Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 21

[colomom]

We are always wanting "official" information, well it doesn't get any more official than this:

"Madeleine McCann case": Clarification on false contents of a news piece

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2134913&postcount=250

Two big points here, it was NOT the PJ's leak and "significant diligences to the investigation were being carried out".

 

[colomom]

Some of the latest articles. The last article has a video of CM talking to Sky news - what a blatant liar. I am dumbfounded by some of the things he says, when he must know there are several witnesses that dispute those words coming out of his mouth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7347187.stm

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Portugese-police-defend-leak-claims-453884313.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1312766,00.html

Salem

Methinks that the mouthpiece may be in deep doo doo.....

 

[Morag]

A few days ago, one paper printed a comment (paraphrased) that the new information (crying Madeleine) came out just as the PJ was conducting new interviews in England. At that time, I took it to mean than the information came out during the interviews.

What if one of those interviewed told PJ/British LE that Kate/Gerry had told them the Madeleine crying story either before or after the disappearance? It sounds more like a second-hand (McCanns to friends) story than a McCanns to LE story.

PJ could legitimately say that they weren't the ones leaking. Maybe British LE leaked it. And though it may have resembled something that the Mcs said early on, perhaps it was just sufficiently different to warrant further diligences. Tanner's story seems to have somewhat fallen apart--but if she did see the carrying man earlier, maybe she saw Gerry... If she saw him earlier, then his story of looking at lovely little Madeleine is bushwa.

 

[Morag]

No Salem, Remember she said that she was back in her apartment when Kate discovered Madeleine missing. If I remember correctly she said that Rachel Oldfield came to tell her

Here's a timeline from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann

Shortly after 10pm: Rachael Oldfield goes to Tanner's apartment to tell her Madeleine has been taken. Tanner says: "Oh my God. I saw a man carrying a girl."

Gosh, Jane's story has been all over the place!
She saw the guy on her way to dinner, no it was earlier/later, it was a bundle, it was definitely Madeleine, she left the table when the alarm was raised, she was in the apartment when she found out what happened.

When her story was first reported (in late May, perhaps?), there was speculation that she was mistaken/involved/lying/attention seeking.

The story that she told on tv seems to be wrong enough to be considered obstruction of justice. If she told it to the PJ immediately, why didn't they go searching in that direction? If she told them something different (perhaps the truth)-that she had seen whatever she saw at an earlier hour, thereby making it impossible to have been Madeleine- because Gerry had seen her after 9 o'clock, then that would explain why the drawing of bundleman was not made until such a long time afterwards...

Maybe Jane has been truthful privately all along, and her public utterances were only for an audience of two (the Mcs). I continue to hope that at least some of the Tapasians are telling the truth to LE, if not to the public. And Rebelo and some of his guys left before the final couple had been questioned...Did they have some red-hot new evidence?

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Some of the latest articles. The last article has a video of CM talking to Sky news - what a blatant liar. I am dumbfounded by some of the things he says, when he must know there are several witnesses that dispute those words coming out of his mouth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7347187.stm

http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Portugese-police-defend-leak-claims-453884313.html

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1312766,00.html

Salem

"Job Security"

Our local Hospital here had an administrator who would spread harmful gossip about select management members through his underground cronies, then be the staff hero by smoothing everything out when the $hit hit the fan. These people thought he was "God Like" for being the rock...until they realized he was the one with the original information to begin with. Oddly he looks a lot like Clarence Mitchell...down to the pink oxford shirts.

 

[Salem]

I'm convinced now that Clarence leaked the story and the McCanns affirmed it as true, NOT to interrupt the Brussels trip for the child alert, BUT to take the heat off Ms. Tanner.

I also hope the McCanns understand this just supports Mrs. Fenn's story. I have a feeling the McCanns are going to have to pay back some of that defamation award.......

I am seeing no new articles about the Tanner misinformationgate since last Thursday. Is anyone else?

Colomom - as always - thanks for the Portugese media translations.

Salem

 

[Salem]

Morag - I'm with you. I hope one of those 7 other people is being truthful. There were some "implications" that Ms. Weber had some concerns, but this was glossed over in the press and I'm not sure it is true.

All the friends can believe in the innocence of the McCanns all they want and they can support their friends, I have no problem with that, AS LONG AS they are not doing it by lying and obstructing the investigation.

If the McCanns really believed it was possible and wanted to find Maddie, they would not stand for any dishonesty. The dishonesty will only lead away from finding Maddie.

So, did Russel O'Brien do it when he was gone for 45 minutes and Jane suspects and that's why she lied?? Just a theory, not accusing anyone here, just thinking out loud.....

Salem

 

[cushty]

hi folks

new poster from across the pond

can't see any mention here of latest developments re. Robert Murat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344986.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344986.stm

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

....snipped for space...I did read where she is saying that she saw "bundleman" before dinner now. Which would have been at 8:30, or so. Considering the supposed checks, every 30 minutes, somebody is LYING. I guess the McCanns could "admit" that they did not check on the kids, at all. But they could still cry "abduction...This leak could very well be a spin tactic to turn our heads from JT's bombshell. What else did she say? :waitasec:

If it wasn't for JT, I personally think the McCanns would be living the life of luxury. I recently stumbled upon a transcript of the Panaroma Program and this is what she had to say about the bundleman:

From http://www.freewebs.com/littlemissnothing/index.htm

 

[ceeaura]

I am getting "page not found" cushty got another link?

Welcome to Websleuths

 

[Salem]

Sorry Cushty - the link is not working. Is the article about Murat's sueing of the media for libel?

I've read a few of the articles. I don't think anyone should be allowed to sue until the case is solved or they are exonerated. It appears both the McCanns and Murat continue to be suspects.....

Salem

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

From Panaroma Documentary:

Jane Tanner: I think the starters were about to arrive so I thought, oh I’ll go and do, I’ll go and do a check. It’d been sort of twenty minutes or so since before we last checked so we , so I thought I’ll go and do a check before the food arrives, so I’d just walked out of the restaurant, up the hill, I past Gerry who was talking to one of his tennis friends at the time and then after I’d past Gerry, ermm, at the top of the road I saw somebody walking across the top of the road so I was a reasonable distance away from them and that person was carrying a child.


Jane Tanner: Erm, he was probably about 5’8” tall he was taller than me but not six foot. He was between those two, erm, he was wearing quite a lot of clothes and that’s one thing, in hindsight again I think that’s quite odd, because tourists when they’re abroad, Brits abroad, would always have cropped trousers or shorts or something and he had a sort of big heavy jacket and trousers on. Erm, and the hair, the one thing that I remember a lot is the hair, there was, there did seem be quite a lot of dark erm, reasonably long, to the neck, hair.


THE BEST quote ever by Jane Tanner:


Jane Tanner: Well, I could see, I could tell it’s a child and I could see the feet and erm, the feet at the bottom of the pyjamas. I just thought, that child’s not got any shoes on, you could see the feet and it was quite a cold night in Portugal, and it's not actually warm. I know I'd got a big jumper on. And I can, ermm, remember thinking oh, that parent’s not a particular good parent, they’ve not wrapped them up.



It was odd the bundleman was dressed warmly, although he was a bad parent because it was cold and the child didn't have on shoes...she forgot to mention her kid was back alone in the apartment barfing by herself. hummm...from her lips

 

[colomom]

hi folks

new poster from across the pond

can't see any mention here of latest developments re. Robert Murat

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344986.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344986.stm

Hello Cushty, welcome.

For some reason your link is duplicating.

This is correct: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7344986.stm

Yes, I believe that RM will be going forward with his lawsuit.

I have mixed feelings....

 

[cushty]

thanks for sorting me out - IT and me don't get along too well

Murat has to sue now before the anniversary, to comply with UK law

 

[Salem]

Well that's interesting Cushty - I had no idea the law would put a time limit on such a thing, but I guess it makes sense. Hmmmmm....

Salem

 

[april4sky]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/15/nmaddy115.xml

"The PJ want to make it clear that it is entirely false that the contents of this report included material from the inquiry which is covered by (the law of) secrecy of justice.
"On the other hand, the Policia Judiciaria regrets the baseless intervention of the spokesman above all at a moment when significant moves were being made in the investigation."
******
Mr Mitchell, who accompanied the McCanns to Belgium last week, was defiant about his earlier remarks.
"I'm not retracting a word of what I said," he said. "The Portuguese police have yet to explain how these statements came to be leaked.
"The material was contained in confidential documents as part of the police file, which is covered by the secrecy of justice laws.
******

Very interesting!!!...Are the Pj denying they "leaked" the information from the McCanns statement:waitasec: ...Or....are they just denying that the information "leaked" was actually covered by their secrecy laws..... Mmmmm:waitasec:

It sounds like they did "leak" it. I guess some habits are hard to break!!!
And how very convenient now to claim it wasn't covered by their secrecy laws.

 

[Morag]

Here's a story that references the "Mummy, why didn't you come" quotes:


http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/opinion/anne_pickles/1.86855
...
"The hauntingly poignant words are seen by the parents as a deliberate attempt at a character smear.

That’s as maybe. But the little girl’s words – and Mrs McCann’s relating of them to police – indicate a much more effective potential use of tragic experience.

Having had personal experience, no one is better placed than Kate and Gerry McCann to drive home the non-negotiable importance of never leaving children alone, when enjoying an evening out with friends; of employing a babysitter to prevent a repeat of this truly awful torment.

Easier by far than creation of more complex international child protection systems is the simple message of unswerving parental care."

Somebody, please tell me...How can the truth be a character smear? They did leave those babies alone even though they were asked not to by Madeleine. No reasonable person can hear this part of the story and not think that it showed poor character on the part of the parents. And why would anyone think that those parents have some wisdom on the importance of Amber alerts?

 

[Texana]

Thanks for the link, Morag. Well-said comments.

Remember the McCanns said they would "do it again under the circumstances."

Couldn't even get a "Well, if we had to do it over again, we wouldn't repeat what we did before."

 

[colomom]

Copied over from Proboards (http://helpmadeleine.proboards79.com/v45index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=586&page=2 Post #27)

Thanks Leo!

From Beowulf - stickybeaked because it's too too interesting:
http://www.the3arguidos.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9132

- The latest questionings by PJ was not only get more evidences but also to find which of the Tapas7 were lying, and since lying it proves that they know what happened and that there is a cover up and McCanns involvement in Maddie's disappearance. Its is also to take those who lied to court for perverting the justice.
- The leak didn't came from the PJ. It came from Metodo3 as part of a strategy because:

* During the questionings the PJ got confirmation that Maddie was not seen in May 3, so saying that Maddie said that to Kate in the Morning is just to reinforce the story that she was still alive on May 3. Thats why they don't talk much about Maddie being left crying the night before, but just about her comment in the morning.
* They know there's something coming out saying that Maddie was not seen on May 3.
* They are not interested on the Amber alert, nor other missing children, they don't care at all about Brussels... They just want to save their skin and get support from their rich friends making them believe the PJ is framing them, to get them paying the lawyers etc. The leak story was all about this, the perfect timing to make the PJ look bad, get an excuse to not cooperate with the PJ and not return to Portugal for the reconstruction.
* The leak story is also another strategy to get political interferences over the PJ work, with the excuse of the "framing" and "fair trial".

- Their strategy with the media, is not about them but about their supporters. they know as long they get public support with their stories in the press, there will be always money and support from rich and influencing people willing to take credits from the public for supporting the "poor McCanns".
- They don't care how negligent they can look, thats the least they can look in this case. They know with all support, money and lawyers they have, then can get away with the charges for negligence. Their effort to look as the couple fighting for children protection, and the couple that is sufferings for the lost, and the smears, is to reinforce that they were paying already for being negligent, to avoid charges.

UPDATE:---------------------------------------------

Regarding the above point about the leak not being from the PJ, but from Metodo3, here is something that you may want to read:
* The McCanns said that they will always cooperate with the PJ, but since they showed their true color when requested to go back to PDL for the reconstruction, many people could see that they are not willing to cooperate, and after that they used the "leak" as an excuse to not cooperate anymore with PJ trying to get that as the reason in people's mind. And here is one more reason to not cooperate:
* It was known that the PJ would not be questioning the McCanns during their trip to the UK, but they could do it further if the questioning of the Tapas7 produced any reason to do so. However the McCanns knew that the Tapas7 questionings didn't go as they wanted, and that can result in new confrontations with the PJ with more evidences and strong new questions. With the Leak story, they are doing a smart move to prevent that, using the excuse of "not trusting the PJ" and taking advantage of their arguidos status (giving them the right of remaining silent), to not answer to any question presented by the PJ. The leak will give them also an excuse that they didn't have when they refused to answer the 40 questions back in September, that made them lose lots of public support.
But they seem to forget that they can face the same questions in court where they can't refuse to answer, and not cooperating with the PJ can be used against them in court as well.

 

[april4sky]

Somebody, please tell me...How can the truth be a character smear? They did leave those babies alone even though they were asked not to by Madeleine. No reasonable person can hear this part of the story and not think that it showed poor character on the part of the parents. And why would anyone think that those parents have some wisdom on the importance of Amber alerts?

The McCanns themselves told this to the PJ...They did not try to hide it....And at no point did they lie about it.
It was no coincidence that this part of their statement was released at the same time they were trying to help get the Amber alert system introduced into Europe.

And it doesn't always have to be a lie to be a "smear"...all depends how and why it's used.
The same way that politicians hold back information they have and then release it at a time that will cause the most damage!!
It worked for the PJ......and got the reaction they were looking for!!

An attempt to bring in the Amber alert failed two years ago. If with the McCanns help it gets through this time..great. It's desperately needed.