This case is surrounded in deceit, it is based on deceit,

We have been told 'officially' there is to be a dig. We have seen DCI Redwood and his team arrive in PDL and return to the UK, and we have seen a military helicopter flying over the area taking photographs. None of this can be hidden or done behind closed doors. If we take a few steps back and look at the bigger picture, we see the PJ and SY working together. Lets take the scene of the crime to quiet Norfolk resort, and imagine the Portuguese Police being given permission by the CPS to go in with heavy digging machinery on their own whilst SY and the local police, stood by and sulked?

I have no doubt the PJ are discarding requests in their hundreds, its my belief those requests come from the McCanns and their lawyers and that SY don't care a jot about them being dismissed - I am sure they don't really want to spend the next 10 years interviewing everyone who ever worked at Warners or holidayed on the Algarve at the behest of the parents.

To add to the highlighted text above, this was printed in Corrieo da Manha, yesterday:

"three investigators from Scotland Yard did yesterday afternoon an air radiography to the places where they want to do searches to find the body of Madeleine McCann in Praia da Luz , Lagos. In air mission , accompanied by PJ , we used an Air Force helicopter whose service to the CM found , will be paid by the British authorities"

by plebgate 10.05.14 17:01

Châtelaine wrote:I am absolutely convinced, that if ever there would be a similar case here in my little sleeping village in the deep French countryside and many people would be interviewed or interrogated, there would be lots of unexpected yet non-related "dirt" surfacing. Old peasants watching porn, former friends finding a board to blacken each other, attention-seekers making up stories, you name it. Which wouldn't mean, that any of them would be related to the case ...

Yes it's like that in the Midsomer Murder Mysteries on tv, but if Det. Barnaby received a reply of no comment about whether the parent of a missing child knew one of the other arguidos before the child went missing, Barnaby would most probably make a note of it and keep an open mind until (to quote Cocker Spaniel) "a result was known".

It has been asked many times before, why say no comment when a yes or no would do???????

by sallypelt 10.05.14 17:05

plebgate wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am absolutely convinced, that if ever there would be a similar case here in my little sleeping village in the deep French countryside and many people would be interviewed or interrogated, there would be lots of unexpected yet non-related "dirt" surfacing. Old peasants watching porn, former friends finding a board to blacken each other, attention-seekers making up stories, you name it. Which wouldn't mean, that any of them would be related to the case ...
Yes it's like that in the Midsomer Murder Mysteries on tv, but if Det. Barnaby received a reply of no comment about whether the parent of a missing child knew one of the other arguidos before the child went missing, Barnaby would most probably make a note of it and keep an open mind until (to quote Cocker Spaniel) "a result was known".

It has been asked many times before, why say no comment when a yes or no would do???????

Gerry McCann's exact words were "I am not going to answer that". I wonder why?

by plebgate 10.05.14 17:06

Thank you SallyP. We like many, wonder why?

by Guest 10.05.14 17:10

plebgate wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am absolutely convinced, that if ever there would be a similar case here in my little sleeping village in the deep French countryside and many people would be interviewed or interrogated, there would be lots of unexpected yet non-related "dirt" surfacing. Old peasants watching porn, former friends finding a board to blacken each other, attention-seekers making up stories, you name it. Which wouldn't mean, that any of them would be related to the case ...
Yes it's like that in the Midsomer Murder Mysteries on tv, but if Det. Barnaby received a reply of no comment about whether the parent of a missing child knew one of the other arguidos before the child went missing, Barnaby would most probably make a note of it and keep an open mind until (to quote Cocker Spaniel) "a result was known".

It has been asked many times before, why say no comment when a yes or no would do???????

***
I think that if the answer would have been "No", that's what he would have said.
If the answer would have to have been "Yes", that would have provoked a lot of other questions.
And such a "Yes" might have been related to things not related to Madeleine's disappearance.
I tend to think, that GM knew RM, but more in the "recreative" sector, rather than in relation to Madeleine.
IMO, of course.

by Ayniia 10.05.14 17:13

sallypelt wrote:

Gerry McCann's exact words were "I am not going to answer that". I wonder why?

Because that's not lying, just omitting?
That Gerry answer was so odd.

by cockerspaniel 10.05.14 17:17

Châtelaine wrote:
plebgate wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am absolutely convinced, that if ever there would be a similar case here in my little sleeping village in the deep French countryside and many people would be interviewed or interrogated, there would be lots of unexpected yet non-related "dirt" surfacing. Old peasants watching porn, former friends finding a board to blacken each other, attention-seekers making up stories, you name it. Which wouldn't mean, that any of them would be related to the case ...
Yes it's like that in the Midsomer Murder Mysteries on tv, but if Det. Barnaby received a reply of no comment about whether the parent of a missing child knew one of the other arguidos before the child went missing, Barnaby would most probably make a note of it and keep an open mind until (to quote Cocker Spaniel) "a result was known".

It has been asked many times before, why say no comment when a yes or no would do???????
***
I think that if the answer would have been "No", that's what he would have said.
If the answer would have to have been "Yes", that would have provoked a lot of other questions.
And such a "Yes" might have been related to things not related to Madeleine's disappearance.
I tend to think, that GM knew RM, but more in the "recreative" sector, rather than in relation to Madeleine.
IMO, of course.

are you saying that you think "confusion is good" chatelaine? who would care if they were just golf buddies and nothing else. Rm stated unequivocally that he did not know GM and had never met him. why couldnt gerry just do the same.?

by plebgate 10.05.14 17:18

Yes Chateleine that is a possibility. Surely it would be better to have to answer questions re. "recreative" sector than even more suspicions surrounding the disappearance of a child?

by suzyjohnson 10.05.14 17:18

What about George Burke's sighting of a couple carrying a child at around 6 am on 4th May?

'....... A Briton, who runs a company in the Algarve, has told police he spotted a couple carrying a young child, early on Friday morning 04 May 2007. George Burke, from Liverpool, was driving home from nearby Lagos around 6.00am when he caught the two people in his car headlights. "I couldn't see them clearly because it was dark and windy. They scurried down a side road and out of sight." (McCann files)

This would be a good place to search?

KM and GM were both out at that time in the morning, they said they went out to search at first light and that there was nobody else around.

by Cristobell 10.05.14 17:30

Gillyspot wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

I have no doubt the PJ are discarding requests in their hundreds, its my belief those requests come from the McCanns and their lawyers and that SY don't care a jot about them being dismissed - I am sure they don't really want to spend the next 10 years interviewing everyone who ever worked at Warners or holidayed on the Algarve at the behest of the parents.
When you think that during the original investigation the PJ were sent from pillar to post with spurious "sightings" it is no wonder that they are more selective this time when agreeing to requests IMO.

I think so too. It is easier for SY to tell the McCanns the Portuguese turned down the requests, rather than themselves.

by Ayniia 10.05.14 17:54

So getting back to the topic.
IMHO there's no body to be found. My opinion may change but it's currently based on the comment discussed in this topic, that I believe to be genuine coming from a reliable source close to GA. Of course anyone could've write that comment,I know that.

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

So what's the digging all about? I honestly don't know. But the fact that SY/PJ were in PDL going around in a helicopter doing all that show ,makes me think of the possibility of the whole thing having the purpose of making "some people " panic and maybe give themselves up for their subsequent actions. I'm thinking about last week developments:
-Dig approved.
-Dates yet to be set, PJ and SY ask media discretion.
-Very next day -PDL and helicopter ride.
-SY detectives return home.

Makes no sense to me. Why.not develop the pictures here and get along with the digging or whatever right away? Why go away from PDL risking the perps, the media or quite frankly any curious member of the public going there looking for something? I can't work that out.
And in order for them to know what to photograph, they have to know where they'll probably dig. It puzzles me because I can't figure what the point of this "digging madness " is, but I don't think the PJ would allow anything without solid bases, as we know they refused a lot of other requests.
And I really do hope if they're going to do the digs, that they start with Murat's driveway to stop with the Birch theory once and for all.
Also I don't get why there's talk about digs and cadaver dogs and yet, some MSM and pros refuse to even entertain the possibility of SY /PJ looking for a body /remains.
All JMHO as usual.
ETA:
Maybe the pictures are because they're looking for the places to dig. But if that's so, they could've taken them without all the media awareness. And how would they know they were going to dig something if they didn't knew where?
Sorry I'm so confused.

by Guest 10.05.14 17:57

Tony Bennett wrote:

02-Processos Volume II pages 461 to 462

02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_461
02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_462

02-Processos Volume II PJ Record 8th May 2007-

At about 20.00 the police received a phone call from a number that could not be identified, from a person with a female voice speaking in correct Portuguese, who did not want to be identified for reasons of safety.

She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police.

When asked who she was referring to she said it was an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, who has an English mother, who speaks this language very well, who was near the area since the disappearance of the little girl, supposedly with the intention of helping the investigation.

She said this man was called Robert and that he used to consult Internet chats of a pretty heavy sexual nature.

He would also use Internet for contacts with different acquaintances he had in other countries, especially in the UK.

She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed.

This is why she wanted to alert the authorities about the characteristics of this man, who, in her opinion, could have sexual motives and opportunity, knowing the area perfectly for committing or collaborating in this type of crime.

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

***
My colour and underlining. Has this woman ever been identified? Ready to testify? Or just another warmonger for whatever reason? I don't buy such things easily ...

by margaret 10.05.14 18:05

cockerspaniel wrote:
kevmack wrote:
plebgate wrote:Who would burn out a car to get someone to Talk to the Authorities?
Surely just burning out the car would be enough, no need for cryptic messages, which apparently mean the opposite of what they say
it means "talk". and we will get you, the car burnt out is a warning as to what we can and will do! it is a threat that means you malinka are a nobody and we can torch your car and get away with it, and if we want to we can get you, and get away with it as well. it does not mean...please go and talk to the authorities, or we will get you, otherwise i am sure he would of been straight down to the nearest cop shop and sung like a canary about whatever it is he knows, rather than face the prospect of propping up the nearest flyover.

Really? I always took it to mean someone was telling him to confess what he knew.

Damn those messages warning you to do the opposite of what they're telling you!

by Guest 10.05.14 20:08

Unlocking. At some point the Murat discussions will be moved on to the Murat thread that tigger has bumped up. Any further discussion on Murat there please. Now, no more disruption on this thread or action will be taken against the offender. Please stick to this interesting topic.....thank you.

by Guest 10.05.14 20:45

Have moved the disruptive posts from this thread. There is now a topic in the members lounge which has been split from this one.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.05.14 21:01

Châtelaine wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:At about 20.00 the police received a phone call from a number that could not be identified, from a person with a female voice speaking in correct Portuguese, who did not want to be identified for reasons of safety.

She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police.

[SNIPPED]
My colour and underlining. Has this woman ever been identified? Ready to testify? Or just another warmonger for whatever reason? I don't buy such things easily...

Points:

1. As you well know, in a great many serious criminal cases, there are potential and valuable witnesses who are for very good reasons too frightened to say anything or, if they are, will only do anonymously.

2. A powerful indicator that this woman was telling the truth is the very detailed statement of family friend Carlos Costa (which i know you've seen and read), which corrobrated much of her story.

3. Precisely as this woman revealed, Murat DID have encrypted material on his computer.

4. He lamely said he couldn't explain how it got there. (Believe that if you will!).

FOUR very good reasons, then, for believing that she was sincere, and teling the truth

by Guest 10.05.14 21:05

Okay, that's enough on Murat on this topic, there are two on him at the moment. One in Members Lounge and one in Debate section, discuss there please.

by russiandoll 10.05.14 22:09

Not sure where to post, please move to wherever it is best placed, but this is a new low for the UK tabloid press... made to look like a match ticket, complete with perforated tear-off. Disrespect to this child that I am sure the McCann believers and non-believers will surely find disgusting.

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

by russiandoll 10.05.14 22:37

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

by TheTruthWillOut 10.05.14 22:42

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

The great Daily Star getting the PJ to talk to them in a on-going investigation!? Ha! And if by some miracle it is true, then SY have some 'splaining to do to the UK tax payer.

by nglfi 10.05.14 22:43

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

Judiciary believed Maddie was kidnapped by Foreigner !

Changed of direction ?

I'm really not sure what to make of this. On the one hand, the article ses to state that the PJ now believe Maddie was killed by a foreigner - yes. That the person subsequently left Portugal - yes. But it also mentions abduction and the idea that Maddie's body is not in the country anymore. Really don't know what to make of it.