Re: The Times article 19 May 2014 mentions 'her murder'

by bristow 20.05.14 11:27

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

I think Brunty used it either in a tweet or a report. it was whooshed pretty damn quickly!

by frost 20.05.14 11:28

great stuff I imagine the telephone exchange serving the Rothley area will have gone into meltdown oooh to be a fly on the wall right now winkwink

by Liz Eagles 20.05.14 11:28

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

by HelenMeg 20.05.14 11:31

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Has something been found? Why would they use that word cause surely they know all about this case? IMOIMO

The same word was used in an article a few months ago then quickly retracted, but I can't remember which newspaper it was in.

Why use the word 'murder', indeed. It's not an easy to mistake. Surely every newspaper knows to be extremely careful around the McCann story. It doesn't lead to me suspect that some evidence has been found, but it does increase my certainty that this case isn't a white-wash and that something will break soon.

But I wonder why murder and not death?. Murder is specific and doesn't account for accidental death .Why are they using that word. Most of our theories have centred on accidental death. I wonder if the Times use of this word is specifically intended to describe her death as murder or was used in a vague manner...
If it was murder then either the MC CANNS murdered her or someone else is supposed to have... I almost wish they'd used the word death.

by HelenMeg 20.05.14 11:33

On a positive side it almost certainly smashes 'the fund'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 20.05.14 11:33

aquila wrote:
If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

I just wonder whether the reason it hasn't been retracted yet is that it was behind a pay-wall and went unnoticed.

It will be noticed now, mainly because of this thread.

by bristow 20.05.14 11:41

Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.

by Guest 20.05.14 11:43

Ribisl wrote:
aquila wrote:
admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:Jimmy Saville £2.7 million to date.

Madeleine McCann £5.35 million to date.
The actual cost of the Madeleine McCann investigation so far, according to recent official statements from Scotland Yard, must now be somewhere between £7 million and £8 million.

It seems a little odd that far less has been spent on the Operation Yewtree case, which has involved many perpetrators and many victims, than there has been spent on Maddie's 'disappearance'.
Operation Yewtree also has less staff. Remarkable.
Interesting that it's mentioned in an article dealing with historical child sex abuse.

Forgot to insert the link. Here it is [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Ribisl roses

Yes it is very interesting that the MBM case is firmly placed in the context of historic child abuse.

And it is sandwiched between North Wales and Savile...hmmm

All in own opinion, nothing stated as fact

by Guest 20.05.14 11:44

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
aquila wrote:
If there's no retraction from The Times, the gloves are off.

I just wonder whether the reason it hasn't been retracted yet is that it was behind a pay-wall and went unnoticed.

It will be noticed now, mainly because of this thread.

And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.

by Cristobell 20.05.14 11:48

bristow wrote:Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.

I suppose that is a possibility, but The Times have been challenged by the McCanns before and had to apologise for the wording of their report on the withheld e-fits. They must also be aware of the twitter storm caused by Martin Brunt's use of the word 'murder', so its unlikely the word was used carelessly.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 20.05.14 11:49

admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.

Exactly right admin, interesting times ahead I feel.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:03

Cristobell wrote:
bristow wrote:Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.
I suppose that is a possibility, but The Times have been challenged by the McCanns before and had to apologise for the wording of their report on the withheld e-fits. They must also be aware of the twitter storm caused by Martin Brunt's use of the word 'murder', so its unlikely the word was used carelessly.

Murder is a very strong word to use in this case.

To go from "vanished" and "may not have been alive" to "murder" is quite a leap.

I suspect that for Martin Brunt and The Times to use the unambiguous and emotive word murder rather than death, the police already know what happened on that fateful holiday and the press are primed and ready.

As WLBTS said, interesting times ahead.

by macdonut 20.05.14 12:11

Poe wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
bristow wrote:Hopefully using that word really does mean something.
I'm hoping it's not just slovenly reporting from someone who doesn't really have too much interest in the case.
I suppose that is a possibility, but The Times have been challenged by the McCanns before and had to apologise for the wording of their report on the withheld e-fits. They must also be aware of the twitter storm caused by Martin Brunt's use of the word 'murder', so its unlikely the word was used carelessly.

Murder is a very strong word to use in this case.

To go from "vanished" and "may not have been alive" to "murder" is quite a leap.

I suspect that for Martin Brunt and The Times to use the unambiguous and emotive word murder rather than death, the police already know what happened on that fateful holiday and the press are primed and ready.

As WLBTS said, interesting times ahead.

How I would love that to be true. Still think it's more likely to be whooshed with a grovelling apology.

by Justformaddie 20.05.14 12:13

Fingers crossed.

by endgame 20.05.14 12:13

Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:16

Shocked to see that word used.

There is no way it is a result of sloppy journalism.

I am amazed.

by HelenMeg 20.05.14 12:18

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

I tend to think it may be sloppy journalism in this case. Someone has added 2 + 2 to make 5.
Still it is encouraging that they didn't write down 'abduction'. A few months ago and we'd have been happy that they had moved on from abduction to disappearance..

by **Tony Bennett** 20.05.14 12:19

admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.

But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

by bobbin 20.05.14 12:22

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

Could be sloppy journalism....... based on a subliminal yet suppressed belief system resulting in a 'Freudian slip'.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

What evidence Tony, they have no evidence.

by Justformaddie 20.05.14 12:24

Only time will tell IMO but what about the cadaver scent? G was the last to see maddie alive IMO.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:25

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

Sean O'Neill doesn't seem to have a very good relationship with the met:
"I have always found the Metropolitan Police (the "Met") a difficult organisation to deal with.
Its institutional instinct is to be closed, defensive and secretive and that attitude is reflected
in a tense relationship with the media"

Taken from his statement to the Levenson Inquiry

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

by bobbin 20.05.14 12:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.05.14 12:37

candyfloss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
admin wrote:
And because the link to the article has been posted on this thread and people have clicked on the link, then The Times will also now be aware of this thread and will either a) whoosh the article because C-R have been on their case or b) change the article as they realise the 'M' word is a mistake or c) leave it as it is because they stand by the word 'murder'.

Watch this space.
But has anyone considered this possibility?

Simply that Rupert Murdoch and his top journalists have been told that within the next few months, DCI Redwood and his team will announce the closure of their investigation, saying they have sufficient evidence that an abductor (known or unknown) - probably a paedophile - took Madeleine sometime between 9.15pm and 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, and that the abductor murdered her?

There is nothing at all inconsistent between that scenario and the Times report yesterday

What evidence Tony, they have no evidence.

I am only raising a possibilty.

Let us remember (see thread on Hamish Campbell) that Barry Bulsara = Barry George was wrongly convicted of murdering Jill Dando on no evidence at all except a speck of firearms residue which exactly matched the firearm known to have been used in killing her.

The Investigating Officer in that case was Hamish Campbell. There was a very strong suspicion that the firearms residue had been planted.

Of still more interest is that the investigation co-ordinator of the failed Bulsara prosecution was Brian Moore, who was all but proven to have done the same thing - planted firearms residue in a man's coat packet - in order to secure a false conviction (again, see the Hamish Campbell thread) in 1999 in Stoke Newington.

The man appointed as the investigation co-ordinator for Operation Grange was, again, Hamish Campbell.

All I would wish to add to my previous comment is that no-one should estimate the ability of some of Britain's most senior police officers to be corrupt to their very cores.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.05.14 12:40

bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.

bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
Let us remember (see thread on Hamish Campbell) that Barry Bulsara = Barry George was wrongly convicted of murdering Jill Dando on no evidence at all except a speck of firearms residue which exactly matched the firearm known to have been used in killing her.

It's interesting to contrast the Lawrence case and the McCann case. In the Lawrence murder, heaven and earth was moved to finally secure a conviction based on the tiniest possible amount of forensic evidence. In the case of McCann, heaven and earth appears to have been moved to diminish the relevance of a compelling amount of forensic evidence.

by stillsloppingout 20.05.14 12:46

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

You would have to have lived on mars not to know which words are off bounds re this case. The question was it intentional sloppy journalism ? .

Actually have they searched Mars yet ?

by Guest 20.05.14 12:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?

by Bishop Brennan 20.05.14 12:53

endgame wrote:Whilst not wishing to dampen the anticipation that this reference has created, I'm afraid that you always have to allow for such a reference being the result of sloppy journalism from someone who has no real knowledge of what they are writing about. It is rarely the case that journalists spend days poring over the precise inferences of words as we know from the grotesque misrepresentations that appear daily on this case. The idea that this has been deliberately planted as part of some master plan of revelation is as yet still on shaky ground.

It could well be just bad journalism. The reaction to it from Team McCann will however be interesting. A few years ago it would have brought an injunction from CR within minutes. But 'murder' rather than 'died' does play more to Tony's view that it may be a setup for a SY exit strategy, rather than homing in on the McCanns. Not even here is there any suggestion of murder by the parents. Some suggest an accident; others a blow that caused a fall and perhaps death; and others a medication error causing death. But never murder. And quite rightly so.

So whilst it certainly confirms that everyone now knows she is dead, it in no way takes them closer to pointing the finger at the McCanns. Yet. Hopefully, if the McCanns are indeed guilty, that day will come.

by stillsloppingout 20.05.14 12:54

admin wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bobbin wrote:

Except that the police would have to admit that, and explain why, they were over-riding the dog findings and that the cadavour odour signalled and the blood, found to be Madeleine's and which had been damaged by the use of 'bleach' or some other such deliberate application, would have to have occurred within that time limit, and the abductor /murderer would have to have removed Madeleine's body having waited enough time in the apartment with the twins also in there, to allow the cadavour odour to establish itself.
bobbin, they have already done that - over three years ago.

1. Grange was to 'help the family'

2. Their remit was to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the UK

3. Redwood and co have repeatedly asserted that none of the McCanns or the rest of the Tapas 9 are under the remotest suspicion; they are not 'persons of interest' to Grange.

OK, so the McCann's aren't persons of interest but surely it still means DCI Redwood needs to explain why the abductor murdered Maddie and waited for the cadaver scent to develop, hid her in the wardrobe, cleaned the apartment, washed the curtains, leaving no forensic evidence etc, instead of taking her out alive....don't they?

They can explain anything away , if SY say anything backed up by high powered officials then the masses will take it as gospel . We can shout all we want but our voices will be muted by there powerful legal machine . [ Gerry and the Government have covered all bases ] Depressing as it is .
I have said it time and time again the only person who can bring all the none reported information to the masses in the UK [ TV media etc ] is Murat and he choses not to . he no fault of his own dragged into this . He should have took them down .