Sighting stirs memory

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Yes it's interesting that Danie Krugel has now changed his story from one hair on a coat - see the Sunday Mirror report from October 2007: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id304.html - to a communal hairbrush.

While not as stomach-churning as shared toothbrushes (that makes me feel sick) that's still gross - but that's another story.

Is there anyone who understood what he was illustrating in the video and if there is any scientific merit whatsover in it? I don't want to dismiss it as absolute codswallop without having a second opinion!

Yes, he tends to lose credibility if the Mirror, The Sun and The Mail have quoted him correctly. I`m no scientist, but he seems credible in the video and from reading some of the write-ups, he has had a lot of success in finding people. All I can see is that the meter did point to the hair but don`t understand about photons etc. Be interesting to hear from someone who understands these things.

I can`t see why he would say in the video that the hairbrush is the one he was given that holds all the children`s hair. I doubt whether the children each had their own hairbrush at that age - probably used their mother`s.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfkRFobzF38

Danie Krugel states in this clip (3.55 onwards) that he used a hairbrush given to him by Gerry. So there was a hairbrush but of course he might have bought it from a £ shop!

Well, we know that they didn't have a hairbrush nor Maddies toothbrush to give to the PJ...

weissnicht wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfkRFobzF38

Danie Krugel states in this clip (3.55 onwards) that he used a hairbrush given to him by Gerry. So there was a hairbrush but of course he might have bought it from a £ shop!

Well, we know that they didn't have a hairbrush nor Maddies toothbrush to give to the PJ...

Shouldn't that be "Well, we know that they told the PJ that they didn't have a hairbrush nor Maddie's toothbrush to give to them... since it is highly unlikely that Maddy didn't at least have her own toothbrush.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Wouldn't the results of such a test if it had been done at birth have been included in Madeleine's medical records which were not supplied as requested?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonatal_heel_prick

That is how Ben Needhams DNA was found. Can't you remember when he was 21 his mum, Kerry was on t.v doing the morning t.v. chat show stuff, and she said she must be the only mother in the world who hopes that her son commits a crime, and then he will be identified?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/10000286

Yes I remember that about Ben Needham. I take it then that the results of the blood testing are routinely kept.

It would be really interesting to know why Madeleine's medical records were withheld.

weissnicht wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfkRFobzF38

Danie Krugel states in this clip (3.55 onwards) that he used a hairbrush given to him by Gerry. So there was a hairbrush but of course he might have bought it from a £ shop!

Well, we know that they didn't have a hairbrush nor Maddies toothbrush to give to the PJ...

If this is true and they told the official police investigation that they didn't have a hairbrush but gave one to the crackpot krugel.....does anyone need to think what this says

Alas JD16, there appears to be nobody in authority willing to take action over the many changes in story, even when they're blatant lies, such as claiming that the shutters were jemmied and that nothing much was made of the eye defect as it was barely noticable.

The Teflon Two are allowed to continue along their merry way unscathed, while people who point out that there is a problem with their story are villified at best and ruined financially at worst.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Alas JD16, there appears to be nobody in authority willing to take action over the many changes in story, even when they're blatant lies, such as claiming that the shutters were jemmied and that nothing much was made of the eye defect as it was barely noticable.

The Teflon Two are allowed to continue along their merry way unscathed, while people who point out that there is a problem with their story are villified at best and ruined financially at worst.

It's a funny old world, isn't it?

This does really show a huge coverup from the powers that be that they have everyone scared not to dare question 2 NHS doctors version of events, especially when the only proof is they are guilty as hell and their version of events does not have a single shred of evidence to support it

I wonder if the press/media have a secret super injunction or something imposed on them. They only seem to report the mccann propaganda machine spouting, and in light of gerry mccann going against them with the Leveson report they must be foaming at the mouth to get him....all very strange and only a super injunction of some kind makes any sense why they are non existent on the subject

It was mentioned on Twitter that Blair apparently got at least six injunctions to prevent
anything coming out in relation to cases of paedophilia I believe, so it seems people in power can get injunctions very easily to cover up whatever they like, as we saw with Operation Ore and Dunblane!

cherry1 wrote:It was mentioned on Twitter that Blair apparently got at least six injunctions to prevent
anything coming out in relation to cases of paedophilia I believe, so it seems people in power can get injunctions very easily to cover up whatever they like, as we saw with Operation Ore and Dunblane!

Oh there are many super injunctions from the rich stopping their dirty deeds being exposed. What scares them most now is twitter, this is their current target to quash

Indeed they must be mad some of their sordid behaviour is becoming known
on twitter

cherry1 wrote:It was mentioned on Twitter that Blair apparently got at least six injunctions to prevent
anything coming out in relation to cases of paedophilia I believe, so it seems people in power can get injunctions very easily to cover up whatever they like, as we saw with Operation Ore and Dunblane!

From: http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2012/11/how-many-died-lord-mcalpine-2459912.html

When this last flared up via the FBI and Operation_Ore, the incredible manner in which it was closed down was breathtaking. Only the minnows were convicted. As with Labour’s Bryn Estyn. So will the clamour against this Government be supported by the opposition? I doubt it.
With grateful thanks to a supporter of this blog, I refer you to this explosive link.
unquote

D-notice was on Operation Ore. By Tony Blair. The same may be happening here eventually. Another D notice.
Meanwhile, the link mentioned above is well worth reading, goes back a long way.

There was a further link from the article above...very interesting indeed. I always felt New Labours big support for the Leveson recommendations with their very quick proposals in the immediate following days to support it (with gerry mccann) was their golden opportunity to hide all their dirty nasty secrets that has been happening for the past decade, legally totally gag the press & freedoms of speech as they are so guilty

http://yestoscottishindpendence.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/labour-party-paedophile-scandal.html

Peter Mandelson raised to the peerage by Tony Blair in 2008. Claims to be the “ brains “ behind New Labour he has amassed a fortune estimated at over £20 million from his time in Government. Denounced by Tam Dalyell MP as being part of Blair’s “ Jewish Cabal “. Openly homosexual he was a strong supporter of lowering the age of consent. His private life is subject to several D-Notices. Incredibly Mandelson is Chief Trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and has put his “people“ in key positions there.

Margaret Hodge MP. An East European Jew she has constantly been linked to care home satanic child sex abuse and murder rings of British Children in Islington and Jersey when she was Head of Islington Council and their subsequent cover up. To widespread horror Tony Blair made Hodge his Minister for Children in 2003, a job Blair had specially created for Hodge. Hodge described reporters who broke the Islington child sex abuse story as “ the gutter press “and the victims as“ extremely disturbed “.

Very close to Jack Straw and Harriet Harman. Jack Straw MP an East European Jew he was behind the ineffective investigations in to the Hillsborough disaster and the Jersey/Islington child sex abuse and murder scandal. Believed to be a major driving force behind allowing child brides in the UK. He is the Politician behind the phrase “cultural sexual diversity“. In 2009 Jack Straw made it illegal for any child to complain about abuse while in the care system ( The Times and Independent Feb.15th 2009 ). Placed all the Thomas Hamilton ( Dunblane massacre ) papers under a 100 year secrecy law. His brother is a registered sex offender.

Harriet Harman QC MP. When Legal Officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties ( later Liberty ) she constantly lobbied the Government to legalise child pornography , paedophilia and incest , she repeatedly denied this but recently released Government documents have her signature on them. A niece of Lord Longford she is very close to Margaret Hodge and Patricia Hewitt.

Lord George Robertson raised to the peerage by Blair in 1999 has been accused in the Scottish Press of using his influence as a Freemason to obtain a firearms license for Thomas Hamilton ( Dunblane massacre ) and of running a Masonic paedophile network for the British Establishment based in Scotland , Islington and Jersey. A D-Notice has been put on the press and Lord Robertson is threatening to sue.

Patricia Hewitt ex MP . From 1974 to 1983 she was General Secretary of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( later Liberty ) when it lobbied the Government to legalise child pornography , incest and paedophilia on behalf of the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation. Smart enough to let Harriet Harman sign all the documents she has always denied any knowledge of this. Major driving force behind the sex education of very young children she has argued that fathers are not a good influence on children. Kicked out of the Labour Party in 2010 after lobbying for cash scandal.

-----

When you put it together, this lot of new labour MP's had government ministers who wanted to lower the age of consent, wanted to legalise child pornography, incest and paedophilia (which I find incredible), whilst making it illegal for any child to complain about abuse while in the care system, placed all the Thomas Hamilton ( Dunblane massacre ) papers under a 100 year secrecy law, and called victims of abuse as “ extremely disturbed “....What does this all tell you?

A link to making it illegal for any child to complain about abuse while in the care system from the Independent.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/justice-ministry-to-bar-parents-from-telling-their-own-stories-1622154.html

"But as of April, because of a change in legislation being introduced by Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, the media will no longer be able to identify those involved in cases such as the Websters. It will also be illegal for any children currently in care to speak out, even if they feel they are being maltreated."

SO SOME MPS SUPPORTED THE LEGALISTION OF INCEST,YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!

It would seem so...From Spudgun's article on Harman

People who recall that you suggested that a “pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves”.

Does this lunatic crazy being not understand that children do not realise what is happening to them or that it is wrong...and this is from someone voted into positions of power to govern our nation

jd16 wrote:It would seem so...From Spudgun's article on Harman

People who recall that you suggested that a “pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves”.

Does this lunatic crazy being not understand that children do not realise what is happening to them or that it is wrong...and this is from someone voted into positions of power to govern our nation

Not much shocks me these days however that statement is just sickening to say the least.

Fern wrote:

jd16 wrote:It would seem so...From Spudgun's article on Harman

People who recall that you suggested that a “pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves”.

Does this lunatic crazy being not understand that children do not realise what is happening to them or that it is wrong...and this is from someone voted into positions of power to govern our nation

Not much shocks me these days however that statement is just sickening to say the least.

Yes. It's sickening.

weissnicht wrote:

Fern wrote:

jd16 wrote:It would seem so...From Spudgun's article on Harman

People who recall that you suggested that a “pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves”.

Does this lunatic crazy being not understand that children do not realise what is happening to them or that it is wrong...and this is from someone voted into positions of power to govern our nation

Not much shocks me these days however that statement is just sickening to say the least.

Yes. It's sickening.

That this demented creature is also a parent beggars belief.

The fact that there are politicians with these kind of sickening views is to most decent normal
people totally unacceptable. Also the fake shock horror we have heard from some of them over Jimmy Savile when they know that sitting among them in the Commons are alleged paedos which they do nothing about says it all, look how some covered for Cyril Smith, how Blair covered up those on Op Ore list, what did Thatcher do about those in her government!

cherry1 wrote:The fact that there are politicians with these kind of sickening views is to most decent normal
people totally unacceptable. Also the fake shock horror we have heard from some of them over Jimmy Savile when they know that sitting among them in the Commons are alleged paedos which they do nothing about says it all, look how some covered for Cyril Smith, how Blair covered up those on Op Ore list, what did Thatcher do about those in her government!

The awful thing is, back then we never really dreamt that creatures such as these were in positions of power. The occasional high placed homosexual coming to light such as Jeremy Thorpe, was as much as was ever announced, paedophilia never seemed to appear in the papers, doubtlessly through tight government control. Thatcher's era right through to the middle of Blair's New Labour was no different, their administrations were able to restrict much that might damage the image of the 'Honourable Members' unless it suited their policies.

Nowadays with the internet they cannot completely suppress the flow of information down to the general population. To make matters worse for the ruling 'elite' and wannabe celebrities, they have lost their 'pure as the driven snow' image and it's all happening over a very short time line.