Re: Digging to start next week (continuation of automatically locked thread) - UPDATE... starting today 2/6/14

[tigger]

Have I missed something? Who is Janet please?

Janet Marie Kennedy, if I have it right, is the 'anon' that has been discovered to be Kate McCann's posting name.
Someone else hopefully will say which site it is from, and if I'm correct.   

I think it was Janet Marie James?  Janet Kennedy is her aunt.

That figures, isn't a James the son of JK?

[Woofer]

daffodil:

"pro bono" is what Gerry gets when Kate grabs his crotch on tv interviews!   

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

[Hicks]

Please take a look at this link. Scroll down to the post by Janet Marie James. I wonder what she means by, " the whole disgusting network"? 



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

[tiny]

Please take a look at this link. Scroll down to the post by Janet Marie James. I wonder what she means by, " the whole disgusting network"? 



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

Just had a look and don't understand about the "whole disgusting network thing" any more than" and all the other missing children ", does she mean
missing from Portugal,she seems bit of an idiot

[Hicks]

PeterMac refers to Kate as Janet a well. Perhaps he can tell us more. I just Googled the name and found that link.

[tiny]

Oh well if it is kate then I was right ,she is an idiot,any way it cant be her as kate has been back to Portugal many a time and this janet said she would never go back there, but then again we know kate lies.

[Gillyspot]

Personally I think JMJ is not Kate. Here is JMJ's latest blog. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[aiyoyo]

Could there be more than one JMJ ?

The rubbish one is kate   Queen

And the other one is wotsit. 

[Hicks]

Personally I think JMJ is not Kate. Here is JMJ's latest blog. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Not quite sure what that blog is all about to be honest. Who originally said JMJ is Kate McCann?

[Guest]

The JMJ identity was mentioned here.

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

[Hicks]

Thanks NFWTD. I would not be surprised if JMJ really was KM. Umm.....interesting.

[aiyoyo]

Thanks NFWTD. I would not be surprised if JMJ really was KM. Umm.....interesting.

Or her sock   

[Guest]

Oh dearie me...............


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

[Woofer]

But that`s old news.
 
From Portugal Resident a couple of weeks ago :-
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I`d already searched for a Clara Corrigan on Ancestry - no one born in UK or Ireland about 1966 with that name and no Claras having married a Corrigan.  In fact I wondered if the name was a mis-print and its meant to be Claire.

[Justformaddie]

It would also make "Shane" 13yrs old at the time he says he killed maddie? Caught shirtless and covered in blood at 22yrs old, but, aged 13 not a single trace?

[petunia]

Lol whoever wrote that Woofer helped Kate write her book IMO.  Wonder what Bridget is  up to these days.

[Guest]

But that`s old news.

From Portugal Resident a couple of weeks ago :-

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

Quite. Which makes the timing of this even more, um, predictable.   

Nowt's changed, after all.

[Guest]

why is this being re-hashed now?

deecoy its hardly in the mcs favour,as ludicrous as it is-they believe that there is no sign she is r.i.p.

[ShuBob]

But that`s old news.

From Portugal Resident a couple of weeks ago :-

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

Quite. Which makes the timing of this even more, um, predictable.   

Nowt's changed, after all.

The way I see it, this rehash by the Express may be to help Amaral's case come Monday   

[missmar1]

It would also make "Shane" 13yrs old at the time he says he killed maddie? Caught shirtless and covered in blood at 22yrs old, but, aged 13 not a single trace?

Mmm ?   Is his true age at the time he  "did it"  also included in this article ?

[Justformaddie]

It would also make "Shane" 13yrs old at the time he says he killed maddie? Caught shirtless and covered in blood at 22yrs old, but, aged 13 not a single trace?

Mmm ?   Is his true age at the time he  "did it"  also included in this article ?

He's 22yrs old now and maddie vanished in 07, unless he abducted her when he was 13yrs old and decided to kill her a few years later? IMO he can only be talking bull if he said it  

[jeanmonroe]

"But the fact remains that by coincidence she saw one of the kidnappers in the middle of the crime - The Portuguese police are discounting this fact though and calling Jane Tanner a liar because it does not fit in with their theory."
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"she saw only ONE of the kidnappers in the middle of THE crime"?

Shudda gone to specsavers then, our Jane. There were, at the last count, by UK police, the gang of THREE and the gang of FIVE!

And SY/MET must also be calling Jane Tanner a 'liar' musn't they?

Because they discounted this 'fact' because it also does not 'fit in' with their theory, either.

As DCI Redwood of Operation Strange was so eager to tell us on BBC Crimewatch, with it's record viewing figures!

[jeanmonroe]

I wonder how Mommie (Dearest) will explain to the twins that it is not THEM who are 'next', as Express front page 'screams' but some other woman? (in much smaller print) that you'd have difficulty in reading from a distance, unlike the HUGE print 'I killed Maddie, you're next'

The twins, by now, must know that THEY were also left alone in the same room as Madeleine, and they too could have been 'abducted' or 'worse' while mummy and daddy were 'dining' out of sight in the tapas restaurant.

UNLESS mummy and daddy haven't told them, yet, that they too were put totally, consciously, at risk, by them, of God knows what.

"Mommie Dearest, i thought you said that our Maddie was 'alive' and people should donate to your private fund, to fund the search for her"
"The paper, in the shop, says a man has killed Maddie"
"so why do you still want kiddies and OAP's to donate to your private fund?"

"Because er, umm............"

[Dutchgirl]

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

[ultimaThule]

And it was noticeable how quickly that changed to a bill for a third of a million when they were trying to intimidate one of their victims.
What they did, of course, was prove that Prosecution Exhibit KH 1 is totally unreliable.
Well done !

Wow...really? What are the specifics on this?

Have a look at the very long thread on the Libel trial against TB.
Essentially C-R threatened TB that if a single sentence of his book were found to be libellous he would have to bear the entire costs - which from memory were 0.3m
So all the guff about pro-bono was just that.  A lie by Kate / Janet, repeated in her book, Exhibit KH 1 but proved to be false by C-R themselves
Under that sort of Financial pressure -  WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL,  if morally reprehensible - TB gave the undertaking not to repeat what he had said.  

C-R are experts in this.  Acknowledged across the Western World as Masters of using procedural law in this way, and therefore of ensuring that the main argument - that of the FACTS - never, ever comes before a court.  
That is their skill and expertise, and we saw it at work.
But TB did manage to get one fact out into the open and into the record.
That despite having spend several YEARS preparing the case, C-R were unable to produce a single piece of evidence that Madeleine had been abducted.
Not one.   Nothing    NADA
And the reason ? Because there obviously is none.

And then they slammed TB with costs after the trial, and he has to pay a third of his State Pension for the rest of his life, for what Kate / Janet says was "pro-bono" work

I may have got this wrong but I seem to recall you recently stated that TB had not been found guilty of libel in this case which served to spark my curiousity PeterM, and having read a number of historic threads relating to what appear to be contempt of court proceedings against TB, I'd be obliged if you could provide a link to 'very long thread' you've mentioned (above). .

[PeterMac]

I may have got this wrong but I seem to recall you recently stated that TB had not been found guilty of libel in this case which served to spark my curiousity PeterM, and having read a number of historic threads relating to what appear to be contempt of court proceedings against TB, I'd be obliged if you could provide a link to 'very long thread' you've mentioned (above). .

see
Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy / Libel Trials

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

[Tony Bennett]

I may have got this wrong but I seem to recall you recently stated that TB had not been found guilty of libel in this case which served to spark my curiousity PeterM, and having read a number of historic threads relating to what appear to be contempt of court proceedings against TB, I'd be obliged if you could provide a link to 'very long thread' you've mentioned (above). .

see
Carter-Ruck / McCanns / Bennett / Smethurst / Kennedy / Libel Trials

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

The judgment of the High Court, in February 2013, was that I had committed the non-criminal act of civil contempt of court, for breaching undertakings given over three years earlier.

The Court did NOT adjudicate on whether or not I had libelled the McCanns. The Court did not allow the McCanns' libel claim against me to proceed, nor my application to be freed from some of the undertaklngs I had given.

Instead, they ruled that the Court must first adjudicate on whether or not I had broken any undertakings BEFORE they would look at anything else.

Exhausted and facing complete financial ruin, I was forced to (a) withdraw my application to be freed from my undertakings and (b) withdraw my appeal to the Court of Appeal (already lodged) against Mr Justice Tugendhat's ruling. In return, the McCanns reduced substantially the amount of Carter-Ruck's (i.e. the McCanns') costs that I was required to pay.

+++++++++++

OK, having got that out of the way, I thought we should have an update on the seriously impressive statistics which Operation Grange has, well, tried to impress us with.

Less than 3 months ago, on 19 March to be precise, DCI Redwood wowed the country with this array of stats:

dozens of international rogatory letters to be sent to several countries

41 ‘priority areas of work’ to be undertaken

the ownership of over 11,000 mobile ’phones

in 31 countries to be checked

287 ‘requests’ made

thousands more ‘actions’ to be undertaken, in addition to the 5,569 already taken

38 more ‘persons of interest’ to eliminate, 22 already having been eliminated

530 sex offenders still to check, 61 of them described as 'priority'

26 visits by Grange to the Algarve

£7 million-plus spent already.



And now, this week, we have a brand new statistic, according to the Daily Mail's report on Thursday:

"A Met spokesman said 41 ‘ground anomalies’ – areas where the earth had been disturbed – were discovered by aerial surveys and ground-penetrating radar equipment".



These stats are obvioulsy meant to convince us all that Operation Grange is genuine.

I see that while I've been away this week, though, Goncalo Amaral has referred to the Operation Gramge digs in Praia da Luz as, inter alia:

(1) 'a farce' ,

(2) 'a movie just for show',

(3) 'something staged for the media',

(4) 'creating a ghost',

(5) 'a way of making us forget that which exists' 

(6) which is being carried out by 'completely mad people'.

I respectfully agree with all these points made by Dr Goncalo Amaral.

Except that I disagree with one word.

I would substitute the word 'corrupt' for 'mad'. 

[Praia]

I agree Tony. You picked the right week to be away as our collective blood pressure soared as we watched the "searches" stutter to a finish.

[noddy100]

Surely the McCanns will sue the Express as the headline would be terrifying to the twins and it is something they should be shielded from?

[Cristobell]

Surely the McCanns will sue the Express as the headline would be terrifying to the twins and it is something they should be shielded from?

I sometimes wonder if the Express are tormenting them?  Seems any story will do, and today's is right up there with 'taken by a dingo' - the 'stabber' was 15 when Maddie was 'abducted'.  The headline does however keep the story up to date in the minds of their readers, in readiness for any major (real) news breaking.