Why did Madeleine 'go missing'?
- Thread starter Tony Bennett
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
On the cadaver dog thread in post 98, you said "Further, there were questions asked about FSS Ltd, which although a British firm, carries NO official licence to test DNA, nor do they adhere to any recognised standards in testing. There are also questions as to the ownership of FSS Ltd and their connection to 3i, a company with links to the McCann Corporation."
That is a complete fabrication.
You so far have claimed the police, fss, two governments ambassadors are all part of a criminal conspriracy, and have based this on the fact a UK ambassador sent an email to a US ambassador saying that the british police developed the current evidence against the mccanns. You have failed to demonstrate you claims, you have not shown that there is any truth to your claim that the fss lost hair, you ahve not shown any proof the fss was a private comapny with no legal right to examine dna, and had links to the mccanns, you have not demonstrated any evidence whatsoever of a giant criminal conspiracy.
How on earth does someone not involvd in the case telling someone else not involve dint he case "the british police developed the evidence against the mccanns" prove that the giant conspiracy you are convinced of, espeically given that the evidence was te dogs and fss results, and it was the PJ who said this was evidence against the mccanns not the british police, and it did turn out that this was not incriminating evidence after all. But regardless, how can you claim that cable is evidence of a criminal conspiracy, it makes no mention of it?
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
These facts are all part of the public record.
I keep posting links to msm and you keep ignoring them.
It is you who is using the words "criminal conspiracy" not I.
:banghead:
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
You have not once posted any links to back up your conspiracy theory. The quote from the wikileaks cable doe snot back up any conspiracy theory, and so far instead of actual links (or even sources, if it is non-internet based), you have put up as proof things like "they did" "they are"? Do you really believe in this conspiracy theory?
And yes the information you have claimed about the FSS is a complete fabrication, they were a government owned agency charged with maintining the DNA database, and examinign forensic evidence. Whoever has claimed differently just made it up.
And yes the information you have claimed about the FSS is a complete fabrication, they were a government owned agency charged with maintining the DNA database, and examinign forensic evidence. Whoever has claimed differently just made it up.
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
Again, the phrase "conspiracy theory" is yours.
Factual links have been posted.
You cannot keep claiming they are lies.
You have not posted links to anything thta proves your claims of two governemtns, ambassadors, police, FSS etc being involved in covering up a crime.
You have shown the wikileaks cable which does not demonstrate in any way that these organisations are involved. Before you just answered with "they did" they have" etc.
One cannot seriously be expected to believe that at least one portuguese government, two british governments, the us ambassador, the british police, the FSS etc are all involved in covering up what happened to madeleine especially when the evidence presented has been a wikileaks cable saying the british police developed the current evidence against the mccanns, and someone saying "they did".
You have shown the wikileaks cable which does not demonstrate in any way that these organisations are involved. Before you just answered with "they did" they have" etc.
One cannot seriously be expected to believe that at least one portuguese government, two british governments, the us ambassador, the british police, the FSS etc are all involved in covering up what happened to madeleine especially when the evidence presented has been a wikileaks cable saying the british police developed the current evidence against the mccanns, and someone saying "they did".
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
You have seriously got the wrong end of the stick.
What I said, if you will read back is -
The Portugese Police were originally investigating Madeleine's disappearance as an abduction. It was the British Police who developed the evidence that the McCanns were involved, and who provided some/most of that evidence to the Portugese police, then just as suddenly withdrew their assistance.
This is all fact. I have posted supporting links over and over again. You keep disputing them but it makes them no less true.
I would be very unhappy if I lived in the UK. I would be wanting to know why my government aided then abetted the investigation, why the McCanns were not investigated for child neglect, and why there isn't a transparent and independant review into all allegations so this mess can be figured out once and for all.
Hands up who knows what happened to Madeleine?
ABSOLUTELY NO ONE!
Including you! So you CANNOT declare ANY theory LIES!
The British police are the ones now investigating. The Portugese refused to continue. I personally think the Portugese police covered up and maybe just for incompetence or maybe it was the tourist trade they were protecting or just maybe it was something more sinister. I have always wondered why a person already under investigation for torturing or allowing the torture of a woman whose child had been abducted was allowed to head up an investigation into an abduction. That in itself does not seem right to me. Governments would get involved. Of course they should. If I am a citizen abroad and something happens to me then my right as a citizen of my own country is that there should be action on my behalf. If my child was missing and i had contacts that could raise the profle, as the Mccanns did, then I would use them. Because there has been such high profiling over this case then the government (cynically speaking) would be foolish to ignore it or pretend it has gone away.
The Mccanns were not investigated for child neglect-or if they have we will never know- although I think Kate Mccann herself said that a social worker visited when they returned to the UK, for a very obvious reason. There was probably NO proof they neglected their children that met the criteria for neglect or any other definition of child abuse that could be proven.
(I would love a social worker to step in here and clarify because obviously Madeleine came to harm and the law is not that it is illegal to leave a child of any age alone, but it becomes neglect if the child is harmed as a result, and obviously Madeleine was harmed in some way. )
At least that is as far as we know. It is CONFIDENTIAL information when a famiily are investigated and so NOBODY would know if in fact there was an investigation because nobody can say and the parents themselves would obviously not wish to discuss it.
So any speculation about that is not going to get anywhere because we cannot know what happened. They could have been, but the prosecution would not be public either.I have reported worse things than leaving a child in a room and checking on them and got the answer that while unadvisable it would not meet the criteria for abuse.
As has been stated our charity laws are different.
The US way and the UK way of thinking are often different. I have a cat. My next door neighbour is horrified I want it in at night. My US friends are horrified he would want it out. Most UK cats are let out. Most US people seem to be horrified by this.
I suspect that although we are more careful than we ever were that children are also treated differently here because although we do get a few abductions it is nothing like the scale that we see happening in the US, Where I live you see many kids playing out and some are fairly young. We do not work on the same sense of danger and as the Mccanns also came from a village they may not have had that (I already said also that there is a kind of lacking common sense thinking that may also have come into play.)
The thinking here is probably more that something will not happen, while in the US it may do so. I find it entirely likely the Mccanns just did not have the kind of heightened sense of danger that a US person might. They live, like me in a village. Somehow that does give a (false) sense of security.
The other day a local toddler wandered into my friends house, through her open door and up to the fridge, asked for help to open it, and helped himself to an ice cream (he had been to play before.) My friend simply returned the child to his house (plus ice cream.)
I personally find it worrying that children are in the streets but also it is kind of nice to see that it happens.
I suspect any conviction that there is a government cover up is based on a US perspective after things like the Johnny Gosch affair and so on. It is a bigger country and there is more possibility of things happening.
The positive side of the Mccanns having all the publicity is that the public is more aware than before of missing children and that more is being done to make people aware of them. I suspect that some of the interest shown is because as articulate people they were able to mobilise awareness in a way that others have not been able to and that the knock on effect, whatever happened to Madeleine, is that people will be on the look out for the children missing.
A theory is not a lie it is a theory. NO theory is a fact. If it was a fact it would not be called a theory. A theory cannot be called truth either. It is a possibility of what happened. Until hard cold facts establish what actually happened theories about anything are just that. My theory is that there was probably an initial social services visit and no follow up because criteria to do so were not met. My other theory could be that there was and that there was is confidential information. It would need to be to protect Amelie and Sean.
The Mccanns were not investigated for child neglect-or if they have we will never know- although I think Kate Mccann herself said that a social worker visited when they returned to the UK, for a very obvious reason. There was probably NO proof they neglected their children that met the criteria for neglect or any other definition of child abuse that could be proven.
(I would love a social worker to step in here and clarify because obviously Madeleine came to harm and the law is not that it is illegal to leave a child of any age alone, but it becomes neglect if the child is harmed as a result, and obviously Madeleine was harmed in some way. )
At least that is as far as we know. It is CONFIDENTIAL information when a famiily are investigated and so NOBODY would know if in fact there was an investigation because nobody can say and the parents themselves would obviously not wish to discuss it.
So any speculation about that is not going to get anywhere because we cannot know what happened. They could have been, but the prosecution would not be public either.I have reported worse things than leaving a child in a room and checking on them and got the answer that while unadvisable it would not meet the criteria for abuse.
As has been stated our charity laws are different.
The US way and the UK way of thinking are often different. I have a cat. My next door neighbour is horrified I want it in at night. My US friends are horrified he would want it out. Most UK cats are let out. Most US people seem to be horrified by this.
I suspect that although we are more careful than we ever were that children are also treated differently here because although we do get a few abductions it is nothing like the scale that we see happening in the US, Where I live you see many kids playing out and some are fairly young. We do not work on the same sense of danger and as the Mccanns also came from a village they may not have had that (I already said also that there is a kind of lacking common sense thinking that may also have come into play.)
The thinking here is probably more that something will not happen, while in the US it may do so. I find it entirely likely the Mccanns just did not have the kind of heightened sense of danger that a US person might. They live, like me in a village. Somehow that does give a (false) sense of security.
The other day a local toddler wandered into my friends house, through her open door and up to the fridge, asked for help to open it, and helped himself to an ice cream (he had been to play before.) My friend simply returned the child to his house (plus ice cream.)
I personally find it worrying that children are in the streets but also it is kind of nice to see that it happens.
I suspect any conviction that there is a government cover up is based on a US perspective after things like the Johnny Gosch affair and so on. It is a bigger country and there is more possibility of things happening.
The positive side of the Mccanns having all the publicity is that the public is more aware than before of missing children and that more is being done to make people aware of them. I suspect that some of the interest shown is because as articulate people they were able to mobilise awareness in a way that others have not been able to and that the knock on effect, whatever happened to Madeleine, is that people will be on the look out for the children missing.
A theory is not a lie it is a theory. NO theory is a fact. If it was a fact it would not be called a theory. A theory cannot be called truth either. It is a possibility of what happened. Until hard cold facts establish what actually happened theories about anything are just that. My theory is that there was probably an initial social services visit and no follow up because criteria to do so were not met. My other theory could be that there was and that there was is confidential information. It would need to be to protect Amelie and Sean.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/parents/yourchildshealthandsafety/yourchildssafetyinthehome/dg_070594
My guess is the way this is interpreted that on balance it was unlikely the child would come to harm.(Although the child did.) Not great, but that is the law.
In the US the minimum age seems to be fourteen. So here what is seen as neglect in the US is not seen as neglect in the UK. The issue would have been how effective the checks were and whether what they were doing was effectively any different from the baby listening service on offer - also what laws are in operation in Portugal. (It may be the Mccanns could not be prosecuted here for an 'offence' in Portugal.) I believe a solicitor tried to bring a prosecution and failed because the abduction took place in Portugal and not here and there would be no proof that the twins were at risk here.
My guess is the way this is interpreted that on balance it was unlikely the child would come to harm.(Although the child did.) Not great, but that is the law.
In the US the minimum age seems to be fourteen. So here what is seen as neglect in the US is not seen as neglect in the UK. The issue would have been how effective the checks were and whether what they were doing was effectively any different from the baby listening service on offer - also what laws are in operation in Portugal. (It may be the Mccanns could not be prosecuted here for an 'offence' in Portugal.) I believe a solicitor tried to bring a prosecution and failed because the abduction took place in Portugal and not here and there would be no proof that the twins were at risk here.
Just another thought - if there was a baby listening service and a baby listening service goes round at intervals to check then finds the parents if there is a problem would not all the parents who were in that hotel be guilty of the same neglect? That was the level of care provided by the resort. Other parents would have been using the same kind of method of care.
The Mccanns were doing their own half hourly checks and probably more than a listening service and could that be why they chose not to use it? Personally, I can see they may have thought it better to trust themselves and assumed a level of safety that was false.
The Mccanns were doing their own half hourly checks and probably more than a listening service and could that be why they chose not to use it? Personally, I can see they may have thought it better to trust themselves and assumed a level of safety that was false.
Saphire this is what you have posted earlier
On the general discussion thread you said
It was also acknowleged that the British Police failed to supply ALL of the evidence they had developed to the Portugese police, for state reasons. There is now PROOF of political interferance on this one, at the highest level, which in itself is unheard of.
There is now also proof of involvement with the US Government. The fact that they would be involved in a missing child investigation in another country at all is highly irregular, but it is fact. The end result is the Portugese police have shut down the investigation and refuse to open it, and Madeline will forever be denied justice.
On the why did madeleine go missing thread you stated
This case stinks of collusion and cover up, at the highest level. We have proof of this.
You have also said Further, there were questions asked about FSS Ltd, which although a British firm, carries NO official licence to test DNA, nor do they adhere to any recognised standards in testing. There are also questions as to the ownership of FSS Ltd and their connection to 3i, a company with links to the McCann Corporation.
on the cadaver dog thread
The lab in question, FSS Ltd, has already lost a clump of Madeline's hair. OOPS!!!
Mistakes like this don't "just happen" in controlled scientific environments, especially in high profile cases.
This case is like an onion. The more layers you peel off, the stinkier it gets.
On the why did madeleine go missing thread you replied to my earlier comment in the following way (you comments are in bold)
Secondly, if you honestly believe you have evidence of a cover up at the highest level, then why do you not show this evidence. Send it to a whistleblowing site, put it up here.
Already done. See: wikileaks.
So far your evidence has all been rumour, and misinformation.
No, it has not. Further, where is YOUR evidence to support YOUR claims?
You have claimed or implied the british police are involved,
They were, and are
the US ambassador was involved,
He was
the Portuguese government was involved,
They were
the UK government was involved,
They were
all of the mccanns friends were involved,
They were
One cannot honestly be expected to believe the FSS was a private company with no legal remit to examine DNA and links to the McCanns, and that the idea of it being a government owned agency charged with examining forensic evidence and maintianing the DNA database is a lie the government and FSS made up?
One cannot also be expected to believe two british governments (therefore involving all three major parties), the US government, the fss, the british police etc are involve din coverign up a crime for two ordinary people from the north of england. especially not when the "proof" is supposed to be a wikileaks cable which makes no mention of any of this.
On the general discussion thread you said
It was also acknowleged that the British Police failed to supply ALL of the evidence they had developed to the Portugese police, for state reasons. There is now PROOF of political interferance on this one, at the highest level, which in itself is unheard of.
There is now also proof of involvement with the US Government. The fact that they would be involved in a missing child investigation in another country at all is highly irregular, but it is fact. The end result is the Portugese police have shut down the investigation and refuse to open it, and Madeline will forever be denied justice.
On the why did madeleine go missing thread you stated
This case stinks of collusion and cover up, at the highest level. We have proof of this.
You have also said Further, there were questions asked about FSS Ltd, which although a British firm, carries NO official licence to test DNA, nor do they adhere to any recognised standards in testing. There are also questions as to the ownership of FSS Ltd and their connection to 3i, a company with links to the McCann Corporation.
on the cadaver dog thread
The lab in question, FSS Ltd, has already lost a clump of Madeline's hair. OOPS!!!
Mistakes like this don't "just happen" in controlled scientific environments, especially in high profile cases.
This case is like an onion. The more layers you peel off, the stinkier it gets.
On the why did madeleine go missing thread you replied to my earlier comment in the following way (you comments are in bold)
Secondly, if you honestly believe you have evidence of a cover up at the highest level, then why do you not show this evidence. Send it to a whistleblowing site, put it up here.
Already done. See: wikileaks.
So far your evidence has all been rumour, and misinformation.
No, it has not. Further, where is YOUR evidence to support YOUR claims?
You have claimed or implied the british police are involved,
They were, and are
the US ambassador was involved,
He was
the Portuguese government was involved,
They were
the UK government was involved,
They were
all of the mccanns friends were involved,
They were
One cannot honestly be expected to believe the FSS was a private company with no legal remit to examine DNA and links to the McCanns, and that the idea of it being a government owned agency charged with examining forensic evidence and maintianing the DNA database is a lie the government and FSS made up?
One cannot also be expected to believe two british governments (therefore involving all three major parties), the US government, the fss, the british police etc are involve din coverign up a crime for two ordinary people from the north of england. especially not when the "proof" is supposed to be a wikileaks cable which makes no mention of any of this.
Thats exactly it, if the mccanns were prosecuted so would every one of the people who used listening services, and these are on offer all over the EU.
Social services did visit the mccanns according to news reports and Kate's book. They found nothing amiss.
The person who tried to prosecute the mccanns was Tony bennett who is no longer on the solicitor's roll, and was only a solicitor for a short time. he faile din his bid as he tried to prosecute in the UK, but there is no reason why if the had broken Portuguese law proceedings could not be started in Portugal. The fact is they did not break Portuguese law. The Mccanns are not the first people Bennett has targeted before though, most infamously he tried and failed to prosecute Michael Barrymore for using drugs at a party where a guest died. Bennett did this when Barrymore was on Celebrity big brother and the judge ruled there was no case to answer.
Makes you wonder. Was someone targetting that spot because of the listening service as they would know children were left alone? There are reports of suspicious characters. If anyone was negligent then I think it was the resort for having that kind of service and making it seem safe. It would only take finding a door open or a window free. It does not rule out the Mccanns- but it does make me think that they were just too trusting. Just does put them in a better light though because most of us given a service might assume the service to be good enough.
It is the people who try to make a name out of the Mccanns for themselves by 'exposing' them that make me suspicious.
It is the people who try to make a name out of the Mccanns for themselves by 'exposing' them that make me suspicious.
badhorsie
Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...
The Ocean Club DID NOT offer a baby listening service either before, during or after the fateful holiday by the McCanns et al.
The McCanns knew this
The McCanns knew this
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
It's all fairly irrelevant to me.
On previous evenings the children were left to cry for over an hour. It was only on the last night of the holiday that the "half hourly" regime was claimed to have been employed...every other night they were left to cry alone.
badhorsie
Mouth operational, brain elsewhere...
Anyone who profits on the back of that little girls disappearance should be deeply ashamed IMO
SapphireSteel
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 6,788
- Reaction score
- 112
Indeed.
In fact, from the very early days, we can ponder why the emphasis of the McCann Corporation seemed to be launching various legal actions instead of encouraging the free flow of information and theories in regards to what happened to Madeleine. A comment by their PR man back in October 07 reveals just how efficient and streamlined this process had already become -
McCann spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "A few days ago Kate was criticised for not showing enough emotion and then when she does cry she is criticised too.
"Everything Kate and Gerry said on that interview was totally genuine. They have nothing to hide.
"Our lawyers are watching the media coverage very carefully in both Portugal and Britain and action will be taken against anything we feel has gone too far."
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/be-k...-attack-on-mccanns-tv-circus-act-7300346.html
This is how the "fund" is being spent. This and various other wild goose chases around Spain, Pakistan, Australia, and other far flung spots. Many, many people have profited from Madeleine going missing, a lot of them closely associated with Kate and Gerry McCann and their immediate family and friends.
One may question, in hindsight, why a team of lawyers was employed in a missing child case, to examine responses by anyone, to launch legal actions on anyone's opinions about anything, no matter how offensive or scandalous, as none of these actions would make one whit of difference in locating their lost baby?
:moo:
There has never been any proof of the fund being used to cover legal expenses in libel trials or on the mccanns own legal expenses. The fund is a not for profit comapny (it would be illegal in england for it to become a charity), with no shareholders etc.
If something is held to be libelous then it is untrue, so stopping the flow of untrue information is not unhelpful. If people feel they can prove their claims then they have nothing to worry about when it comes to being accused of libel. The justice system that decides if something is untrue or nto is the same one that decides guilt of murder etc, so what is the problem?
One reason why the Mccanns have had to take these actions themselves is because this occurred in Portugal they are not protected by contempt of court laws like they would have been had madeleine disappeared in the UK. If she had disappeared in the UK the papers would have likely been held for contempt of court for printing the material they did i.e police leaks. This is what happened with Joanna Yeates landlord when he was questione dby the police on suspicion fo her murder. Not only did he win libel payouts and was a participant in the leveson inquiry the papers were found guilty of contempt of court. In the Uk there are very strict rules about what can and cannot be printed about a person in this situation.
carter-ruck were not paid by the fund and no proof has been shown to demonstrate that lawyers have been employed for anything other than the funds own legal needs -i.e setting it up.
But this particular Mark warner resort did not have the listening service because the resort was spread around the village so would take too long for a nanny to do a circuit. But they offered it at most other resorts which were more campus style. So you can see why if some of the group had used it in Greece they would think running their own listening service was OK, why would it be OK in greece but not in PDl, a sleepy little village?
I think the way people have been trying to make money from the disappearence is low. There is not one of them with any credibility (convicted criminal etc), yet there they are breaking into private property, digging up sacred areas, harressing the mccanns all on the back of nothing. What did they plan to do if they actually dug up a body - they would already have contaminated the scene and made any evidence found be held in doubt? They would ahve got into trouble with the police if they got caught, one cannot go digging up public land, or go onto private property without permission.
If these people truely believe they have information then they should go to the police. In fairness bennett has apparently done this, but the british police have said they believe it was a stranger abduction and that there is a chance madeleine is still alive.
I think the reason Madeleine was targeted was simply the position of the flat, back in 2007 it was dimly lit (as was the surrounding area) surrounded by foliage, and was the nearest flat to the street. Plus like the others the window and back door backed onto an empty car park. Someone could have come in either the window (which could be opened from the outside, reporters got caught trying to break in this way apparently), or even the patio doors. It was an area full of strangers, many of them carrying children back from the creche, who would normally notice one more. I also do not think it can be discounted someone had managed to get hold of keys. these places have numerous people staying in them, numerous people working on them requiring master keys, it is easy for one to get misplaced, illegally copied etc. I wonder if that was ever looked in to.
If something is held to be libelous then it is untrue, so stopping the flow of untrue information is not unhelpful. If people feel they can prove their claims then they have nothing to worry about when it comes to being accused of libel. The justice system that decides if something is untrue or nto is the same one that decides guilt of murder etc, so what is the problem?
One reason why the Mccanns have had to take these actions themselves is because this occurred in Portugal they are not protected by contempt of court laws like they would have been had madeleine disappeared in the UK. If she had disappeared in the UK the papers would have likely been held for contempt of court for printing the material they did i.e police leaks. This is what happened with Joanna Yeates landlord when he was questione dby the police on suspicion fo her murder. Not only did he win libel payouts and was a participant in the leveson inquiry the papers were found guilty of contempt of court. In the Uk there are very strict rules about what can and cannot be printed about a person in this situation.
carter-ruck were not paid by the fund and no proof has been shown to demonstrate that lawyers have been employed for anything other than the funds own legal needs -i.e setting it up.
But this particular Mark warner resort did not have the listening service because the resort was spread around the village so would take too long for a nanny to do a circuit. But they offered it at most other resorts which were more campus style. So you can see why if some of the group had used it in Greece they would think running their own listening service was OK, why would it be OK in greece but not in PDl, a sleepy little village?
I think the way people have been trying to make money from the disappearence is low. There is not one of them with any credibility (convicted criminal etc), yet there they are breaking into private property, digging up sacred areas, harressing the mccanns all on the back of nothing. What did they plan to do if they actually dug up a body - they would already have contaminated the scene and made any evidence found be held in doubt? They would ahve got into trouble with the police if they got caught, one cannot go digging up public land, or go onto private property without permission.
If these people truely believe they have information then they should go to the police. In fairness bennett has apparently done this, but the british police have said they believe it was a stranger abduction and that there is a chance madeleine is still alive.
I think the reason Madeleine was targeted was simply the position of the flat, back in 2007 it was dimly lit (as was the surrounding area) surrounded by foliage, and was the nearest flat to the street. Plus like the others the window and back door backed onto an empty car park. Someone could have come in either the window (which could be opened from the outside, reporters got caught trying to break in this way apparently), or even the patio doors. It was an area full of strangers, many of them carrying children back from the creche, who would normally notice one more. I also do not think it can be discounted someone had managed to get hold of keys. these places have numerous people staying in them, numerous people working on them requiring master keys, it is easy for one to get misplaced, illegally copied etc. I wonder if that was ever looked in to.
- Status