Re: Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed

by margaret 02.07.14 19:47

sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

by plebgate 02.07.14 19:50

I hate cryptic stuff too, why not come out and say it clearly?

by Indricotherium 02.07.14 19:53

margaret wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

Looking at the context I think he's referring to the suspicions about abuse by UK politicians.

by Guest 02.07.14 19:55

[quote="ultimaThule"] [...] It will be at least be possible to establish whether any hairs found came from a living or a dead body, [ [...]/quote]
***
Yeah, ROOT banding. The "smoking gun" it was called years ago by a seasoned ex police-woman. BUT you need hair with roots ... In the absence of roots, the modern techniques now extract full and reliable DNA from the inside of the hair shaft. And that opens a couple of windows, so to speak big grin

by sofieellis 02.07.14 19:56

Indricotherium wrote:
margaret wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

Looking at the context I think he's referring to the suspicions about abuse by UK politicians.

Yes, I think you're probably right, looking at his other tweets.

by Guest 02.07.14 19:57

Tony Bennett wrote:

Back in 2010, when I complied the long article about Robert Murat, for some reason it seems I did miss out any reference to Jose Carlos Fernandes da Silva. His statement is below, for reference, if anyone is really interested.

I tried to find all the witness statements from anyone named 'da Silva' or 'Silva' but it seems I missed that one.

But the one I was really interested in was Jorge Manuel da Silva, because he was at the Palmeras Golf Club on the afternoon of Thursday 3 May.

So, in summary - Should be interested in Murat/JMdS, actually interested in Malinka/JCFdS?

by plebgate 02.07.14 19:57

Indricotherium wrote:
margaret wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

Looking at the context I think he's referring to the suspicions about abuse by UK politicians.

Thanks for that, so what was the point of the tweet as anybody could have said that- as it is clear some people would not be happy about it?

by Tickle48 02.07.14 19:57

If this is true about hairs on the sofa, my thought was that the hairs might be from the twins? A close match, surely? Someone posted earlier to say there might be a link between MC, RM, SM, the tapas 7 and what the Gaspars said. Just a thought.

BTW I think if SY have gone back to the UK they have got enough from the interviews to maybe arrest in the UK now.

Also I think Mark Williams-Thomas is definitely referring to the McCanns claim "to leave no stone unturned."

by plebgate 02.07.14 19:59

Tickle48 wrote:If this is true about hairs on the sofa, my thought was that the hairs might be from the twins? A close match, surely? Someone posted earlier to say there might be a link between MC, RM, SM, the tapas 7 and what the Gaspars said. Just a thought.

BTW I think if SY have gone back to the UK they have got enough from the interviews to maybe arrest in the UK now.

Also I think Mark Williams-Thomas is definitely referring to the McCanns claim "to leave no stone unturned."

Dantz. has posted showing that some hairs were found in SM's car, no mention of hairs on the sofa apparently.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:01

TheTruthWillOut wrote:So if Gerry, Murat, Walczuk and Da Silva were all at this golf club (on 3rd May), what could they possibly be doing to go to such great lengths to hide the fact when a child is missing? (claimed to be abducted)

But then you would think there would be plenty of witnesses if all four were there, so a piece of cake to check...

Below is my summary (written back in 2010) of what Murat told the police in his second interview.

In response to your point above, TTWO, I think the first the police knew that Murat and others had been at the Palmeras Golf Club on the afternoon of 3 May would have been at this interview with Murat, over two months later. When you stop and think about it, the police knew by then, from his mobile 'phone pings, that Murat had been in the vicinity of the Palmeras Golf Club that afternoon.

Now, in his second interview, Murat confirmed that. There would really be no reason to go and check if those three were there that afternoon - and again, who could remember who exactly they saw at a golf club, social club or bar on a date over two months ago?

Murat's second account of what he was doing on 3 May below:

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

Now Murat comes to various changes of story as to what happened on Thursday 3 May, the day Madeleine was reported missing. He again emphasises how tired and confused he had been when he gave his earlier statement.

Now he told the police quite a different account of that day’s events.

He now said he woke at 8.00am and left the house by 8.45am. In fact, he said, he had a scheduled appointment to keep at a business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district near Almádena. Michaela was with him. He was asked about how Michaela happened to be with him as early as 8.45am, but now remembered that she had ‘come over to Praia da Luz’, but didn’t say how, and the police didn’t press him. He said that they both then drove in his mother’s VW Transporter to the meeting, arriving there at 9.30am. He says it was there in Espiche that they had a meeting, although Michaela Walczuk had claimed the meeting had taken place in her apartment.

A possible explanation for Murat ‘remembering’ his visit to Espiche is that by then, he knew that the police records of his mobile ’phone placed him at Espiche that morning.

He now told police about the details of this meeting, which he had been entirely unable to remember during his first interview with them. There, he and Michaela had met the female owner’s father-in-law [unnamed in the Portuguese Police files]. He asserted that he didn’t remember his name but said that he was a ‘builder from Lagos’. The owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex [also unnamed] arrived to join the meeting a little later.

They continued talking and all had lunch together - making it all the more remarkable that Murat had omitted to give details of this meeting at his earlier interview.

After lunch, Murat and Michaela had gone to the Marina in Lagos where they met with Jorge and his son again. But contrary to his previous claims, Michaela’s daughter, C______, did not accompany them that day.

Now Murat said they went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, where they remained until the time to pick up C______, i.e. around 3.30pm. Murat said that Jorge and his son Jason were again in the car. He dropped them off near the Post Office on the way to pick up C______. The three of them then drove to Michaela’s house for 3.45pm and stayed there until around 7.30pm. He says he then drove straight home and didn’t stop anywhere en route.

For the rest of the evening, he stuck to his account, but acknowledged that he made two telephone calls that night, one to Sergei Malinka at 11.39pm and another at 11.40pm to Michaela. He couldn’t remember having made these calls, but acknowledged that he did make these calls although he couldn’t remember what they were about. Up until recently, the Daily Mail was still, bizarrley, carrying on its website a public apology to Sergei Malinka for ever having suggested that the two men spoke with each other that night.

From an article written in 2010

by TheTruthWillOut 02.07.14 20:01

plebgate wrote:I hate cryptic stuff too, why not come out and say it clearly?

He could be talking about anything with that tweet. Could just be winding up certain (McCann case) followers....

by Cristobell 02.07.14 20:01

tasprin wrote:
Cristobell wrote:When the McCanns requested a Review, back in November 2010, they put forward a report by Jim Gamble and CEOP. Jim Gamble's report would have contained recommendations, and guidelines as to how the Review should go forward. I think we can safely say that Jim Gamble's recommendations weren't followed. They weren't picked up by the incumbent Labour government, and they were ignored by Theresa May - Remember Kate's complaint that she would only give them 'fluffy words'.

I don't know who drew up the new guidelines for the Review, they were never given credit, but I am 100% certain that this Review is not the one the McCanns wanted.

In November 2010, the McCanns were almost broke. They went on a big fundraising campaign, appearing on every programme that would have them to tell us the good deeds they would do if we donated more money to them. However, every campaign must have a 'cause', something to aim for. On that occasion, the McCanns were asking for a Review. They felt safe in requesting this, because any review would have been based on the report prepared by Jim Gamble and CEOP and it would all be done and dusted before the General Election. However, they did not foresee a change in government or Jim Gamble's resignation from CEOP.
Cristobell, from mccannfiles.com, this NOTW article, dated April 2010, regarding Gambles 'scoping exercise', absolutely trashes the PJ, but it's interesting to note just how involved the British police were in the case, with 196 visits to Portugal between May 2007-July 2008.

Brits launch Maddie probe, 10 April 2010

Brits launch Maddie probe News of the World

10/04/2010 (Later updated: 'By Lucy Panton, 11/04/2010')

BRITISH police are to launch a new probe into missing Madeleine McCann after massive failures were found in the Portuguese investigation.

Our top child protection cop Jim Gamble has completed a fresh look at the three-year-old investigation for the Home Office.

He told ministers there were huge holes in the original inquiry that need to be revisited if they want to "come close" to reaching UK standards.

It will come as a bitter pill for Portuguese investigators who have fended off criticism since Maddie disappeared in 2007.

Portugese police left 'gaping' holes

But parents Kate and Gerry McCann, both 41 and both doctors, are "delighted" at the move.

Failures in the original investigation are said to be "so gaping" that British authorities feel it is their duty to look at it again.

This time police will review all the leads using technology and standards expected in a homicide or kidnap case in the UK.

Mr Gamble, head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, found a basic failure to collate information and join up links that should have been made.

Telephone records were not properly analysed, missing early opportunities for leads.

And Kate and Gerry McCann were named as Arguidos, or formal suspects, by Portuguese police - something that the review says would not have happened if the probe had been carried out in the UK.

Mr Gamble found no evidence sufficient to make them suspects. His findings have now been formally submitted to the Home Office with recommendations to re-investigate.

The damning review has now set the Association of Chief Police Officers the difficult task of trying to decide who takes on the mammoth task. It is already predicted to be "an extremely costly" investigation that, even if done properly, will probably never be solved.

Damning: Jim Gamble
A source said: "It is something that has to be reviewed. It is only right that the McCanns are given the satisfaction that everything that could be done has been done. It now comes down to who is up to the job."

The Home Secretary Alan Johnson is expected to announce that the new probe will NOT be carried out by Leicestershire police, the McCanns' local force. The review has highlighted failures within their handling of the case and ruled them out of the review.

Instead ACPO are now asking around their top cops to see who could take on the very difficult and complex investigation.

The source added: "It will be extremely costly and sadly is unlikely to result in a positive outcome.

"As much as we would all like this to end with good news for the McCanns, the fact is there have been a lot of missed opportunities and no-one will ever be able to reclaim the time and evidence lost."

Two thousand pages of evidence released earlier claimed Portuguese detectives failed to follow up leads.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson ordered officials to examine the "feasibility" of British detectives having a fresh look at all the evidence back in March.

Kate and Gerry McCann, of Rothley, met Mr Johnson to plead for help in their search for their daughter who vanished aged three from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal.

Maddy cops £22K bill for 196 jet trips, 26 April 2010

Maddy cops £22K bill for 196 jet trips Daily Mirror

26/04/2010

EXPENSES

A british police force took 196 flights to Portugal costing £22,000 in the first year of the search for Madeleine McCann.

And it ran up 709 days supporting her parents, Gerry and Kate, and helping Portuguese cops.

Flights to Portugal by Leicestershire Constabulary from May 2007 to July 2008 cost £22,055.

The force said: "Officers used budget airlines."

Madeleine, from Rothley, vanished from Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007, aged three. Revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, the total cost of the first year of the probe to the force was £500,000, most of which will be met by the Home Office.

Brilliant find Tasprin, and a lot of points that take on greater significance now!

Jim Gamble stated the parents would not have been named suspects if the 'abduction' had occurred in the UK. Really?

Leicester police would NOT be involved in any review due to
discrepancies in their handling of the case - wonder if we can take it they are straight then?

The feasibility of a Review (Jim Gamble's report) was ordered by Alan Johnson

It was predicated to be a mammoth task and that the costs would run into millions, without there ever being a positive outcome. On that they have been right thus far. An indeed the Review began with an announcement that the parents and their friends were not people of interest.

I wonder if Leicester police were excluded from the Review?

At first reading, it would appear they have been and are following JG's recommendations. He stated the original investigation had gaping holes, and that it was not up to the standard of that in the UK. Clearly the UK authorities and the UK police were NOT satisfied with the original investigation, because they gave the go ahead for the Review. Read that as you will, are they saying the PJ were incompetent as it appears, or are the Brits saying we will now give you the co-operation that was denied to you at the time? Jim Gamble's resignation in October 2010 leads me to believe it is the latter. In fact, his resignation may have given them the confidence to go ahead and ask for a Review knowing it would never happen, as the designer of the Review was no longer in office. The Petition and its paypal button could have gone on for years.

What went wrong? Its possible Ms. Brooks stabbed them in the back to get a scoop. Madeleine headlines always see a surge in newspaper sales, and the only new angle was a Review. She could assist them whilst also hanging them out to dry. A win win situation for herself and her boss, whether the McCanns are cleared of all wrong doing or hoisted by their own petards', the tabloids will sell.

by joel27 02.07.14 20:08

margaret wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

Its interesting the leaked information to date could have some very uncomfortable particularly if there was a connection between them to Malinka. Murat. The names of some not all of the witnesses which may give a clue to the way the investigation is going. Which by the sounds of it may not be the way some would like. However cryptic the same with a certain female Sky reporter so not enough yet to take any other steps but to continue to turn stone

MWT did finally break J Saville and Johnathon King in to the wider public arena I would give him some credence.

The DNA blog is interesting but I still wonder that the Redwood is an idiot or worse planted evidence (ok I know the Dando history) is blinding the blogger to a far more subtle motive. The dismissal of Tannerman , the Crimewatch focus on Smith sighting, the concentration in one specfic area in PdL a drip drip approach of releasing public to anyone concerned or involved that they are putting together a case.

by Guest 02.07.14 20:09

FYI Andrew Redwood was NOT involved in the Jill Dando case.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:10

Tickle48 wrote:Also I think Mark Williams-Thomas is definitely referring to the McCanns claim "to leave no stone unturned."

He is such a little tease, our MWT, isn't he?

Always 'hearing' this and that. One police force or another was always feeding him titbits about Operation Yewtree and other confidential child sexual abuse enquiries.

'I'm hearing this', 'I'm hearing that', every other tweet.

Presumably police officers, sworn to secrecy, are feeding him this stuff.

And he seems to be the only bloke in the country who can merrily while away the hours on his home computer watching child sexual abuse (he has tweeted about this, so I'm not libelling him) without being arrested, charged and prosecuted.

He's also the bloke who seriously suggested back in 2007 that Joana Cipriano and Madeleine McCann might have been abducted by the same person - seemingly unaware that her mother and uncle, after making voluntary confessions, had been sentenced to 16 years each for killing her and were now in jail.

Just what is this man's secret?

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:11

joel27 wrote:
MWT did finally break J Saville and Jonathan King in to the wider public arena I would give him some credence.

@ joel27 - Who chose him to do so?

by margaret 02.07.14 20:12

plebgate wrote:
Indricotherium wrote:
margaret wrote:
sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

If it was anyone else but him l would say it's cryptic but MWT is in idiot.

Looking at the context I think he's referring to the suspicions about abuse by UK politicians.
Thanks for that, so what was the point of the tweet as anybody could have said that- as it is clear some people would not be happy about it?

Well as l said he's an idiot and he's trying to look important, that he is 'in the know' about these things.

Thanks indocotherium,

by ChippyM 02.07.14 20:13

sofieellis wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 1h
From what I have found out today it is clear that some people are not happy that the stone is being lifted.

Is he talking about the people who have vowed to leave no stone unturned, or is he referring to someone else??? (I'm no good at this cryptic stuff! )

He might be referring to Leon Britton being in the news concerning the Paeodophile network around Westminster and the documents he says he can't remember. The tweets before and after the one above are about Britton also.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 02.07.14 20:16

Something I look for in any statements I read is how and when the person became aware of the massive search that overwhelmed PdL on the night of 3rd May. Most of the people found out on the night - it must have been hard not to notice the hundreds of people scouring PdL, who were probably shouting and knocking on doors.

It is of interest to me when people claim to have not found out until the morning. Neither Murat nor Malinka found out on the evening in question. Now according to Murat he was in a large building with its own gardens and walls, but Malinka was in an apartment in the centre of PdL. Perhaps he had his headphones on.

by TheTruthWillOut 02.07.14 20:16

All very interesting Tony, but Murat had already lied once so surely the PJ would have paid a visit to the Golf club and checked for records, internal CCTV...something at least.

But again I ask, what does all this have to do with Madeleine? I just don't get it. Is it something (illegal, I guess)) completely separate to what happened to Madeleine or what?

by Cristobell 02.07.14 20:16

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tickle48 wrote:Also I think Mark Williams-Thomas is definitely referring to the McCanns claim "to leave no stone unturned."
He is such a little tease, our MWT, isn't he?

Always 'hearing' this and that. One police force or another was always feeding him titbits about Operation Yewtree and other confidential child sexual abuse enquiries.

'I'm hearing this', 'I'm hearing that', every other tweet.

Presumably police officers, sworn to secrecy, are feeding him this stuff.

And he seems to be the only bloke in the country who can merrily while away the hours on his home computer watching child sexual abuse (he has tweeted about this, so I'm not libelling him) without being arrested, charged and prosecuted.

He's also the bloke who seriously suggested back in 2007 that Joana Cipriano and Madeleine McCann might have been abducted by the same person - seemingly unaware that her mother and uncle, after making voluntary confessions, had been sentenced to 16 years each for killing her and were now in jail.

Just what is this man's secret?

Lets not forget his interviewing a murderer with the body stored directly above his head!

by **Tony Bennett** 02.07.14 20:18

Cristobell wrote:
Jim Gamble stated the parents would not have been named suspects if the 'abduction' had occurred in the UK. Really?

At first reading, it would appear they have been and are following JG's recommendations...

@ Cristobell @ tasprin @ everyone on here

Why do you think the government chose Jim Gamble to write this 'scoping exercise'?

Rather than, say...

* Top criminal profiler Lee Rainbow

or

* Mark Harrison?

by joel27 02.07.14 20:19

Châtelaine wrote:FYI Andrew Redwood was NOT involved in the Jill Dando case.

Nope did not say he was but you might want to look at his boss

by Guest 02.07.14 20:20

And an FOI request, to which AFAIK no reply has been given yet, quote

With reference to the sheer quantity of information that was placed
on HOLMES 2 following Operation Ore, I understand that it was
necessary to give several uniformed police officers temporary
status as Temporary Detective Constables in order to assist with
enquires to be actioned, including within Surrey Police.

1. Could you please confirm whether Mr Mark Williams-Thomas was one
of those uniformed officers.

2. Could you please inform me whether Mr Mark Williams-Thomas has
ever sat/passed the National Investigators Exam (NIE); completed an
Initial Crime Investigators Development Programme (ICIDP); PIP
Level 2 Portfolio; or otherwise be entitled to be referred to as
having attained the rank of Detective Constable without use of the
word 'Temporary' or 'Acting'. ('T.D.C. or A.D.C.')

3. Could you please confirm whether all those interviews, actioned
by HOLMES 2, if carried out by Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, were
formally and specifically requested by his supervising officer.

4. Was there any discrepancy between the formally requested number
of interviews assigned to Mr Williams-Thomas and the number of
interviews actually carried out by Mr Williams-Thomas? If so, could
you please inform me how many of the interviewees had already been
interviewed by other police officers.

5. If the answer to 4. is affirmative, could you please inform me
whether you had reason to carry out any preliminary or informal
disciplinary investigations with regard to additional interviews
conducted with alleged sexual offenders by Mr Williams-Thomas.

6. Would Mr Williams-Thomas have been eligible for promotion within
the Detective squad, Temporary, Acting or otherwise, had he not
chosen to resign?

7. Following Mr Williams-Thomas' arrest at Gatwick Airport Hotel
(not airport, so within your 'area') for alleged blackmail - a
matter I am aware has since been satisfactorily discharged by the
magistrates with NO stain on his character, could you please
confirm whether a separate investigation was carried out at the
same time by officers from the Surrey Police Force internal
investigation department, concerning other matters NOT connected
with the alleged Blackmail?

8. Can you please confirm whether any papers, notes, records,
photographs, digital electronic communications or equipment, which
identified names or action plans from HOLMES 2, were removed from
Mr Williams-Thomas' home or person for inspection during such
additional investigation.

9. Could you please tell me whether the outcome of such
investigation resulted in any report to The Child Exploitation and
Online Protection Centre (CEOP)?

10. Could you please tell me whether any subsequent internal report
was prepared by CEOP?

11. If the answer to 10. is affirmative, could I please have a copy
of such report?

12. Could you please give me copies of any advice subsequently
issued by CEOPS to the Portuguese Police in respect of Mr
Williams-Thomas' presence in Portugal on behalf of any British
television company.

13. Could you please give me copies of any such advice issued by
CEOPS to any British Police Force in respect of official press
conferences open to accredited British reporters.

14. Could you please tell me whether you have been required to
furnish any information concerning Mr Williams-Thomas activities
whilst a serving Police Officer within your force to the
investigating officers concerned with the charges laid against Mr
Max Clifford under Operation Yewtree.

14. Could you please advise me of the contents of any communication
you have had with the Portuguese authorities specifically
referencing Mr Williams-Thomas between July 1st 2013 and August
20th 2013.

by Guest 02.07.14 20:21

joel27 wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:FYI Andrew Redwood was NOT involved in the Jill Dando case.
Nope did not say he was but you might want to look at his boss

***
I know. And his boss at the time was his boss. We're talking about Andrew Redwood here ...