Portuguese launch new Maddy probe

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/jurisdiction_courts/jurisdiction_courts_por_en.htm

I think I need to read this.

[quote="fred"]

margaret wrote:

T4two wrote:Who released the picture of GM in front of a flipchart with the wider agenda diagram and masonic symbols?

I believe it was someone connected to or even the McCanns. I believe it was a cry for help.

I'd still like to know who put the "I'm not here to fucking enjoy myself" video on Youtube?[/quote]



Someone who doesn't particlularly like GM perhaps?

I'd still like to know who put the "I'm not here to fucking enjoy myself" video on Youtube

So would I, I've been asking that for 5 years. It completely undermines all their "middle-class, loving happy family" image; they look like what they are, chavs on a cheap out-of-season package deal. NOT the image at all that Mr Gerry would like to cultivate.

And what is this about no new leads, there were hundreds and they were all "gold dust", Clarence said so!

Iris wrote:

I'd still like to know who put the "I'm not here to fucking enjoy myself" video on Youtube

So would I, I've been asking that for 5 years. It completely undermines all their "middle-class, loving happy family" image; they look like what they are, chavs on a cheap out-of-season package deal. NOT the image at all that Mr Gerry would like to cultivate.

And what is this about no new leads, there were hundreds and they were all "gold dust", Clarence said so!

Anyone know whose voice it is on the video, suggesting that Gerry cheer up? He sounds like a real chav!

Payne I think.

It definitely is David Payne and it is also he who says words to the effect of "Oops-a-daisy, are you all right?" to Madeleine when she stumbled on the steps. Remember that only the Paynes and the McCanns travelled together so there is no other male that it could be.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:It definitely is David Payne and it is also he who says words to the effect of "Oops-a-daisy, are you all right?" to Madeleine when she stumbled on the steps. Remember that only the Paynes and the McCanns travelled together so there is no other male that it could be.

Thanks NBY. He sounds like some chav going to a football match.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:It definitely is David Payne and it is also he who says words to the effect of "Oops-a-daisy, are you all right?" to Madeleine when she stumbled on the steps. Remember that only the Paynes and the McCanns travelled together so there is no other male that it could be.

Thanks NBY. He sounds like some chav going to a football match.

Stockport County or Sale Sharks perhaps? Definitely sounds Cheshire. But why would Payne put it on You-tube to discredit GM I wonder? Btw When the name Payne comes up I'm always reminded of the KM statement about Madeleine's "fear of pain".

I'm always reminded of Goncalo Amaral's wife saying that she wouldn't permit paedophiles into their circle of friends.

Here it is as posted on the BBC website on 29th May 2007. Gerry's infamous comment was not quite deleted - you can just hear the "f**k"!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698737.stm

So the mccanns released those video clips.....I'm quote sure if they had Gerry McCann would off edited it first.

So the question is why on earth didn't they remove the sound before issuing the footage to the media?

Oldartform wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:KathyBelle, I understand why your views are coloured - that's a terrible tale.

But those events were perpetrated because of some dodgy individuals - many people are Masons and like any subset of Society there will be rogues. It doesn't follow that because some bad guys are Masons then Masons are bad guys (in some respects).

Not trying to diminish this in any way, but there are also rogues amongst the devoutly Religious (I know, because we have a handful of them in our village!) but that doesn't mean all Religious types are dodgy.

Ditto with the oft misrepresented claim that Terrorism is a characteristic of some branches of Religion - It isn't. It's a characteristic of nasty individuals who seek an umbrella to hide under.

They then tar every other adherent to the cause - whether it's Religion, Masons or whatever



In similar vein, some Policemen are corrupt and/or useless and some Investigations create unsatisfactory outcomes - but the vast majority of Plod and the vast majority of their efforts are laudable. A good enough reason on its own to hope that the current Reviews might bear fruit. Why cannot even one honest copper not spot so many things that we all have? Well the fact is that they most certainly can - and will.

TEIN - you are so right - its pointless making sweeping statements as there are good and bad in every major and minority group, but I wouldn`t be surprised if things go on in the higher degrees of masonry that the ordinary good fellows do not know about.

I can`t see how SY and the Porto police can come to any conclusion different from GA`s conclusion, but what they do with it is another matter. Yes, they should order a reconstruction and interview the Tapas 9 under oath. I think many of the original witnesses at the Ocean Club may give a truer account, particularly the English speaking staff, knowing that it`s SY they are dealing with and that they cannot speak in vagueries. I suppose it then comes down to politics and whether SY can present a good case to the Crown Prosecution Service, which one hopes does not have members that are open to corruption.

If you are implying that I made a sweeping statement, saying that all Mason's are bad, you couldn't be further from the truth. I actually told TEIN, that he/she was correct, when he/she, said the code of the Mason's doesn't condone breaking the law. I have actually read the Mason's code of practice and they say that they will remove a member from their organisation if they break the law.

I also said that the Mason's do a lot of good, but as with other organisations there is corruption. This is one of the reasons why I put the two cases I knew about on the board. The first one involved my children and the second one involved a senior manager at the firm I worked for. I will say that it wasn't the first time, this manager had done something that he should have been sacked for.

Was that video put on Youtube while the Mcs were still in PDL? That and the flipchart pic - so many puzzles in this case.

Don't know anything about masons, but there are good and bad people in all walks of life. Take that greedy, corrupt shower in the Houses of Parliament. They all had a copy of TB's book and only one or two seemed to take any notice. The facts are out there for folk to make up their own minds and yet still this circus continues. There's many on twitter saying that the police have to have a watertight case and that's why it's taking so long. So I carry on living in hope.

Jay2001, I've found a shortened version of the footage (minus climbing the steps) which was put on YouTube on 7th July 2007 so the McCanns were still in Portugal then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBK7QjYV-2o

kathybelle wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:KathyBelle, I understand why your views are coloured - that's a terrible tale.

But those events were perpetrated because of some dodgy individuals - many people are Masons and like any subset of Society there will be rogues. It doesn't follow that because some bad guys are Masons then Masons are bad guys (in some respects).

Not trying to diminish this in any way, but there are also rogues amongst the devoutly Religious (I know, because we have a handful of them in our village!) but that doesn't mean all Religious types are dodgy.

Ditto with the oft misrepresented claim that Terrorism is a characteristic of some branches of Religion - It isn't. It's a characteristic of nasty individuals who seek an umbrella to hide under.

They then tar every other adherent to the cause - whether it's Religion, Masons or whatever



In similar vein, some Policemen are corrupt and/or useless and some Investigations create unsatisfactory outcomes - but the vast majority of Plod and the vast majority of their efforts are laudable. A good enough reason on its own to hope that the current Reviews might bear fruit. Why cannot even one honest copper not spot so many things that we all have? Well the fact is that they most certainly can - and will.

TEIN - you are so right - its pointless making sweeping statements as there are good and bad in every major and minority group, but I wouldn`t be surprised if things go on in the higher degrees of masonry that the ordinary good fellows do not know about.

I can`t see how SY and the Porto police can come to any conclusion different from GA`s conclusion, but what they do with it is another matter. Yes, they should order a reconstruction and interview the Tapas 9 under oath. I think many of the original witnesses at the Ocean Club may give a truer account, particularly the English speaking staff, knowing that it`s SY they are dealing with and that they cannot speak in vagueries. I suppose it then comes down to politics and whether SY can present a good case to the Crown Prosecution Service, which one hopes does not have members that are open to corruption.

If you are implying that I made a sweeping statement, saying that all Mason's are bad, you couldn't be further from the truth. I actually told TEIN, that he/she was correct, when he/she, said the code of the Mason's doesn't condone breaking the law. I have actually read the Mason's code of practice and they say that they will remove a member from their organisation if they break the law.

I also said that the Mason's do a lot of good, but as with other organisations there is corruption. This is one of the reasons why I put the two cases I knew about on the board. The first one involved my children and the second one involved a senior manager at the firm I worked for. I will say that it wasn't the first time, this manager had done something that he should have been sacked for.

Kathybelle - where have you got the idea I was referring to anything you said. I had read your post, believed it and greatly sympathised with you. I was replying to TEIN`s post and referring to people who make sweeping statements about a whole groups of people and that there are good and bad in all. You had not even made a sweeping statement had you? You don`t have to justify what you said to me Kathybelle because I totally agreed with you anyway.

jay2001 wrote:Was that video put on Youtube while the Mcs were still in PDL? That and the flipchart pic - so many puzzles in this case.

Don't know anything about masons, but there are good and bad people in all walks of life. Take that greedy, corrupt shower in the Houses of Parliament. They all had a copy of TB's book and only one or two seemed to take any notice. The facts are out there for folk to make up their own minds and yet still this circus continues. There's many on twitter saying that the police have to have a watertight case and that's why it's taking so long. So I carry on living in hope.

Can you imagine hpw all hell would break loose if the police were seen to go anywhere near the parents just to question them? So yes, the police must have sufficient evidence to go in and make an arrest and bring charges to put the lid on any speculation. Thing is, establishing what crime or crimes are involved will not be easy, especially as nobody is likely to confess to anything.

Maybe - just maybe - they are trying to "frighten the horses"!

T4two wrote:

jay2001 wrote:Was that video put on Youtube while the Mcs were still in PDL? That and the flipchart pic - so many puzzles in this case.

Don't know anything about masons, but there are good and bad people in all walks of life. Take that greedy, corrupt shower in the Houses of Parliament. They all had a copy of TB's book and only one or two seemed to take any notice. The facts are out there for folk to make up their own minds and yet still this circus continues. There's many on twitter saying that the police have to have a watertight case and that's why it's taking so long. So I carry on living in hope.

Can you imagine hpw all hell would break loose if the police were seen to go anywhere near the parents just to question them? So yes, the police must have sufficient evidence to go in and make an arrest and bring charges to put the lid on any speculation. Thing is, establishing what crime or crimes are involved will not be easy, especially as nobody is likely to confess to anything.

The McCanns have already confessed to the police back in May 2007, that they left their children unsupervised, all but one night of that so called family holiday. This means that the McCanns were confessing they committed a crime, each day they left their children unsupervised. If the McCanns are to be believed, Madeleine disappeared, while she was left unsupervised, which means that the McCanns crimes while serious, were elevated to a different level and they would have been jailed, if they had been prosecuted.

The question is, why were the McCanns not prosecuted, for the crimes they had confessed to? It can't be because they were British, because a British football fan was jailed for committing a crime in Portugal. He served part of his sentence in Portugal, then he was allowed to serve the rest of his sentence in the UK.

He was later exonerated, because it was discovered that the evidence against him was flawed. The point I'm trying to make is, this football never confessed to a crime, yet he was jailed. The McCanns have confessed to committing several crimes, including one where Madeleine supposedly disappeared, when they committed the last crime of leaving her unsupervised, but they were never prosecuted.

Goncalo Amaral, said they wanted to prosecute the McCanns, but higher authorities as well as intervention by the British Government, wouldn't allow them to. I have no reason to believe that Goncalo Amaral was lying, when he made that statement, nor do I believe he was lying, when he said that the McCanns demanded the archiving of the investigation.

The point is, why have these to unconvicted child neglectors, been allowed to call all of the shots in this case? What is it about the McCanns that made so many high powered people, rush to their side, even though they had broken the law several times in Portugal?

As soon as Scotland Yard began the review into this case, they would have seen the McCanns statements, which showed that they committed crime each time they left their children unsupervised and how serious their crime was, because Madeleine disappeared, because of their crimes. So why have these British police officers, not advised the PJ to bring charges against the McCanns? There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to be charged, with the offences they confessed to.

It isn't as if the review would be halted, if the McCanns were charged and prosecuted. Maybe the reason the McCanns are not being charged and prosecuted, is the same reason they were not charged and prosecuted in 2007/8. Whether the police believe Madeleine was abducted or not, has no bearing on the McCanns being prosecuted for the crimes they confessed to.

Or maybe it is because the crime of neglect never actually took place, and the Pt police know it.

Iris wrote:Or maybe it is because the crime of neglect never actually took place, and the Pt police know it.

Hi Iris, I've always doubted the neglect story,
without the neglect issues this case becomes
much more sinister. Furthernore, it may explain
why the PT police didn't buy it or prosecute it.

i dont know about portugals law , but i remember in the 3as days there was a post saying the pj could have had silver - neglect - but they went for gold - they havent even got bronze - now the post was saying that if they charged with neglect NOTHING at a later stage could be added - a far more serious charge

Iris wrote:Or maybe it is because the crime of neglect never actually took place, and the Pt police know it.

I have said this many times. I don't believe they were left alone and I agree with you, the PJ know too.

Iris wrote:Or maybe it is because the crime of neglect never actually took place, and the Pt police know it.

A crime of neglect, may or may never have taken place, but one thing for sure is, a crime against Madeleine has certainly taken place. If the McCanns were telling lies, when they said they left their children unsupervised, all but one evening of that so called family holiday, someone must have been looking after the children.

Warner confirmed that the McCanns refused their baby sitting facilities, which consisted of the evening creche or a baby sitter who would have stayed in the McCanns apartment, while the McCanns were out. This means that whoever was looking after the children, was obviously someone known to the McCanns. If the twins and Madeleine, were all in the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared, then this person is responisble for whatever happened to Madeleine.

I don't understand the logic of the McCanns telling the police they left their children unsupervised, if they weren't. The McCanns were confessing to crimes they hadn't committed. Also the Tapas 7 were not only verifying the McCanns story, they must have been lying when they said they were making regular checks on the McCanns children. There would be no point in these people checking on the McCanns children, if they were not left unsupervised.

The McCanns are adamant that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance and if that is true, then they must be protecting the one who looked after their children.

Why would the McCanns protect someone, who is responsible for whatever happened to Madeleine? It just doesn't make sense.

If the McCanns children, were not left unsupervised, when the McCanns were out, Mrs Fenn must have been lying, when she said she heard Madeleine crying for a couple of hours. No babysitter, would allow Madeleine to cry for a couple of hours, they would contact the place where the McCanns were and ask them to come and see to her.

For what it's worth, I don't believe the twin's were in the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. I believe they were taken to the apartment of one of their friends, while Madeleine was being dealt with. Hence no bedding in the twin's cots.

cass wrote:i dont know about portugals law , but i remember in the 3as days there was a post saying the pj could have had silver - neglect - but they went for gold - they havent even got bronze - now the post was saying that if they charged with neglect NOTHING at a later stage could be added - a far more serious charge

It appeared to me at that time (September 2007) that there was a huge difference in attitude between the top brass at Leicestershire Constabulary and its officers on the ground in Portugal. IMO the Leicestershire officers were sent to Portugal under the assumption of the Chief Constable that an abduction had taken place and with express instructions to assist the Portuguese police to recover the missing child. As it turned out this was an assumption which should never have been made and one which was to prove disastrous. For the officers on the ground, faced with the indications of the parents' involvement, it was probably impossible to convince their superiors back in Leicestershire that this was the direction the investigation had to take. For those superiors in England, it was equally impossible to deny their officers the assistance of the expert Harrison and the introduction of the dogs, without clearly laying themselves open to accusations of bias. It was when the dogs indicated that they had detected cadaver odour and when blood was actually found, that the real cover up began. Faced with a situation where the first forensic report appeared to back up the indications of the dogs - particularly damning for the parents that the hire car also tested positive - the big wigs at Leicestershire Constabulary had no option than to let their officers in Portugal go ahead and assist the Portuguese police with their confrontation of the parents. Imagine the pressure that Prior was under from his superiors. Imagine the then Chief Constable screaming down the phone at him, "You'd better be right on this one Prior, or when you get back to England you'll be back in uniform before your plane hits the ground." or something along those lines. So all that could be done from the UK mainland side to rescue the situation it seems, was to pull the rug out from underneath the feet of the Portuguese police and UK officers assisting them, by negating the forensic evidence. Thus the first positive report mysteriously morphed into a negative or inconclusive one. All the parents then had to do was refuse point blank to cooperate and they were off the hook. The point of this post however is not just to go over old ground, but to try to explain the course of events and why the Portuguese police did not go for silver but went for gold and lost. IMO, if all had been well between the Portuguese police and the UK with the UK officers on the ground having the full support of their superiors, then the Portuguese could very well have charged the parents with neglect, confident in the knowledge that the parents could still be charged with more serious crimes in the UK. But, given the conflict between the UK officers and their superiors and it was obvious to the Portuguese that there was a lack of support coming from England, they would have had no such confidence. Indeed, if there was no dialogue between people higher up the chain of command in both countries, then no such arrangement was ever going to be on the cards. That in my opinion for what it is worth, is one of the main reasons why charges were not brought by the Portuguese police against the parents and their accomplices, for neglect.