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

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!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWyjVmxWzDY

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.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10407664/Madeleine-McCann-critical-new-evidence-is-from-five-year-old-suppressed-report.html   

'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?!

 

j.rob wrote:McCanns and the Con Man



McCons and the Can Men?!

  

The McCanns And The Conman

10 June 2014 | Posted by Joana Morais  Leave a Comment  

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2014/06/following-investigation-set-up-by.html

Following the investigation set up by security consultant Kevin Halligen, this one-off documentary features exclusive interviews with ex-MI5 undercover operatives, the FBI and ex-military personnel.

Based on unprecedented access, this one-hour film tells the story of security consultant Kevin Halligen and Operation Omega, the secret investigation to find missing child Madeleine McCann in 2008.

Producer/Director: Adrian Gatton
Associate Producer: Mark Olden
Editor: Mark Senior
Executive Producer: Jacqui Wilson

Many thanks for posting that.

What a load of nonsense. Millions spent chasing Tannerman for months, only to find he was not involved,
and all neatly destroyed by DCI Redwood in one afternoon, five YEARS after Dr Amaral had dismissed him . . .
How naïf could they all really be that they didn't go back to the start, but relied on what they were told
But there again Carter-Ruck relied on what they were told, so I suppose it is par for the course if people are paying you enough !

I have uncovered a further reference to Kevin Halligen - see bits in red below - also refers to one of Halligen's former employers, Ernst & Young:

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


http://www.slideshare.net/VidaB/chapter-5recognizing-the-symptoms-of-fraud

Chapter 5: Recognizing the symptoms of fraud

Presentation Transcript

• Carol Zhang
  
  
• ¨ Fraud is a crime that is seldom observed.¨ John J . Hall (1996)¨ “Fraud symptoms—the specific, observable signs that fraud might be present—may he of the actual fraud or of the cover-up attempt.”(p.85)
  
  
• 1. Accounting anomalies 2. Internal control weaknesses 3. Analytical anomalies 4. Unusual behavior 5. Extravagant lifestyle 6. Tips and complaints
  
  
• Common anomaly frauds involve:¨ Irregularities in source documents¨ Faulty journal entries¨ Inaccuracies in ledgers
  
  
• ¨ Irregularities in source documents¨ Normal¨ Fraud
  
  
• ¨ Faulty journal entries
  
  
• ¨ Inaccuracies in ledgers
  
  
• Internal control fraud symptoms include :¨ Lack of segregation of duties¨ Lack of physical safeguards¨ Lack of independent checks¨ Lack of proper authorization¨ Lack of proper documents and records¨ Overriding of existing controls (most common)¨ Inadequate accounting system
  
  
• ¨ CFO and treasure stolen more than $6 millions in less than 5 years.¨ False tractions frequently but in small amount
  
  
• Relatives of CFO-A Relatives of CFO-A Relatives of treasure-A Relatives of Treasure-B CFO Company A treasure Company B Company DCompany C Billing Payment Authorization Symptoms ?
  
  
• ¨ Three simple procedures to prevent small business fraud 1. Owners should open and reconcile bank statements 2. Pay everything by check so there is a record 3. Owners should sign every check themselves
  
  
• Ernst and Young has not been negligent in performing the audit
  
  
• ? Year end 2004/G corporation Book: more than $40M Bank: around $400 Bank officer Lent to other Stock Market FM conspire PWC Send confirmation
  
  
• ¨ Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002¨ imposes potentially serious penalties on firm executives with fines of up to $5 million and/or imprisonment up to 20 years¨ At the same time, this legislation requires that these firms tighten their internal controls over financial reporting.
  
  
• ¨ Strange financial statement relationships¨ Cash shortages or overages¨ Excessive late charges¨ Unreasonable expenses or reimbursements¨ Excessive turnover of executives¨ Physical abnormalities
  
  
• ¨ How to calculate the stone pour into river?¨ Sufficient paper documents
  
  
• RM not enough Shipping in bad weather Ships were not enough Fraud
  
  
• ¨ Case in 2013¨ Expense padding by Kevin Richard Halligen¨ Former CEO of a security consulting and crisis management firm-RDI¨ 2.1 millions with 1.7 millions buying a house for herself
  
  
• Elements of fraud Theft act Concealment Conversion Company employees are in the best position to detect fraud
  
  
• ¨ Symptoms rather than evidence¨ People hesitant to come forward:¡ Not Sure about the fact¡ Fear reprisal for being a whistle-blower¡ Intimidated by the perpetrator¡ May regard squealing is wrong¡ Not easy within organization
  
  
• ¨ Law protect Whistle-Blowers and Promote Fraud Detections¨ Whistleblower Representation of SEC
  
  
• ¨ Barra, R. A. (2010). The impact of internal controls and penalties on fraud. Journal of information Systems, 24(1), 1-21.¨ Ge. C.(2005). Audit as a leader. China: Jixie Industry.¨ Former CEO of London based company pleads guilty to federal charge in 2.1 million fraud scheme, (2013). Press releases of FBI Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/press-releases/2013/former-ceo-of-london-based-company-pleads-guilty-to-federal-charge-in-2.1-million-fraud-scheme¨ Whistleblower Representation of SEC Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fsIKSXM1gk&list=PL97A225800A DE733F¨ Hall, J. J. (1996). How To Spot Fraud: Many managers consider some level of" shrinkage" as normal. Journal of Accountancy, 182, 85-85.¨ Hongtao.Hou (2007). The analysis of legal responsibility of CPA: G-Waigaoqiao Corporation VS PWC .Journal of Accounting and Finance ,2010(4),49-59