An intelligence insider gives inside information about the content of the Halligen programme ('The McCanns and the Conman')

Giving this a separate thread because of its importance in the whole case.

It comes from someone with very good intelligence contacts in the U.S. and U.K. who has supplied a great deal of fully reliable information in the past - and who has a very genuine commitment to finding out what really happened to Madeleine McCann:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I'm sure you saw the documentary, yes?

What a load of old cobblers.

‘Poor old Kevin’.

But that's what he signed up for, I suppose.

Three major issues I would take up with the producers.

 
1. Fake DOD pass claim.

In 2008 Andre Hollis - President of Van Scoyoc and CEO of Halligan's Oakley International Group - lobbied the US Senate and the Department of Justice on behalf of Halligan's other US business interest - Oakley Strategic Services (owned by decorated US Pentagon adviser, Colonel Ken Irish) at a cost of $20,000 and £5,000 during the period March - April 2008.
Hollis lobbied senate on issues relating to strategic training and consulting services at the Department of Defense Appropriations (this is within weeks of Halligan being hired by the McCanns).

Brian Penda and H Stewart of Van Scoyoc also contributed. Oakley SS (Co. no. 76683897), was registered in November 2007.

No need for a fake pass. KH was very much in the defence loop - even as far back as 2003 when he represented Inkerman/Qinetiq & AEA


2. Did Kevin Halligen’s companies just produce batteries for ‘boilers’?

Channel 5 doc also dismissed KH as having worked on batteries for 'boiler systems' during the troubles?

KH actually worked for DSB Special Batteries during the latter part of 'the troubles'. Here he is in Brighton in 1995:

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

The Brighton session he attended was chaired by 'Dr Barry Lakeman' of the Defence Research Agency - a branch of the MOD until late 1995 (now the DSTL). Halligen presented a paper on Aqueous Rechargeable Batteries. Initially, these were tasked primarily for electric vehicles, before ending up in products like laptops and telecommunication equipment (this is broadly 'fuel cell research')

DSB Special Batteries Ltd, based in Crawley, West Sussex (near Halligen’s home in Surrey), manufactured and marketed battery packs and rechargers for the military, industrial and yes, the commercial markets in the United Kingdom. But it was Lithium batteries that he ended up specialising in.

In 1997 the company was taken over by AEA Technology Systems.

Halligen began research and development on Lithium Ion batteries. Yes, they are used in loads of consumer products (including 'boilers') but they are also used in no end of military hardware (unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) etc).
Inevitably, AEA Technology went on to win contracts with the Ministry of Defence (providing batteries for the Army's Bowman Battlefield System and French Military thermal imaging cameras), the US Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) and NASA (Mars Landing Mission in 2003 and the first Comet Landing Mission).

Given that Halligan was working with Ken Irish at Oakley SS and given his being hired by Inkerman for work on MOD/Qinetiq projects it seems far more likely his work had matured considerably from 'boliers' (a period of 'maturation' that had started at Cap Gemini Erst and Young).

The ‘McCanns and the Conman’ programme deliberately left out what a high-level player Halligan was, and continues to be, in British government and intelligence circles.


3. Henri Exton

As I advised you before, Exton was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal, Grade 7, and on 29 February 2000 received the order of the British Empire  from Her Majesty the Queen. This is no middle grade security services player; he was - as is on the record - formerly the Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Section – and you don’t get much higher than that.

At the end of the programme, they slipped in Exton’s 2 e-fits, supposedly prepared from talking to the Smiths. Exton talked to the Smiths all right, in 2008, but neither of those two e-fits were compiled by the Smiths. That should be obvious because all of them admit they never saw his face properly. They were generated by Exton from another source. DCI Redwood knows this fine well.  

 
ENDS

I'm glad you posted this as I was troubled by the program's rather one dimensional portrayal of Halligen as a serial fraudster who'd essentially never earned an honest penny in his life. I mean, I honestly don't have a clue, but I can tell when something's being laid on a bit thick.

One thing that's not clear is if Operation Omega was meant to be an act of benevolence, or a profitable operation. If the latter then you would expect him to have a few quid to flash around, given the sums involved. But I suspect the truth will be impossible to get to, since it's kind of a fluid concept in the circles that these folks move in.

Tony Bennett wrote:Giving this a separate thread because of its importance in the whole case.

It comes from someone with very good intelligence contacts in the U.S. and U.K. who has supplied a great deal of fully reliable information in the past - and who has a very genuine commitment to finding out what really happened to Madeleine McCann:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I'm sure you saw the documentary, yes?

What a load of old cobblers.

‘Poor old Kevin’.

But that's what he signed up for, I suppose.

Three major issues I would take up with the producers.

 
1. Fake DOD pass claim.

In 2008 Andre Hollis - President of Van Scoyoc and CEO of Halligan's Oakley International Group - lobbied the US Senate and the Department of Justice on behalf of Halligan's other US business interest - Oakley Strategic Services (owned by decorated US Pentagon adviser, Colonel Ken Irish) at a cost of $20,000 and £5,000 during the period March - April 2008.
Hollis lobbied senate on issues relating to strategic training and consulting services at the Department of Defense Appropriations (this is within weeks of Halligan being hired by the McCanns).

Brian Penda and H Stewart of Van Scoyoc also contributed. Oakley SS (Co. no. 76683897), was registered in November 2007.

No need for a fake pass. KH was very much in the defence loop - even as far back as 2003 when he represented Inkerman/Qinetiq & AEA


2. Did Kevin Halligen’s companies just produce batteries for ‘boilers’?

Channel 5 doc also dismissed KH as having worked on batteries for 'boiler systems' during the troubles?

KH actually worked for DSB Special Batteries during the latter part of 'the troubles'. Here he is in Brighton in 1995:

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

The Brighton session he attended was chaired by 'Dr Barry Lakeman' of the Defence Research Agency - a branch of the MOD until late 1995 (now the DSTL). Halligen presented a paper on Aqueous Rechargeable Batteries. Initially, these were tasked primarily for electric vehicles, before ending up in products like laptops and telecommunication equipment (this is broadly 'fuel cell research')

DSB Special Batteries Ltd, based in Crawley, West Sussex (near Halligen’s home in Surrey), manufactured and marketed battery packs and rechargers for the military, industrial and yes, the commercial markets in the United Kingdom. But it was Lithium batteries that he ended up specialising in.

In 1997 the company was taken over by AEA Technology Systems.

Halligen began research and development on Lithium Ion batteries. Yes, they are used in loads of consumer products (including 'boilers') but they are also used in no end of military hardware (unmanned aerial vehicles (drones) etc).
Inevitably, AEA Technology went on to win contracts with the Ministry of Defence (providing batteries for the Army's Bowman Battlefield System and French Military thermal imaging cameras), the US Departments of Homeland Security and Defense (unmanned aerial vehicles, or UAVs) and NASA (Mars Landing Mission in 2003 and the first Comet Landing Mission).

Given that Halligan was working with Ken Irish at Oakley SS and given his being hired by Inkerman for work on MOD/Qinetiq projects it seems far more likely his work had matured considerably from 'boliers' (a period of 'maturation' that had started at Cap Gemini Erst and Young).

The ‘McCanns and the Conman’ programme deliberately left out what a high-level player Halligan was, and continues to be, in British government and intelligence circles.


3. Henri Exton

As I advised you before, Exton was awarded the Queen’s Police Medal, Grade 7, and on 29 February 2000 received the order of the British Empire  from Her Majesty the Queen. This is no middle grade security services player; he was - as is on the record - formerly the Head of MI5’s Covert Intelligence Section – and you don’t get much higher than that.

At the end of the programme, they slipped in Exton’s 2 e-fits, supposedly prepared from talking to the Smiths. Exton talked to the Smiths all right, in 2008, but neither of those two e-fits were compiled by the Smiths. That should be obvious because all of them admit they never saw his face properly. They were generated by Exton from another source. DCI Redwood knows this fine well.  

 
ENDS

So these guys were no mugs, still didn't come up with the bleeding obvious though did they. It was reported that their written report was highly critical of the parents (but they didn't actually get results) . I would have given them a highly critical report for nowt!

I was surprised that old Halligen was said to have commanded £8m euros for returning an oil industry big wig safely to the bosom of his family, yet was content to accept circa £500k (IIRC) for this assignment

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

So these guys were no mugs, still didn't come up with the bleeding obvious though did they. It was reported that their written report was highly critical of the parents (but they didn't actually get results) . I would have given them a highly critical report for nowt!

That's why I find it surprising that the parents were prepared to throw these kind of sums around on apparently independent investigations that risked coming up with results that were less than favourable. I'd almost be prepared to consider it as mitigating behaviour, if it wasn't for everything else.

But if I was in their tennis shoes I think I'd have just stumped the whole lot up as reward money for anybody who could successfully point a finger at the perpetrator. Provided I was confident that wasn't me, of course.

Tony Bennett wrote:At the end of the programme, they slipped in Exton’s 2 e-fits, supposedly prepared from talking to the Smiths. Exton talked to the Smiths all right, in 2008, but neither of those two e-fits were compiled by the Smiths. That should be obvious because all of them admit they never saw his face properly. They were generated by Exton from another source. DCI Redwood knows this fine well.  

Did your contact suggest who the other source of the e-fits was?

Forgive me for this response Tony.

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

I just want to know the truth of what happened to a innocent girl on holiday. The authorities can sort out any other crime/shenanigans committed after they find out what happened to Madeleine.

The only pertinent thing for me from the Oakley/Halligan/Exton episode is the final Operation Omega report. I doubt we'll ever see that though.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Forgive me for this response Tony.

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

I just want to know the truth of what happened to a innocent girl on holiday. The authorities can sort out any other crime/shenanigans committed after they find out what happened to Madeleine.

The only pertinent thing for me from the Oakley/Halligan/Exton episode is the final Operation Omega report. I doubt we'll ever see that though.

A very understandable reaction TTWO. I want the low down on the sea bass with added omega.  

Very interesting, Tony.

So if we can accept that the team were genuine experts with their claimed connections to high-level government and military departments being true (although Exton's and Craig-Harvey's integrety wasn't undermined in the production) then that does beg the question:

"Why would the McCanns hire them if they didn't want a genuine investigation into the case?"

It would appear Oakley initially hunted for Tannerman as would be expected under any presumed remit issued by the McCanns. But as their enquiries progressed they led down paths less 'helpful' to the McCanns and the final report was hidden after being deemed hypercritical of the McCanns. A hell of a lot of money to spend only for it to be inferred that you yourself did not, shall we say, ' have completely clean hands'.

So did Oakley go off piste? Against the wishes of those who spent almost a million on them to 'find Maddie'. That's A LOT of money for the McCanns to jemmy their notoriously precious purse open to spend on something that ended up not quite with the result they intended.

And a couple more massive questions:

"What was gleaned from Exton's visit to the Smiths?" and

"If the Smiths didn't draw up the e-fits then who the hell did?"

Who else had sight of Smithman that night with such clarity he was able to infer that they could resemble anyone of Gerry, Payne or Wilkin? And what would be their motive for doing that if they hadn't made a sighting that night? Is there another witness that we don't know about who also saw Smithman?

Who is the 'British holidaymaker' who has recently emerged and saw (one presumes) 'Smithman' on the phone? Is s/he the e-fitter?

Dee Coy wrote:Very interesting, Tony.

So if we can accept that the team were genuine experts with their claimed connections to high-level government and military departments being true (although Exton's and Craig-Harvey's integrety wasn't undermined in the production) then that does beg the question:

"Why would the McCanns hire them if they didn't want a genuine investigation into the case?"

It would appear Oakley initially hunted for Tannerman as would be expected under any presumed remit issued by the McCanns. But as their enquiries progressed they led down paths less 'helpful' to the McCanns and the final report was hidden after being deemed hypercritical of the McCanns. A hell of a lot of money to spend only for it to be inferred that you yourself did not, shall we say, ' have completely clean hands'.

So did Oakley go off piste? Against the wishes of those who spent almost a million on them to 'find Maddie'. That's A LOT of money for the McCanns to jemmy their notoriously precious purse open to spend on something that ended up not quite with the result they intended.

ETA would this perhaps be a reason to employ the Exton, Halligen etc. to try to find out if they did know of any technology/ visual information of 3rd May, or indeed before that time which could be 'problematic'.

And a couple more massive questions:

"What was gleaned from Exton's visit to the Smiths?" and

"If the Smiths didn't draw up the e-fits then who the hell did?"

Who else had sight of Smithman that night with such clarity he was able to infer that they could resemble anyone of Gerry, Payne or Wilkin? And what would be their motive for doing that if they hadn't made a sighting that night? Is there another witness that we don't know about who also saw Smithman?

Who is the 'British holidaymaker' who has recently emerged and saw (one presumes) 'Smithman' on the phone? Is s/he the e-fitter?

Any chance that the satellite was not actually turned towards Morocco that night but was pointing at PdL. and did deliver some imagery....
or that the lithium technology for heat seeking imagery could give information on movements of people that could be analysed and turned into 'identifit'.

Just toying with thoughts and ideas re reference in article to "French Military thermal imaging cameras".

Dee Coy wrote:"If the Smiths didn't draw up the e-fits then who the hell did?"

Exactly! The McCanns suppressed the e-fits to the extent of litigating against their own PI to prevent their existence being disclosed. Whoever helped Exton compile them is highly likely to know something about this mystery that the McCanns would rather we didn't know (if only where they saw the e-fit man/men and the circumstances that caused the e-fitter(s) to notice him/them).

BTW the e-fits don't necessarily need to be Smithman

It's true that the programme seemed very, er, how shall I put it... 'selective' in what was included - and, more importantly, omitted.

There is much more to this Halligen affair than the documentary (dared?) to show. Anyone who's looked into it in any detail (as I have over the years, believe me,) knows full well that this programme didn't even get as far as skimming the surface and what was included wasn't all even accurate.

Of that I'm sure.

But then, I'm not surprised.

British media and press are pathetic and collectively need to grow a pair.

Very interesting. I still maintain the view that a business meeting occurred at the Ocean Club week commencing 28 April 2007. The guest lists suggest some kind of project with input from commercial, financial, medical specialists etc. I favour an item of medical diagnostic equipment where Gerry would have had some input due to his MRI / radiation specialism.  Other key players in this scenario are Weinberger who worked for Enigma Diagnostics - a DSTL spin-off - still part owed by DSTL. Such an item of medical equipment is likely to run on the type batteries you describe that were developed by Halligen. Perhaps he had a financial interest in the commercial success of the project e.g via a patent that he owned or part owned?

As I have said before - don't think this meeting / product itself has any sinister implications in terms of Maddies fate - but it might in terms of the high level cover-up to protect personal and corporate reputations.

Did this investigation by oakley etc have any access to the tapas friends, or was that deemed out of scope in their remit ?

SchrodingersBody wrote:Did this investigation by oakley etc have any access to the tapas friends, or was that deemed out of scope in their remit ?

Yes. On the programme they damningly played an interview with JT that was secretly recorded, allegedly.

ETA. It is telling that the Oakley team felt the need to record Jane secretly. Off piste again, or with the MCs knowledge? If the former, I wonder how the MCs reacted to this when they found out? Would they approve or be outraged? Did they trust Jane or (ab)use her? The Mockumentary betrayal is incredibly telling, I think.

More importantly, what was Tanner's reaction when she found she'd been recorded in this way? In his case we can surely safely say she'd be less than happy. So has she retaliated? Guess the answer to that would depend on if she believes the MCs to be complicit or in approval of the secret recording. Or if she considers it a betrayal. A breaking of a pact, in fact.

Is JT single now, btw, as was alluded to earlier this week? Alone with her thoughts?  Where is Russell?

All questions and musings, not facts.

Why automagically assume that there is some grand high conspiracy? 

The simplest explanation is often the best. 

So what conundrum do we need to solve? The Mc's hired a well connected but thoroughly corrupt PI? The Mc's paid large money out of their precious fund to pay for a private investigation which produced no platinum results and levelled criticism at them, which they then suppressed? They already allegedly knew what happened totheir daughter so why spend so much money to create the illusion of an investigation? 

Why? 

Because they were investigating themselves. 

They wanted what PJ were not giving them. They wanted a bunch of shady PI's to be able to get the drop on whatever was happening, to preempt the Bill. To even grill witnesses. To set up the illusion of a 'command centre' through which they could appeal for information and then control the flow of it. 

They used the guise of an investigation into their theories to find out what a bunch of dicks could connect to them. And maybe Exton proved that the evidence was not so far removed from them. One team to produce disinformation, the other to test the leaks. Control freak territory. 

I can understand why it looks like an intel operation. But if it was, it would have worked, added value and been invisible. 

PI's are hardly noted as beacons of virtue. The most effective way to control information, test leaks and tamper with evidence. Halligan was obviously a voracious spender, sociopathic risk taker, adrenaline junkie, fantasist, and must have known heat was going to be coming down on him. At that stage it isn't remotely unusual for people who formerly took big coin to suddenly start grabbing at markedly less significant sums especially if the contract is attached to a high profile case that adds value to the faltering reputation.

1-01pm - 9-17pm

AndyB wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:"If the Smiths didn't draw up the e-fits then who the hell did?"

Exactly! The McCanns suppressed the e-fits to the extent of litigating against their own PI to prevent their existence being disclosed. Whoever helped Exton compile them is highly likely to know something about this mystery that the McCanns would rather we didn't know (if only where they saw the e-fit man/men and the circumstances that caused the e-fitter(s) to notice him/them).

BTW the e-fits don't necessarily need to be Smithman

I believe the e-fits come from the Smith family.  The brief statements of the Smiths that we have access to come from the original PJ files, and are probably only a snapshot of the information they have since given SY probably with the assistance of memory aids and careful indepth questioning.  There were SIX of them, if each only saw the 'abductor's face for a moment, it would be enough to put together efits using the side profiles each family member saw.  

The idea that there is another 'mystery' witness who compiled the efits now known as Smithman is absurd, and a new witness at this stage will be harder to pass off than Crecheman, the dazed father who left it 6 years to tell the 'Search' that he was the man Jane Tanner saw.   

Why should we assume that the e-fits did not come from various members of the Smith family?  A family who voluntarily came forward and have always co-operated with the police, in order to believe that a 'witness' (previously unknown and fabricated on this forum) was behind the e-fit revealed on Crimewatch?

Cristobell wrote:Why should we assume that the e-fits did not come from various members of the Smith family?

Why should we assume that they did? We know nothing of their provenance. The only thing that we do know is that they are probably highly significant because the McCanns suppressed them

Cristobell wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:"If the Smiths didn't draw up the e-fits then who the hell did?"

Exactly! The McCanns suppressed the e-fits to the extent of litigating against their own PI to prevent their existence being disclosed. Whoever helped Exton compile them is highly likely to know something about this mystery that the McCanns would rather we didn't know (if only where they saw the e-fit man/men and the circumstances that caused the e-fitter(s) to notice him/them).

BTW the e-fits don't necessarily need to be Smithman

I believe the e-fits come from the Smith family.  The brief statements of the Smiths that we have access to come from the original PJ files, and are probably only a snapshot of the information they have since given SY probably with the assistance of memory aids and careful indepth questioning.  There were SIX of them, if each only saw the 'abductor's face for a moment, it would be enough to put together efits using the side profiles each family member saw.  

The idea that there is another 'mystery' witness who compiled the efits now known as Smithman is absurd, and a new witness at this stage will be harder to pass off than Crecheman, the dazed father who left it 6 years to tell the 'Search' that he was the man Jane Tanner saw.   

Why should we assume that the e-fits did not come from various members of the Smith family?  A family who voluntarily came forward and have always co-operated with the police, in order to believe that a 'witness' (previously unknown and fabricated on this forum) was behind the e-fit revealed on Crimewatch?

""At the end of the programme, they slipped in Exton’s 2 e-fits, supposedly prepared from talking to the Smiths. Exton talked to the Smiths all right, in 2008, but neither of those two e-fits were compiled by the Smiths. That should be obvious because all of them admit they never saw his face properly. They were generated by Exton from another source. DCI Redwood knows this fine well.   ENDS____________________Tony BennettPosts: 8585Join date: 2009-11-25Age: 66Location: Harlow, Essex  "

The allegation that the Smiths didn't produce the e-fits is one of Tony's correspondent's major points. See extract above.

I have always assumed the Smiths did produce them. But if they didn't, who did? The question was (hypothetically) more for Tony's correspondent.  Does he know of another witness, or does he believe them to be mischievously constructed by a third party who didn't see Smithman at all?

Redwood apparently knows the source. Has he interviewed this person? Redwood clearly trusts the source as he's using it as the major focus in the investigation.  Or is he being 'mischievous' too?

Didn't one of this weeks Portugese press reports (CdM?) say that another witness had seen a man carrying a child and this man was using a mobile and speaking English? Maybe this witness helped produce the efits. I will have a look for the report, it's in the discussion about the proposed SY interviews of the 8 'suspects'.

SchrodingersBody wrote:Did this investigation by oakley etc have any access to the tapas friends, or was that deemed out of scope in their remit ?

My two pennies fwiw -

It seems a twisted irony that Kevin Halligen, out of their series of detectives, is the only one that has real clout and association to people with expertise in certain areas.
He outsourced his work to Exton and the hotline answering company. By a twist of fate, Exton did such a brilliant job at unearthing their abduction story is a whole load of baloney, and the mccanns were not white as driven snow. We know that Exton was disgruntled because KH owed him money so he took his story to a journalist, and got threatened by C-R for that.

I would imagine the fundamental PI work must start from having to obtain as clear a knowledge as possible of the circumstances surrounding the disappearance, hence the best people to get those info are from her parents and JT who saw the alleged abductor. It's anyone guess whether Mccanns were interviewed or not, and if so by whom (KH or Exton). One assumes that KH at the very least would have (or should have) spoken to them if not face to face then at the very least over the phone.

We know for certain JT was interviewed and it came as no surprise (to me anyway) that she was recorded as that is within private detective's MO to record, tape, bug, stalk, trace, and photograph etc their subject matters.
Her being secretly recorded is all within the " secretive, cloak and dagger" mo of the private investigator.

I would think the rest of the T7 did not give him access to them, JT being the only who'd to be interviewed because without her story there is no abduction.

What would be interesting to know is whether KH recorded his exchange with McCanns (if any) and/or BK (certainly) and whether he will expose this at the opportune right timing.

The Channel 5 program ended with a close up of the Operation Omega report and a statement that the contents of the report were the subject of a Court Order. However, they also pointed out that the report formed the basis of Operation Grange.  What we do know about that report is that it produced the e-fits of Smithman and that it was highly critical of the parents - so much so, that they took legal action against the author to keep the report suppressed.  

The makers of the program however know what is in the report and I have a feeling they are preparing a follow up to this program in readiness for when the 'legal gags' are overtaken by events.  The program showed no sympathy towards the parents and stressed over and over, that the McCanns used money that was publicly donated to pay the conman Hallegen.  They could of course have gone further and showed that most of the Private Investigators hired by the McCanns were crooks, but as I say, I think they are holding back and preparing Part II.

Lance De Boils wrote:It's true that the programme seemed very, er, how shall I put it... 'selective' in what was included - and, more importantly, omitted.

There is much more to this Halligen affair than the documentary (dared?) to show. Anyone who's looked into it in any detail (as I have over the years, believe me,) knows full well that this programme didn't even get as far as skimming the surface and what was included wasn't all even accurate.

Of that I'm sure.

But then, I'm not surprised.

British media and press are pathetic and collectively need to grow a pair.

Are you able to elaborate on here on what you discovered, LDB?

Dee Coy wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:It's true that the programme seemed very, er, how shall I put it... 'selective' in what was included - and, more importantly, omitted.

There is much more to this Halligen affair than the documentary (dared?) to show. Anyone who's looked into it in any detail (as I have over the years, believe me,) knows full well that this programme didn't even get as far as skimming the surface and what was included wasn't all even accurate.

Of that I'm sure.

But then, I'm not surprised.

British media and press are pathetic and collectively need to grow a pair.

Are you able to elaborate on here on what you discovered, LDB?

There's a lot of info dotted around on the internet - people started digging for info on this guy when his name was first mentioned in relation to this case. I know Tony's posted a lot of stuff about Halligen. I'm sure he could give you a few pointers if you're interested. Or just do a search for the relevant threads.

Thank you, didn't realise it was all on here.   

Always a good read from Lazzeri....

Time Now to Kick Ass

                 From The McCanns and the Con Man...


Henri Exton and the team completed a report on Operation Omega explaining all the work done and recommendations for future action.   Its authors are legally bound not to discuss it publicly but the report is in the hands of Scotland Yard Detectives.
 
The report funded by public donations reveals that amongst the most ground breaking leads were these two photo E. fits of a possible suspect, not revealed publicly until five years later when they were released by the current Scotland Yard investigation, who described the E.Fits as vitally significant.  

Exton:

"Obviously I can't go into any details but I suppose the regret is that the work we presented, it didn't solve the mystery of her disappearance, but the work that we did do provided significant, significant opportunities to take it to the next level." 

END


So here we have Exton and the producers of 'The McCanns and the Con Man' confirming the press reports, that they, Operation Omega Team were legally gagged/silenced by the McCanns regarding the Report, the publicly funded Report detailing their findings whilst investigating the mystery of Madeleine's disappearance. 

Clearly something therein that the McCanns do not want the public or anyone else for that matter to know.
What we do know, is that:

• The report is said to be hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends.
  
• That it contained E.Fits of a suspect which the McCanns kept hidden for FIVE YEARS!
  
  
  

What we don't know is why:

• Madeleine's mummy and daddy would hide the E.Fits of a possible suspect, now the main suspect in the Metropolitan Police Investigation?   E.Fits paid for by the public.
  
• Hide a Report, also publicly funded?
  
• Why the parents of a missing child would betray her in this way?
  

We can all have a good guess as to the why - because let's face it - there can be no innocent or justifiable reason to have hidden information crucial to the disappearance of their daughter information which may have led to the whereabouts of Madeleine/her remains being discovered.

Add to this that one of the E.Fit looks like Gerry McCann...

There is no justifiable reason that can be given to the public for spending the monies in the way that they have, to then not disclose information which could have helped the child, and to deceive the public.

This together with the stories the McCanns and their buddies invented, and told the world make it extremely difficult to believe that DCI Redwood is seriously considering that a bunch of burglars removed Madeleine from Apartment 5A one of them walking through the streets for all to see, kill the child, and then bury her close by.

It is also extremely difficult to imagine that he is not looking at Gerry McCann his wife Kate Healy McCann, David Payne, Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield, Matthew Oldfield, Jane Tanner and Russell O'Brien.

If he really isn't, he must have police forces around the globe watching him digging dirt in the scrub land area of PDL in complete and utter amazement.  The McCanns quite literally having the Met on their knees!

Extremely difficult to think that Scotland Yard did not find the hiding of crucial information in the case of a missing child, by her parents...to be suspicious!

If Exton decided to speak up - to ignore the legal gag imposed on him there is not a person in the world who would blame him for doing so -  To have been silenced by the McCanns their legal team, a most despicable callous act on their part when their daughter is missing.

It is simply beyond comprehension if they are not involved in her disappearance that they would do so.

One question though for Exton he spoke of the E.Fit of the long haired guy with the moustache and the person who supplied the description appeared in this documentary.  The other two E.Fits, released by Redwood and his team -  still as yet no confirmation as to who provided the descriptions for these!

No clue as to where the persons in the E.Fits were seen, what location, the when and where. Redwood hasn't supplied this either,and there is nothing stopping him from disclosing!

Does Redwood have what it takes to kick ass..?

The producers of McCanns and the Con Man, Exton and others had the guts to give them a kick in the teeth...

Ball is in Redwood's court now!



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
7th June 2014

This one as well.....

A 2nd Kick in the Teeth

The McCanns and the Conman Documentary...

'The public has never been told how the investigation was conducted but the files reveal that one of the key witnesses was recorded - Jane Tanner the woman who had seen a man carrying a child away on the night of the 3rd May.'.

[size=16]Jane, Jane, the woman whose story each time she tells it, is never the same.

Gerry McCann stated in interview with Sandra Felgueiras that the alleged abductor - "almost got caught."

[size=22][size=16]When asked by Sandra Felgueiras by whom? - the ever arrogant McCann replied -   "By Jane!"

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

26:45 mins

Yeah, Gerry McCann likes his little joke.   He and his wife Kate Healy McCann know Jane Tanner never saw anyone carrying off a child, let alone a man carrying off Madeleine, a man he claims, she almost caught in the act of abducting his kid!

Almost funny McCann, if it were not for the fact it's YOUR daughter who is missing.

When God was giving out gall - he gave it in abundance to the Gerry and Kate McCann.

Not only do they ask you for your cash and fully expect to get it as though they have a right to it - they expect also, that you believe the lies, the spin.

Dr Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese Investigation sussed Tanner her BIG FAT LIEright from the start.  She was NOT a credible witness.

Andy Redwood, the Metropolitan Police, also sussed Tanner her BIG FAT LIE, he knows too that she is not a credible witness that she never saw a man carrying off Madeleine.

Redwood did however dress it up a bit - he came up with another tale to cover for her BIG FAT LIE by saying that, well she did see someone, she did see a guy carrying a child BUT IT JUST WASN'T A MAN CARRYING OFF MADELEINE.

He wants the public to believe that there was, in this sleepy village, on the night Madeleine vanished a man walking around carrying a child dressed in pyjamas which he said were similar to Madeleine's.   Only problem was he produced a pair of 6 year old pyjamas that were nothing like those Madeleine supposedly was wearing!

There was also another man walking around the village that evening with a child of similar age to Madeleine, and yes you've guessed it, she too was wearing pyjamas similar to Madeleine's, and the man carrying her described by an eye witness as being Gerry McCann.

Redwood however, as far as one can tell, is not considering that this man could have been McCann.

So what we now have is two men wearing almost identical clothing carrying a child dressed in pyjamas, one man being long haired the other short haired like Gerry McCann.

Boy, what are the chances of that - two guys dressed the same, carrying kids who were also dressed the same, in pyjamas, walking through the village on the same night Madeleine vanished, one with short hair, one with long?
 
The first one sighted by Tanner (supposedly) Redwood ruled out altogether. The second guy, seen by an independent witness and his family, thought at least one of them, to be McCann - begs the question really - Why is Redwood not looking at McCann?

Does this mean that he does not believe Mr Smith the eye witness, or does it mean that Mr Smith is not now sure of who he saw?

And if Redwood is not going down the route that this was Gerry McCann - what makes him so sure then that it was Madeleine being carried off? Redwood doesn't know that it was.   If he did, and had the evidence, quite possibly there would have been arrests.

If it wasn't Madeleine, we then have three children on that night, three little girls wearing pyjamas who were taken from one location to another on this night.  Two carried through the streets.  Was Madeleine?  Or was Madeleine taken from one location to another in a vehicle, and out of town?

Who is to say she wasn't?

The persons who planned this "abduction" would surely not have planned to carry her through the streets in her pyjamas.  A better plan would have been a vehicle for sure.  And they definitely didn't plan to kill her and wander a few hundred yards down the road and bury her!

This also means that not only were there at least two guys walking around carrying a child in this village on that night, but that there was also a Gerry McCann look-a-like on the loose!   God forbid, two Gerry McCanns!

Redwood might have gotten rid of Tannerman, but in doing so (if he is not looking at Gerry McCann as being the man Mr Smith saw) he dug himself a big hole, and he now doesn't appear able to get out of it.   By leaving McCann out of it - he leaves too many unanswered questions!

[/size][/size][/size]

• The Timeline
  
• The whooshing curtain story
  
• The Checking of the children - which is a pack of lies!
  
• The tale told by Gerry McCann about how he entered the apartment, one police statement he said he entered by front door.  The next - through an unlocked patio door.
  
• The tale told by Matthew Oldfield about checking the McCann kids, not once but twice on this night something he'd never done before.
  
• The tale told by Tanner and her sighting
  
• The tale told by O'Brien who filled up the washer that night.
  
• The tale told by David Payne who claims to have visited Kate and kids in 5A
  
• The tale told by Fiona Payne who claims Kate McCann left the patio door unlocked to allow Madeleine to leave if she so wished, to go look for her parents.
  
• The tale told about jemmied shutters - which were not jemmied but opened from inside - a staged scene as the British forensic expert alluded to.
  

[size=16]
The list is endless - So if Redwood is not considering McCann as a suspect or any of this group - then he has one hell of a lot of explaining to do as to the lies and inconsistencies told by the McCanns and their buddies!

But back to Jane Tanner.  Seems its a hat- trick.   Not only did the Portuguese Police not believe her fantastic tale of seeing Madeleine being carried off, neither did Andy Redwood of the Metropolitan Police, and now, due to this documentary 'The McCanns and the Con Man' we now know that the private detectives too knew she was lying through her teeth, that it was all a BIG FAT LIE! 

In the course of the private investigation by Halligan he and a colleague conducted an interview with Jane Tanner.  They began by checking one of her witness statements.  There was a recording device in the room.

Meanwhile in another room Major Tim Craig-Harvey, Halligan's business parter was sitting alone listening to the conversation which was being recorded.

Jane Tanner was shown a picture of a man (an innocent man) and asked if this is who she had seen on the night Madeleine vanished.  She confirmed that it was.

Major Tim Craig-Harvey:

"She was then presented with a photograph of this guy George in the market at which point she broke down and said 'that's the guy I saw carrying the child.'  "

Dr Richard Parton
Analyst Omega Investigation speaking of Tanner:

" ... but the more she had to describe him, the more inaccurate she became"

Major Tim Craig- Harvey:

"My understanding is that it was felt she was not as credible a witness as we had hoped."

No one believed Jane Tanner - Not the Portuguese Police, not the Metropolitan Police and NOT the McCanns OWN PRIVATE INVESTIGATION!

The public have been led up the garden path in respect of the Find Madeleine Fund, and here too we see that 'up the garden path' is exactly where they were led by the McCanns in relation to the McCann private investigation - in fact in respect of ALL the McCann private investigations.

[/size]

• Metodo 3 the crooks - a nonsense of an investigation which cost £350,000 of publicly donated monies.
  
  

• The sham that was the documentary 'Madeleine Was Here' - which Dave Edgar another of the McCann detectives oversaw during the course of his private investigation. A documentary filled to bursting with misleading information, lies and deceit.  A documentary where Edgar went along with Jane Tanner's sighting!   That tells us such a lot about him his character, his integrity, or lack of!
  
  

• And the Halligan Investigation, Omega. 
  
  

In the case of Halligan and his team, unlike the others, Metodo and Edgar, they were the only group to investigate and come up with credible information.

They ruled out Jane Tanner as being a credible witness, and they also produced E.Fits of the man seen by the Smith family.

Sadly for Madeleine - her parents chose NOT to have these E.Fits published and circulated.

Her parents dished her a double whammy!  As we now know from this documentary - Halligan and his team were able to discredit the witness statements given by Jane Tanner, her sighting of a man with a child was just not credible, but her mummy and daddy kept plugging this from then until NOW.

Despite Andy Redwood also dismissing this sighting the McCanns did not remove the image from their Find Madeleine website>

Why would her parents do this - IGNORE the findings of TWO police forces (three if we count Leicestershire, if they agreed with the others) and HIDE also the E.Fits of the man seen by the Smith family, keeping them under wraps for years?

Does that sound like parents desperate to find their missing kid?

And did I say a double whammy?  Well let's make it a triple!

The McCann private investigation by Halligan and his team of MI5 agents produced a Report back in 2008 which was also kept under wraps by the McCanns in other words  - hidden away.

The report was said to be hypercritical of the McCanns and their friends.

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

'A report they produced was "hypercritical" of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it were ever published, the paper reported.'

How can DCI Andy Redwood and his team not be "looking at" Kate and Gerry McCann and their team of buddies?

There is quite clearly much more to go on which points to them being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine than there is against unknown burglars, drug addicts, paedophiles, cleaners, cooks, laundry men, tractor men...in fact anyone else on the planet! 

This documentary McCanns and the Con Man cannot possibly have gone down well with Team McCann with this second kick in the teeth!


l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
7th June 2014

MaybeMaybenot wrote:1-01pm - 9-17pm

?????? What does this mean?!

McCanns and the Con Man



McCons and the Can Men?!