Old thread from another forum

[Annabel]

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread628700/pg1

The current URL of the story in question is:

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies

12:01AM BST 04 May 2007 Comments

A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.

Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.

"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.


The dateline of this story is 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007. In Portugal the time would have been the same 12:01 AM, because that country is in the same timezone as the UK.

There is some dispute as to the exact time that Madeleine's disappearance was discovered and reported by Kate McCann. For the sake of discussion, let's say that the disappearance was reported at 10:00 PM on May 3, 07.

A British child goes missing in Portugal and exactly 121 minutes later a press story appears on the website of the Telegraph newspaper announcing that there is a child missing in Portugal and this announcement is made by the British Foreign Office.

121 minutes!!!

Let's try to construct a timeline of events working backward from the precise moment at 12:01 AM when someone pressed the key on their computer to upload the story to the web.

12:01 AM 04 May 07: Story is uploaded.

11:58 PM 03 May 07: Story is typed up and proofread.

11:45 PM 03 May 07: Data entry staff receives email from editor containing story after having been phoned and alerted to situation.

11:35 PM 03 May 07: Night editor of Telegraph receives phone call from publisher or editor in chief informing him of the details of the story which he takes down over the phone. There is minimal discussion. He relays story and instructions to publish immediately to his staff.

11:15 PM 03 May 07: Foreign Office press officer phones Telegraph publisher and relates the substance of the story and requests immediate publication of it. He agrees to accept attribution of the story to the Foreign Office. There is some minimal discussion. The publisher agrees to print the story in accordance with long established protocols between the press and the FO.

11:13 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X, a functionary of the British Foreign Office at a level somewhere in support of the Minister of State for Europe, Geoffrey Hoon (in 2007), gives instructions to the FO press officer, above.

11:00 PM 03 May 07: Mr. X is instructed by a superior in the Foreign Office to relay the substance of the story of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to the Telegraph through established channels.

This is irregular and it is difficult to understand the purpose of it. Mr. X would have remarked this undoubtedly. Usually such stories would be "broken" independantly by the press itself or through official statements from Interpol or other police agencies.

The "Foreign Office" attribution for the story is the sticking point.

Keep in mind that only a little over an hour has passed since the disappearance of the child! What if the child were to be found? Twenty minutes later the British Foreign Office might have to issue another press release with the happy news.

If the British ambassador in Portugal were the first member of the British Civil Service to hear of this story and wished to expedite press coverage of it, he would normally use backchannels of his own to alert the press and ask for an "unnamed sources" attribution of the story.

Keep in mind that even a quickly solved child disappearance is a winner in press circles. The ambassador would not have to twist arms to get the story published, or would he?

Does the press normally publish stories about children who have been missing only for a little over an hour?

10:XX - 11:00PM: Information and a request for assistance in the matter of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann moved from Portugal to a ministerial level in the UK where discussions took place and a decision was made to issue an alert to the press, with Foreign Office attribution, for a child who had been reported missing less than an hour before.

10:00 - 10:XX Madeleine was discovered to be missing and after searching for less than an hour, political help in the situation was sought in the UK and received.

This is truly impressive. Rule Britannia! Congratulations to the FO.

Over here in the boondocks of Canada our "External Affairs Department" doesn't have the balls to issue a press release when a child goes missing for an hour. Shame shame you "two bit" ex-colony of woodchoppers and fur traders. Take a leaf from the FO's book. Not a sparrow falls from a foreign limb without being observed and aided by the FO. And on such short notice too. Less than an hour and they are on the case. Truly incredible.

Strange though, that one doesn't hear the constant praise of the FO being sung by British travellers around the globe. I'm inclined, myself to believe that they are much like any other government department. Wily, but slow and deliberate.

www.dailymail.co.uk...


But according to a secret U.S. diplomatic cable, Britain refused to speak to Mr Dyer or his captors in the weeks before his execution - and were aware that the Briton was facing a death sentence unless the terrorist's demands were met.
The cable, published in The Daily Telegraph, reads: 'In January ould Mataly offered to put British officials in telephone contact with the British hostage - an offer the British apparently never accepted out of fear that speaking to the hostage could put them into a position of having to negotiate with terrorists.'


If the British Foreign Office and its masters are wily, but slow and deliberate, isn't it more likely that the timetable for their deliberations and actions, actually started a day earlier than advertised, and that they only seem to be alert, quick and decisive, not to say impetuous, gallant and slightly hysterical?

But that is precisely the claim being made by the blog Unterdenteppichgekehrt, that Madeleine died on the 2nd. of May, 07, a day before the public became aware that something was wrong in Prahia da Luz.

[kitti]

It's also weird that rachel old field contacted the BBC early on 4th may.....was it 1am?

[Guest]

It has been established elsewhere that the timing of the Telegraph story was one minute after noon and not midnight. It should read PM not AM. It would read 00.01 and not 12.01 if it was really just after midnight.

The story refers to events up until several hours after midnight and could not have appeared at 00.01.

[tigger]

It has been established elsewhere that the timing of the Telegraph story was one minute after noon and not midnight. It should read PM not AM. It would read 00.01 and not 12.01 if it was really just after midnight.

The story refers to events up until several hours after midnight and could not have appeared at 00.01.

I fell for that one as well, in all the excitement - even so, pretty well on the ball that early. Lori Campbell arrived on the 4th as well and seems to have become a great friend in about five minutes.
Was it Martin Bell who was furious about the over the top coverage? Sending Huw Edwards as anchorman and hiring a helicopter to follow the mcCanns?
That's where the TV license money goes!

[T4two]

It has been established elsewhere that the timing of the Telegraph story was one minute after noon and not midnight. It should read PM not AM. It would read 00.01 and not 12.01 if it was really just after midnight.

The story refers to events up until several hours after midnight and could not have appeared at 00.01.

Still extremely quick off the mark getting the story out by midday the next day. Ditto the Foreign Office. Not a normal course of events at all in the case of a missing child who could have woken and wandered out into the night and met with an accident. Indecent haste in order to get the abduction theory established 'as fact'? Whether this points to an event earlier than the evening of the 3rd is debatable but, taken in context with everything else that was 'going on' almost immediately, it does demonstrate collusion at the highest level.
Interesting to learn that Rebekah whats'ername's solicitors are also Kingsley Napley same as dear Kate and Gerry, and that the first action in her 'defence' is an attempt to discredit the QC at the CPS bringing the charges. So, don't answer the charges - they're ludicrous or words to that effect - go for the person behind them. This tactic ring a bell anyone? Oh and whilst we're on the subject, explains how two plain and simple everyday parents, distraut, traumatized and out of their minds with worry, could come up with the absolute top firm of solitors to represent them even before anyone had questioned their story.

[ann_chovey]

It's also weird that rachel old field contacted the BBC early on 4th may.....was it 1am?

Rogatory. Rachel Oldfield.
I mean I suppose it could, it might have been a Journalist, because on the night that Madeleine disappeared, on the Thursday, a friend of mine, or friends of Matt’s and mine, Kath and James LANDALE and James LANDALE’s a BBC News erm and at the time he was like Political Correspondent, erm I saw him the other night actually reading the news on BBC News 24 but I rang him, or I rang his wife Kath cos I had her mobile number, erm basically to say you know that Madeleine had gone missing, was there any way that we could get it on the news and that was, that was on the Thursday night, so I suppose and it was the loc, it was the, was it the Local Elections or something happening that day”?00.05.56 1578 “I don’t know”.
Reply “There were some sort of Elections, must have been Local Elections and James was out, away reporting on that but anyway Kath put me in touch with him and I spoke to him and I spoke to a couple of people on the BBC News 24 desk, so I mean you know, it must”.
1578 “That was on the Thursday evening”?
Reply “That was on the Thursday night”.
1578 “What time would that have been”?
Reply “Well that was sort of you know, midnight after midnight (inaudible)”.
1578 “And this was just after ten thirty pm, twenty two thirty six”?
Reply “On the thir, but that was on the fourth”?
1578 “Yes sorry you’re correct on the fourth, Friday so”.

[tigger]

It has been established elsewhere that the timing of the Telegraph story was one minute after noon and not midnight. It should read PM not AM. It would read 00.01 and not 12.01 if it was really just after midnight.

The story refers to events up until several hours after midnight and could not have appeared at 00.01.

Still extremely quick off the mark getting the story out by midday the next day. Ditto the Foreign Office. Not a normal course of events at all in the case of a missing child who could have woken and wandered out into the night and met with an accident. Indecent haste in order to get the abduction theory established 'as fact'? Whether this points to an event earlier than the evening of the 3rd is debatable but, taken in context with everything else that was 'going on' almost immediately, it does demonstrate collusion at the highest level.
Interesting to learn that Rebekah whats'ername's solicitors are also Kingsley Napley same as dear Kate and Gerry, and that the first action in her 'defence' is an attempt to discredit the QC at the CPS bringing the charges. So, don't answer the charges - they're ludicrous or words to that effect - go for the person behind them. This tactic ring a bell anyone? Oh and whilst we're on the subject, explains how two plain and simple everyday parents, distraut, traumatized and out of their minds with worry, could come up with the absolute top firm of solitors to represent them even before anyone had questioned their story.

[Guest]

Yes I certainly agree that the coverage from a very early stage was completely and utterly out of all proportion for what was then most likely to be a simple case of a child wandering off of her own accord.

[pamalam]

It has been established elsewhere that the timing of the Telegraph story was one minute after noon and not midnight. It should read PM not AM. It would read 00.01 and not 12.01 if it was really just after midnight.

The story refers to events up until several hours after midnight and could not have appeared at 00.01.

[kitti]

So oldfield rang just After 12am.....friday morning...

[kitti]

...or was it 10.36pm on the thursday.....precisely ...as the interviewer put it.

[Guest]

Thanks for that Pamalam. So the first report did indeed come in just after midnight but was then added to later in the day. When I can find the article that's been added to, I'll post a link.

Link added. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550571/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html

[T4two]

Thanks for that Pamalam. So the first report did indeed come in just after midnight but was then added to later in the day. When I can find the article that's been added to, I'll post a link.

Link added. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550571/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html

Hmmmmm... as long as there are people like Pamalam around we'll never be lacking accurate information. I was prepared to go along with you NBY simply because even 12 hours later would have been noticeably quicker than one would expect. I mean, how did the Mc's know that she wasn't going to be found or that a ransom note wasn't about to appear? I have often wondered why of all the broadsheets (apart from Murdoch's Times) The Telegraph has always taken such a prominent (supportive) role. Now that the Murdoch/Brooks McCann connection is known - I'm still left wondering about The Telegraph.

[tigger]

Sorry, have I got this right? Mampilly phoned at 10.36? He came out with this time because it was traced by the PJ? So some time later there was a first report, the 12.01 was an update from which time?

Basically: between 22.36 on the 3rd and 12.01 on the 4th the first news item was published and updated at 12.01

[Wallflower]

Is there anybody on this forum who believes that the McCanns only got the extraordinarily sympathetic treatment from the entire media because they were nice, clean British doctors abroad, who happened to make a few smart decisions about how to deal with the media from the beginning?

Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think there is something really fishy about the convergence of media, political and police protection that these people have had?

[marxman]

Is there anybody on this forum who believes that the McCanns only got the extraordinarily sympathetic treatment from the entire media because they were nice, clean British doctors abroad, who happened to make a few smart decisions about how to deal with the media from the beginning? Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think there is something really fishy about the convergence of media, political and police protection that these people have had?

Hi Wallflower, considering that it has
been shown at Levenson that the mighty
media has been corrupting and owning
many of the shakers within the police,
press and politics.... It maybe argued
that the media saw a story and made
that story fit its wider agenda. Guilt
or innocence was irrelevant. The media
may have told Blair to do a proper job
and send Clarence and the PR team.
I hope I'm wrong but it could be all
about the story the media wanted
peddled.

[Wallflower]

Is there anybody on this forum who believes that the McCanns only got the extraordinarily sympathetic treatment from the entire media because they were nice, clean British doctors abroad, who happened to make a few smart decisions about how to deal with the media from the beginning? Seriously, is there anyone who doesn't think there is something really fishy about the convergence of media, political and police protection that these people have had?

Hi Wallflower, considering that it has
been shown at Levenson that the mighty
media has been corrupting and owning
many of the shakers within the police,
press and politics.... It maybe argued
that the media saw a story and made
that story fit its wider agenda. Guilt
or innocence was irrelevant. The media
may have told Blair to do a proper job
and send Clarence and the PR team.
I hope I'm wrong but it could be all
about the story the media wanted
peddled.

That might explain the motives behind the Express, Sun, NOTW, Mail who all had Maddie on the front cover for a year +.

It doesn't explain the compliance and timidity of papers like The Guardian, Indie, Private Eye though. Yes, I know about the fear of being sued, but Roy Greenslade from the Guardian wrote THE most sickeningly nauseatingly pro McCann articles. It was very weird.

[Wallflower]

I've said it before on these forums, but there are parts of the media who are interested in real journalism, finding the truth, uncovering lies and injustices.

I heard Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian speaking a few weeks ago at the Guardian open weekend. I admire him very much. He is not afraid of taking on the establshment and powerful interest groups for a worthy story and something that the public should know. He said that when the Guardian was investigating the BAE/Saudi story, for example, it was a very long, slow process and the information was coming out in dribs and drabs. Most people who worked at the Guardian would yawn whenever they heard a new bit, tut he would give it the go ahead because he believed it to be a worthy story. He said until it "broke" properly, it wasn't a ratings winner and everyone found it boring. He said something like "If I think that the story is worthwhile, I don't care if only six people are reading it, I WILL print it in the Guardian." Obviously, every paper has to choose its battles, I suppose. But I would still love to know EXACTLY why it is that everyone bar internet forums are pussyfooting around talking about the facts around the McCann case.

We all know that there is tonnes of really interesting information out there in the Portuguese press which has never seen the light of day in British newspapers.

[Sponsored content]