Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 22

[Tony Bennett]

april4sky said in a recent post: "The McCanns don't blame the PJ for Madeleine's disappearance".

But some people do!

See for example this blog article on minnea blogspot, published only yesterday, which I expect most on this Forum will recognise to be a load of rubbish:

=======================================================
Saturday, May 10, 2008

Did the Portuguese police kidnapped Madeleine Mc Cann?

http://madeleine-mccann-blog.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-portuguese-police-implicated-in.html

"The Spanish media Internet source JM Noticias (JM News) whose address is www.jmnoticias.com published on February 8, 2008 an article in Spanish entitled: ¿Secuestro un policia a Madeleine Mc Cann? Translation: Did a policeman kidnapped Madeleine Mc Cann?

According to the article, while the media have been publishing speculations on Madeleine's case, the author of a blog had predicted that the Portuguese police would declare Gerry and Kate Mc Cann "arguidos" (suspects) as a tactic to conceal the implication of police officers in the abduction and disappearance of Madeleine on May 3, 2007. In the blog titled "master of fate" some unusual and suspicious photographs show Gerry and Kate Mc Cann being closely watched by a policeman shortly before Madeleine vanished. The author of the blog who goes by the anonymous "Inu Yasha" assures his audience that " [...] the Portuguese police has not really being looking for Maddie because they know where she is. The police have instead dedicated to create a hostile environment against her parents so they can charge them with the dead of their daughter." Mr. "Yasha" further continuos by stating that "[...] instead of looking for the little girl since they know where she is, the Portuguese police have been preparing the terrain by working very intensively on creating a favourable public opinion with the end in mind to imprison both parents and close the case."

The article says that in his blog, the author wrote that the Portuguese police is repeating the same tricks used in an earlier and similar case in which the mother of another little girl who was also abducted and disappeared not far from Prai da Luz, was convicted without evidence and after suffering great torture. "It is almost exactly to the case of Leonor Cipriano who was convicted of murdering her daughter Joanna even though there was no proof that the child had died. I believe the little girl was abducted on orders by an international paedophile organisation. Goncalo Amaral from the Portuguese police was assigned to conduct the investigation and was also given the responsibility to investigate Madeleine's case. As in Joanna's case the final outcome in Madeleine's will be the same," wrote the author on his blog. Mr. " Yasha" also stated that in the suspicious pictures one can see Robert Murat in the company of the police and a negro man that was spying on Madeleine before her abduction. In fact, the negro appears in the background of a picture looking at Madeleine while she was playing with her father and the other two children. The blog is located at http://masalladeloobvio.spaces.live.com (in Spanish).

In the opinion of this writer, the information featured in the JM Noticias article on the contents of the blog is not necessarily frivolous nor unfounded. If you would look into the numerous facts and details related to the Portuguese police performance on Madeleine's case since day one, you would probably conclude that it is now a puzzle with too many pieces all scattered and deliberately being kept that way by a sinister veil of secrecy. What or who is the Portuguese police protecting? The answer to this question can only be obtained by conducting a thorough investigation of the Portuguese police itself by an outside force. All the pieces of the puzzle need to be put in place for all to see and understand the truth related to the well-planned and executed abduction of Madeleine Mc Cann. Only then will her father get the answers to his three questions:

1) Who abducted Madeleine
2) Why
3) Where is she being kept

Until the above-mentioned is done the actual situation of uncertainties will continue on while Madeleine suffers in God knows what conditions..."



Posted by Minnea at 11:22 PM 0 comments

Madeleine was shadowed by PJ detective before abduction.

It proves PJ is behind Madeleines abduction.

It has been asked many times who is this mysterious bald man in backround of Madeleines holiday image (looks like there is a woman behind slide taking photographs)





Playground is on Ocean club area (closed area, only for clients of Mark Warner, only entrance is reception)

PJ has never agreed to tell who is this guy in image, because now is clear he is member of PJ!

"Did the Portuguese police kidnapped Madeleine Mc Cann?
[URL="http://madeleine-mccann-blog.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-portuguese-police-implicated-in.html"]

http://madeleine-mccann-blog.blogspot.com/2008/02/is-portuguese-police-implicated-in.html

The Spanish media Internet source JM Noticias (JM News) whose address is www.jmnoticias.com published on February 8, 2008 an article in Spanish entitled: ¿Secuestro un policia a Madeleine Mc Cann? Translation: Did a policeman kidnapped Madeleine Mc Cann?According to the article, while the media have been publishing speculations on Madeleine's case, the author of a blog had predicted that the Portuguese police would declare Gerry and Kate Mc Cann "arguidos" (suspects) as a tactic to conceal the implication of police officers in the abduction and disappearance of Madeleine on May 3, 2007. In the blog titled "master of fate" some unusual and suspicious photographs show Gerry and Kate Mc Cann being closely watched by a policeman shortly before Madeleine vanished. The blog is located at http://masalladeloobvio.spaces.live.com (in Spanish)."

Now this blog http://masalladeloobvio.spaces.live.com has been removed, supposedly because information seems to be too dangerous for PJ, but luckily there is cached in Google and it was possible to find photographs again. You can never destroy information from net.

Here is same bald PJ detective in the manifestation of police in Lisbon 2 of June of 2005 showing judicial credentials. (You can see text GNR in sign):

===========================================================================

 

[Salem]

To some of my favorite moms on the planet!!!

:blowkiss:

Right back at c'ya - Colomom and all the other moms on this thread! Have a great day!

Salem

 

[Salem]

Kate didn't say that Madeleine cried for her the night before she disapeared..though thats how it's being portrayed.
She said it was a passing comment from Madeleine said in such a way that they were puzzled and unsure of when she meant as she seemed so unconcerned and immediately went off to play..as children do.
Maybe they should have asked Madeleine but because it was a passing comment and she wasn't upset they let it go....easy with hindsight.

I'm not sure they "let it go." Kate freely admits that she and Gerry talked about it and agreed "to keep a closer watch on the children." Kate says that with her own mouth on all three of the recent videos. In my mind, this is another example of talking out of both sides of their collective mouths.

Did they talk about it and agree to keep closer watch? or did they just blow it off? From all appearances, they blew it off, because after all she was only 3, Sean only 2, how upset could they be? and they probably wouldn't remember in a day or so anyway right? So...., let's go to dinner!

They tell us they were "concerned parents" in one breath and then in the next, remind us that their actions clearly show they couldn't have cared less.

And as an aside - Mrs. Fenn stated she heard the children crying for approx. 45 minutes. If an abductor was in the apt that night, he/she had plenty of time to take ALL three of those children out, one at a time, in three trips. If an abductor had been in that apt the night of May 2nd, the McCanns would have no children at all now, in my opinion.

Salem

 

[april4sky]

I'm not sure they "let it go." Kate freely admits that she and Gerry talked about it and agreed "to keep a closer watch on the children." Kate says that with her own mouth on all three of the recent videos. In my mind, this is another example of talking out of both sides of their collective mouths.

Did they talk about it and agree to keep closer watch? or did they just blow it off? From all appearances, they blew it off, because after all she was only 3, Sean only 2, how upset could they be? and they probably wouldn't remember in a day or so anyway right? So...., let's go to dinner!

They tell us they were "concerned parents" in one breath and then in the next, remind us that their actions clearly show they couldn't have cared less.

And as an aside - Mrs. Fenn stated she heard the children crying for approx. 45 minutes. If an abductor was in the apt that night, he/she had plenty of time to take ALL three of those children out, one at a time, in three trips. If an abductor had been in that apt the night of May 2nd, the McCanns would have no children at all now, in my opinion.

Salem

Yes they talked about it but as Madeleine didn't seem concerned when she made the passing comment they let the comment go.
With hindsight i'm sure they wish they had questioned her.

If the McCanns had killed Madeleine I don't believe Kate would have told the PJ about Madeleines comment.
I think it shows they have told the truth.

And I don't believe we yet know the truth of Mrs Fenns statement.

 

[Salem]

Happy Mother's Day April :blowkiss:,

As you know, I disagree about Mrs. Fenn. I could be wrong, but I think she is a very strong witness and I give her statement credence.

I'm not sure the McCanns did tell the police. Most of the reports indicate that the McCanns told their private investigators, not the police so I guess we will have to see what comes out about the truth of this.

And - I don't believe Maddie was unconcerned no matter what Kate says. Again, Kate tells us it was enough for her and Gerry "to discuss and decide to KEEP A CLOSER WATCH OVER THE CHILDREN." Which, sadly, they did not do. If it is enough to talk to your spouse/co-parent about, it is surely worth a second thought and Kate has given evidence that she gave it a second thought by coming to the decision to watch closer. So she gave it a second thought - but then blew it off. I have no sympathy for her here, none. And I don't believe her. If she truely was a caring parent, she would not have blown it off and neither would Gerry. This really isn't about just Kate. Gerry is just as culpable. They could have hired a sitter as explained by Mark Warner and supposedly it was RECOMMENDED that they do so. No excuse. Think about it twice, decide to act better, and then do completely opposite..... just doesn't ring true.

A 3 almost 4 year old can be quite traumatized by waking up in the middle of the night and finding no one there. Add to that being in a strange bed, room, hotel, country and not understanding the language. It boggles my mind that 2 DOCTORS could have such general disregard for the psychological well-being of their own children.

There was no "disregarding." The McCanns CHOSE to ignore Maddie's concerns. I can not forget that these 2 people have specialized training and that that training would/should have taught them how very dangerous their actions were. Can't give it up......

Prayers for Maddie,

Salem

 

[Tony Bennett]

Salem,

Isn't it actually more likely that the whole story about Madeleine cheerily and without a care in the world casually saying: "Why weren't you here when Sean and I were crying last night?" is a self-serving, false statement designed to give the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of Friday 3rd May?

Plus, of course, to minimise the awfulness of Mrs Pamela Fenn's testimony (if true) that she heard Madeleine sobbing for between 90 minutes and 2 hours (according to various reports).

I noted that in the recent ITV documentary [read: 2-hour propaganda show for the McCanns], when Kate McCann was asked a question about Madeleine, she suddenly described how she would have shaken Madeleine, and began to lose control and showed the interviewer how she 'would have shaken' Madeleine, shaking her arms to and fro violently. She only just recovered herself. It is worth watching. Very unnerving, though

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[SleuthMom]

Tony:

Isn't it actually more likely that the whole story about Madeleine cheerily and without a care in the world casually saying: "Why weren't you here when Sean and I were crying last night?" is a self-serving, false statement designed to give the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of Friday 3rd May?

She was alive that morning. Remember she went to the creche until the evening and there are witnesses to that.

It is worth watching. Very unnerving, though

Is it available online? Do you have a link? Thanks.

 

[Texana]

Happy Mother's Day, everyone.

I find the statements Kate makes about Maddie's comment very disconcerting, to put it mildly. She excuses not following up on the crying comment by saying that Maddie went on playing.

But then she goes on to say that surely the crying was caused by an intruder, she knows that now.

If it was traumatic enough that an intruder awakened the children and they began crying (highly unlikely for reasons already given, and also, if they were truly checking on the children so frequently, I guarantee you that a BoogeyMan in the room would mean the children would NOT fall back asleep--nor would they dismiss it the next morning so casually.)

Every explanation, every comment Kate gives is aimed at emphasizing what good parents she and Gerry were/are. As she said once, it's the "certainty that we are responsible parents" that kept her going in the early days.

They've been asked many times if they left the children alone and never answered, so why now does Kate offer these explanations?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PT8QJL9nlaw&feature=related

Here they are evading the question. Now, they don't specifically say "We can't answer that because of the investigation." They evade answering.

There's a reason that only after Madeleine has been missing for a year that Kate now admits to leaving the children alone, that the statement was enough to make her decide with Gerry to give the children more supervision, (but still leave them alone) AND she knows now that an intruder awakened the children the night before, and that reason isn't that the statement was "leaked' from someone.

Whether or not it's the reason Tony suggests, I don't know yet, but something is just not credible with any of this.

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

We may not agree with it but baby listening is legal.

Drunk baby listeners are not legal.

 

[Salem]

Salem,

Isn't it actually more likely that the whole story about Madeleine cheerily and without a care in the world casually saying: "Why weren't you here when Sean and I were crying last night?" is a self-serving, false statement designed to give the impression that Madeleine was alive on the morning of Friday 3rd May? I don't know Tony. I tend to agree with Sleuthmom below that there are witnesses that Maddie was in the creche until she was picked up for tea. However, all of that information has been "discussed" over and over and I just don't have a good feel for the end result. I tend to think the accident happened as Kate was getting the children ready for bed.

I do agree there is a reason why this information is coming out now and I believe PLE when they say they did not leak it and that such statements will not be found in the LE files.

Plus, of course, to minimise the awfulness of Mrs Pamela Fenn's testimony (if true) that she heard Madeleine sobbing for between 90 minutes and 2 hours (according to various reports).

I think they definitely want to minimize Mrs. Fenn's statements. I think there must be additional statements made during the "requestioning" that they are trying to minimize also. Maybe there were another couple of witnesses that heard Maddie and Sean crying that night? Pure speculation on my part. But it is obvious that there is a major effort to manipulate the masses, going on here.

I noted that in the recent ITV documentary [read: 2-hour propaganda show for the McCanns], when Kate McCann was asked a question about Madeleine, she suddenly described how she would have shaken Madeleine, and began to lose control and showed the interviewer how she 'would have shaken' Madeleine, shaking her arms to and fro violently. She only just recovered herself. It is worth watching. Very unnerving, though

Too this, I can only say "oh my gosh" I have not watched this documentary yet. There have been so many bad things going on on this board, I have been in "protect the psychi" mode lately. I watched the two short interviews but haven't been able to bring myself to watch the long one. I know the link is here, a page or two back. I'll have to find it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, your long article posts were some great reading. I agree with many of the things you have pointed out and I support a Maddie's Law that would outlaw "baby listening" and leaving children under the age of 12 alone.

Salem

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Happy Mother's Day April :blowkiss:,...snipped to shorten...


...A 3 almost 4 year old can be quite traumatized by waking up in the middle of the night and finding no one there. Add to that being in a strange bed, room, hotel, country and not understanding the language. It boggles my mind that 2 DOCTORS could have such general disregard for the psychological well-being of their own children....


Prayers for Maddie,

Salem

This is another smoking gun in my humble oppenion. The McCanns have really hurt their case by rehashing and elaborating on the discussion with Maddie on the morning of the 3rd about her and Sean's crying. If this really happened, (which I don't believe) there is no way Maddie would have dismissed it so quickly. When my youngest was in Kindergarten, I was working out in the garden in the back yard (Honestly! it really was the back garden, not a Gerry's make believe story) when the school bus dropped him off. I had lost track of time, and it was windy and I didn't hear the bus. When I didn't greet him at the door he became very worried, even though his much older brother was with him. He became very distraught and began looking all around the house for me. By the time I made it into the house, (just a few minutes when older son called for me) he was hysterical. Poor guy was crying so hard, and so scared he clung to me for nearly half an hour afterward. I felt terrible to see him in so much pain. It brought me to tears. He's 9 now, that was 4 years ago, and he STILL brings it up occasionally.

The McCanns are liars and will be punished for their actions in my humble oppenion.

 

[Salem]

I know what you mean IW - I have a young granddaughter whose mother left her alone at night on occasion when she was 2-3ish in age. Exactly when and how many times I don't know, but when she was able to talk she told her dad. My granddaughter still has nightmares, 4 years later, and will go looking for her dad at night. It is worse for her when she stays with us, because she is not in her own bed or room so that throws her off a little. Once she finds us, she will settle down and go back to sleep, but it is very upsetting for her.

I understand all kids handle these things differently. But no way do I believe the comment was "made in passing" and then what about Sean. Not one word about he might have felt... Its a bunch of *@!*&#!*!

Salem

 

[Texana]

This is another smoking gun in my humble oppenion. The McCanns have really hurt their case by rehashing and elaborating on the discussion with Maddie on the morning of the 3rd about her and Sean's crying. If this really happened, (which I don't believe) there is no way Maddie would have dismissed it so quickly. When my youngest was in Kindergarten, I was working out in the garden in the back yard (Honestly! it really was the back garden, not a Gerry's make believe story) when the school bus dropped him off. I had lost track of time, and it was windy and I didn't hear the bus. When I didn't greet him at the door he became very worried, even though his much older brother was with him. He became very distraught and began looking all around the house for me. By the time I made it into the house, (just a few minutes when older son called for me) he was hysterical. Poor guy was crying so hard, and so scared he clung to me for nearly half an hour afterward. I felt terrible to see him in so much pain. It brought me to tears. He's 9 now, that was 4 years ago, and he STILL brings it up occasionally.

The McCanns are liars and will be punished for their actions in my humble oppenion.

Exactly my point, there's no way if the children had been truly awakened by an intruder, they would have been so calm the next morning.

My daughter was about the same age as Maddie, maybe a few months younger, when she kept insisting she saw a "thing" on the mirror of her adjoining bathroom (there's no door) at night. She would start crying, we would run upstairs, turn on the light, see nothing, look around, but she was adamant she saw something and could hardly go to sleep each night--and talked the next day about it.

Turns out after a couple of nights we saw it--a giant tree roach had sneaked into the house, and this was a big one even for that nasty big bug species.

She still remembers it, too, close to 9 years later, and she reminds me how I didn't believe her but there WAS a thing there.

I agree with you, IW, there's just no way if the children were upset and awakened, Maddie would not have been talking about it the next day so dismissively.

 

[cushty]

for Maddy and Sean to have been awakened during the night of the 2/3rd May by a would-be abductor, there would have to have been a window of opportunity betwwen the checks on that night as well as the following night

what fools Team McCann must take us for if they think we could believe that

 

[Barnaby]

I totally agree with all that you have said Salem, InterestedWoman & Texana. I think we have all had children wake up & cry with nightmares & they do talk about it afterwards & most of us caring parents try to console them & rationalise their fears!
Madeleine would most definitely not have said this just in passing & for the McCanns to say that they don't even remember where she was when she said it is ludicrous. They are trying to make us believe that an abductor in the room made her cry so if this is so darned relevant, I am sure they would remember every detail, as if you wouldn't remember every detail of your daughter's last day with you anyway!
I do not believe this story anymore than you do!

 

[Tony Bennett]

SleuthMom wrote: "She was alive that morning. Remember she went to the creche until the evening and there are witnesses to that". [And Salem thinks the same]

REPLY: Elsewhere I have gone through the eight claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine during 3rd May - including the claimed creche sightings - and explained that there are good reasons for doubting each and every one of them.

I am happy to reproduce that analysis here, but it's on the long side...

And I think it's been discussed on this Forum long before I joined.

But will post it on request

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tony Bennett]

SleuthMom

I am not 100% sure if the whole 'Madeleine - One Year On' ITV documentary is viewable on the Net yet, but try this link:

http://www.itv.com/News/newsspecial/MadeleineMcCannoneyearon/default.html

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Barnaby]

SleuthMom wrote: "She was alive that morning. Remember she went to the creche until the evening and there are witnesses to that". [And Salem thinks the same]

REPLY: Elsewhere I have gone through the eight claimed 'sightings' of Madeleine during 3rd May - including the claimed creche sightings - and explained that there are good reasons for doubting each and every one of them.

I am happy to reproduce that analysis here, but it's on the long side...

And I think it's been discussed on this Forum long before I joined.

But will post it on request

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLease do post Tony, TIA!

 

[Tony Bennett]

Posted at Barnaby's request. I compiled it some time ago and it is certainly open to challenge, correction and updating:

EIGHT SIGHTINGS OF MADELEINE ON 3RD MAY. HOW MANY CAN BE PROVED?


1. The register of who was at the kids’ club/creche that day is said to show that Madeleine attended

ANSWER: The register has not been produced, and a false entry could easily have been created by Ms Pennington (or someone else) on 3rd May. Mrs Pennington was I think a family friend who had known the McCanns from their time in New Zealand

2. The ‘last photo’ of Madeline at 2.29pm on 3rd May

ANSWER: There is only one claimed photo of Madeleine taken on 3rd May - the notorious ‘2.29pm’ photo. Gerry McCann himself has admitted that this time might be wrong. It is highly suspicious that the McCanns did not release this digital photo for 3 whole weeks after Madeleine ‘disappeared’. It could have been published within *hours*. There is a very strong suggestion that this ‘last photo’ could be a ‘photoshopped’ forgery, see e.g. www.truthformadeleine.com

3. Charlotte Pennington, the nanny, having seen Madeleine having high tea with her mother at c. 5.30pm to 6pm

ANSWER: There are a number of reasons for doubting whether Ms Pennington is a witness of truth. Her story has varied from one account to another. Her on-the-record interview for the ‘Daily Mail’ in October was also evasive and vague at key points. Her account also conflicts with other accounts of where Madeleine was at this time

4. Another nanny claimed to have seen Madeleine on 3 May at the kids’ club/crèche

ANSWER: I don’t have the details so am unable to comment

5. The CCTV video of Gerry and the family at the El Paraiso restaurant, produced by Miguel Matias

ANSWER: Matias was comprehensively exposed by a Portuguese journalist and newspaper as a serial con-man and fraudster known to the Portuguese police. Even before he was exposed, he had ‘rowed back’ from his earlier claims, admitting that the video was ‘grainy’ and ‘may not have been the McCanns after all’ (!)

6. David Payne claiming to have seen Madeleine being put to bed at around 7pm on 3rd May

ANSWER: An unlikely story - again with many variations as to the time he went to the apartment and the reason he did so - for many reasons which have been aired here and on other forums

7. Gerry McCann’s ‘check’ on the children at 9.05 to 9.10

ANSWER: This ‘sighting’ has been subject to numerous changes since it was first claimed. The latest version has Gerry McCann going in to all four rooms in the apartment during his brief check, peeing in the loo and failing to notice an abductor hiding behind one of the doors, or in a wardrobe or under the bed. In addition he claims that he looked lovingly down at Madeleine thinking how very lucky he was to have such a beautiful daughter. While the abductor was breathing noiselessly in the same room. These statements of Gerry McCann are all self-serving statements after the event and consequently of little or no evidential value, especially given so many other doubts as to whether Gerry McCann is a witness of truth. The credibility of this whole claimed ‘check’ is now surely close to zero

8. Matthew Oldfield’s check on the children at 9.30pm

ANSWER: It is not really certain whether this is a true ‘sighting’ as Matthew Oldfield doesn’t claim to have seen all the children, only to have peeped round the door and ‘listened’. He says he saw the twins but not Madeleine, which is as unlikely as some of the other ‘Tapas 9’ tales. He also claims to have noticed that the apartment ’looked strangely lighter than earlier in the evening’, which is somewhat difficult to believe, as between 9.00pm and 9.30pm it had gone from dusk to dark. And when did he see the apartment earlier in the evening anyway? His claimed ‘check’ looks to be no more than a crude and McCann-serving attempt to bolster the claim that the alleged abductor removed Madeleine from the apartment at about 9.15pm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Texana]

Thanks, Tony. Those are all good points, absent a non-family friend witness who can testify Madeleine was actually at the creche that day, we don't have definitive proof she was.