Mitchell ...

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/madeleine-police-to-come-to-britain-to-reinterview-tapas-nine-6662107.html - 2008 version.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/portuguese-police-ignored-report-of-madeleine-sighting-claims-taxi-driver-549902.html - Clarrified version.

Both saved securely.

@Iris

So sorry to hear that - IP addresses are general "Dynamic" (You nab one from a tranche each time your Router resets, or periodically anyway, to help optimise the capabilities of your ISP's network) but even so the ISP ought to be able to analyse who the user was, given enough events.

If the McCanns do not speak out against the depraved acts of their supporters - we can only assume that they endorse them.

Iris wrote:http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/madeleine-police-to-come-to-britain-to-reinterview-tapas-nine-6662107.html - 2008 version.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/world/portuguese-police-ignored-report-of-madeleine-sighting-claims-taxi-driver-549902.html - Clarrified version.

Both saved securely.

Thanks Iris! I have been searching for the original and didn't find it!

What is fairly clear here is that someone appears to have tampered with a witness statement and that is a police matter. Who does the change benefit? Originally Clarence ruled it out because it was May 3rd at 8.10pm and he stated that all of the group members were in the Tapas bar. So, who benefits if the sighting was May 4th and they can then say that there was a possible sighting of Maddie alive on that day?

AnnaEsse wrote:One of their number hassled me on 3As and then followed me to another forum, where they not only posted my personal details, but those of my son.

Iris wrote:One of them wrote the most foul, abusive email to my then 9-year-old daughter, telling her that her mother (me) was an evil c*nt who deserved to have her throat slit. I am not joking.

OMG! I've 'known' you both for a long time but didn't know this. That is horrendous!
And shocking that it could be thrown out through lack of evidence!
They really are the scum of the earth.

AnnaEsse wrote:What is fairly clear here is that someone appears to have tampered with a witness statement and that is a police matter. Who does the change benefit? Originally Clarence ruled it out because it was May 3rd at 8.10pm and he stated that all of the group members were in the Tapas bar. So, who benefits if the sighting was May 4th and they can then say that there was a possible sighting of Maddie alive on that day?

Indeed, who could benefit from a possible sighting the following day which would tie in with an abduction theory? I can't see that it would be of any benefit to the taxi driver to change his story.

Wouldn't it be the ultimate irony if McCannical engineering by Clarry turns into the mistake that provides the means to focus on matters which lead to his client's denouement?

I guess it requires intelligence, reliable instincts, considerable life experience and critical thinking skills to be able to look at a case like the Madeleine McCann disappearance and realise that all is not what it seems. Having inexplicably decided to blindly believe the 'accounts' of the 'truth' we've all been fed, the McFans have very little to debate - Madeleine was abducted is all they can offer - and having nailed their colours to that particular mast, they fervently hope that their ship comes in.

I would be delighted if they were right - there'd at least be hope that Madeleine will one day be recovered alive and that she can be reunited with her family and hopefully resettled successfully. However, that's a hope which depends on the McTeam's account of the events being true. Along with my fellow posters here, I do possess intelligence, reliable instincts, considerable life experience and critical thinking skills, so I am bound instead, to question what I'm told and I don't believe it, which leaves me on another ship altogether. And, despite what the McFans shriek, it's not a ship full of 'haters', 'forkers' and 'scum' who wish a child dead - it's a ship laden with people who're asking questions, people who've resented having to reassure their anxious children as they tuck them into bed and people who are disturbed and upset by the inconsistent words, suspicious actions and inexplicable behaviour of the people closest to that child. Of course, there are a small number of noisy trouble-makers and lunatics onboard too, who are just there to waste time and disrupt, but that's life for you.

The difference between the two camps, as far as I can see, is that the McFans think it's a contest and in their desperation to win, they focus their efforts on trying to sink the 'competition' rather than engaging in intelligent, rational debate and helping us to see that we're wrong, that we can trust the version of events we've been fed and that there is hope that the child and her abductor are findable.

I hope their ship reaches harbour - nothing would please me more. But it doesn't appear to be moving.

@Wintabells


Excellent summary. Bravo.

Well said Wintabells

Yes, well done, Wintabells. It's not a competition. All we ask is that they properly back up their claims and theories rather than simply insulting and hurling abuse at others.

Wish I could find the original source for this quote from Clarence. It sounds like it's been translated from another language to me -




However, way back in 2008, a source connected with the investigation guaranteed to Correio de Manha that the information given by António Castela were "investigated" and the “lead was proven false”.

At that time, Clarence Mitchell responded publicly on behalf of the McCanns to this particular sighting...
Clarence Mitchell, reacted yesterday with amazement at the declarations of the taxi-driver. “The declarations of Mr. Castela are false. They are a perfect nonsense. He can only be mistaken when he says that at that time he transported Kate and Madeleine with three men”, he said. Clarence doubts of the intentions of the taxi-driver. “It astonishes me that only now, ten months later, he talks about this. These are declarations that only cause pain to Kate and Gerry", he said, advancing that that the McCann's daughter has no facial twitches. “The only sign to report is the one she has in the eye.”http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/spinning-memory-of-clarence-mitchell.html

wjk wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:One of their number hassled me on 3As and then followed me to another forum, where they not only posted my personal details, but those of my son.

Iris wrote:One of them wrote the most foul, abusive email to my then 9-year-old daughter, telling her that her mother (me) was an evil c*nt who deserved to have her throat slit. I am not joking.

OMG! I've 'known' you both for a long time but didn't know this. That is horrendous!
And shocking that it could be thrown out through lack of evidence!
They really are the scum of the earth.

yep and they call us bullies !!!!!!!! imagine if my mum knew what he said about me my mum nearly lost me 2 times before i was 11 months old imagine how angry she would be if she knew someone wished i didnt suvive!!!!!

chrissie wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:What is fairly clear here is that someone appears to have tampered with a witness statement and that is a police matter. Who does the change benefit? Originally Clarence ruled it out because it was May 3rd at 8.10pm and he stated that all of the group members were in the Tapas bar. So, who benefits if the sighting was May 4th and they can then say that there was a possible sighting of Maddie alive on that day?

Indeed, who could benefit from a possible sighting the following day which would tie in with an abduction theory? I can't see that it would be of any benefit to the taxi driver to change his story.

Just trying to work it all out in my tired old head (it's been a long week!) .....
In this article ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580173/Madeleine-McCann-was-in-my-taxi-man-claims.html
.... the driver (named as Cardoso not Castela) insists that Murat (Payne lookalike) and a slim blonde woman (KM lookalike) were in the cab. Also mentions coloboma (similar to his son's).
As this is the May 3rd sighting, CM rejects it because of the date and time (they were otherwise engaged at Tapas) but also because it might be assumed by many that KM and Payne were in the car.

CM now regards the May 4th sighting as important because the date has been changed and there's no physical description of the adult passengers.
What he appears to be telling us is that Madeleine was in the cab on the 4th, therefore she couldn't have been dead in the apartment on the 3rd. By no longer giving a physical description of the adults, our attention is not drawn to any KM/Payne lookalikes, thereby insinuating that they might well have been abductors.

And maybe that's why May 4th benefits TM.
All of this jiggery-pokery depends, of course, on the reader not seeing or remembering the older article.
But we did, and we do.

Does that make any sense? I hope so, 'cos my brain hurts!

The End Is Nigh wrote:@Iris

So sorry to hear that - IP addresses are general "Dynamic" (You nab one from a tranche each time your Router resets, or periodically anyway, to help optimise the capabilities of your ISP's network) but even so the ISP ought to be able to analyse who the user was, given enough events.

This was four years ago TEIN, when the internet was really in it's infancy. I don't really think that the PF understood how it worked. It would probably have a different outcome if the same thing were to happen today. At least, I would hope so.

almostgothic wrote:

chrissie wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:What is fairly clear here is that someone appears to have tampered with a witness statement and that is a police matter. Who does the change benefit? Originally Clarence ruled it out because it was May 3rd at 8.10pm and he stated that all of the group members were in the Tapas bar. So, who benefits if the sighting was May 4th and they can then say that there was a possible sighting of Maddie alive on that day?

Indeed, who could benefit from a possible sighting the following day which would tie in with an abduction theory? I can't see that it would be of any benefit to the taxi driver to change his story.

Just trying to work it all out in my tired old head (it's been a long week!) .....
In this article ...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580173/Madeleine-McCann-was-in-my-taxi-man-claims.html
.... the driver (named as Cardoso not Castela) insists that Murat (Payne lookalike) and a slim blonde woman (KM lookalike) were in the cab. Also mentions coloboma (similar to his son's).
As this is the May 3rd sighting, CM rejects it because of the date and time (they were otherwise engaged at Tapas) but also because it might be assumed by many that KM and Payne were in the car.

CM now regards the May 4th sighting as important because the date has been changed and there's no physical description of the adult passengers.
What he appears to be telling us is that Madeleine was in the cab on the 4th, therefore she couldn't have been dead in the apartment on the 3rd. By no longer giving a physical description of the adults, our attention is not drawn to any KM/Payne lookalikes, thereby insinuating that they might well have been abductors.

And maybe that's why May 4th benefits TM.
All of this jiggery-pokery depends, of course, on the reader not seeing or remembering the older article.
But we did, and we do.

Does that make any sense? I hope so, 'cos my brain hurts!

Thanks! It does make sense and mirrors my own thoughts. (I don't think my sarcasm came across in my last post!)

I'm really confused too.

Which night did the taxi driver say in his statement that he transported these suspicious passengers? was it the 3rd or the 4th?

Mitchell is on record in 2008 (below) as saying "We are dismissing this primarily because the timings are entirely wrong."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580173/Madeleine-McCann-was-in-my-taxi-man-claims.html

Iris wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@Iris

So sorry to hear that - IP addresses are general "Dynamic" (You nab one from a tranche each time your Router resets, or periodically anyway, to help optimise the capabilities of your ISP's network) but even so the ISP ought to be able to analyse who the user was, given enough events.

This was four years ago TEIN, when the internet was really in it's infancy. I don't really think that the PF understood how it worked. It would probably have a different outcome if the same thing were to happen today. At least, I would hope so.

iris you know what they have put me though pver the years they hacked my facebook and alsoa forum i ran they have called me all the names of the sun said i was mentally ill etc and tried to run meoff well they underestimated me i dont give a crap about their bullying i laugh at them!!!!

Sorry... has the taxi driver even given a statement to the PJ?

Justiceforallkids wrote:

Iris wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@Iris

So sorry to hear that - IP addresses are general "Dynamic" (You nab one from a tranche each time your Router resets, or periodically anyway, to help optimise the capabilities of your ISP's network) but even so the ISP ought to be able to analyse who the user was, given enough events.

This was four years ago TEIN, when the internet was really in it's infancy. I don't really think that the PF understood how it worked. It would probably have a different outcome if the same thing were to happen today. At least, I would hope so.

iris you know what they have put me though pver the years they hacked my facebook and alsoa forum i ran they have called me all the names of the sun said i was mentally ill etc and tried to run meoff well they underestimated me i dont give a crap about their bullying i laugh at them!!!!

Good for you. :)

Wintabells wrote:Sorry... has the taxi driver even given a statement to the PJ?

im not sure i think this is in the files so i assume so

Wintabells wrote:Sorry... has the taxi driver even given a statement to the PJ?

Yes he did, look at the other thread.

Wintabells wrote:I'm really confused too.

Which night did the taxi driver say in his statement that he transported these suspicious passengers? was it the 3rd or the 4th?

Mitchell is on record in 2008 (below) as saying "We are dismissing this primarily because the timings are entirely wrong."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1580173/Madeleine-McCann-was-in-my-taxi-man-claims.html

The 3rd, at around 8:30 in the evening. Two hours or so before she was reported missing.

Also his son is a police officer, so I am sure he would have reported to the PJ.