When you are so disposed kiddywinks, a clean sheet awaits you here.
196 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Martin R. @16:48
No, I can't imagine RM sitting at a table and talking to his mother who was constantly using their computer. Perhaps the other way around, but that's not the case.
“1. Where are the corresponding records of a minute's access for the Romigen website (22.50/51), and the subsequent 'gaming' at 22.52, as referred to by CEOP?”
Now, that’s a good question. I can’t answer, but I’m going to comment on that. M
“Contrary to what he said originally, he was not with Michaela when she went to a Jehovah witnesses' meeting between 20:00 and 22:00, which is why he didn't phone her, because she turns her phone off. He does not know if he called her after 22:00, but accepts that possibility. He does not remember having used the computer. He was home with his mother, when at 22:30 or a little later, he heard a siren of an ambulance or police. He commented on that with his mother, however, did not leave the house to investigate. He did not leave again until the morning, having gone to bed around midnight.”
Thanks also for the 'JM responds to the Media link'
"Very bitter. Somebody has set him up."
"How do you think that happened?"
"We don't know. Probably the people who did it."
("We'll hit our own men", remember)
When interviewed by the police on 15 May, JM includes a reference to RM's business, "Romigen.com", the address appearing on the CEOP computer usage report, but not the PJ's own forensic trace to which that report relates.
"She recalls that they were talking until close to midnight about Robert'™s project, related to the property and called 'Romigen.Com". Finally they went to their bedrooms to pass the night."
The outcome of further 'suggestion' perhaps?
In addition, the cursory CEOP analysis makes no attempt to draw attention to or evaluate JM's 12 minute e-mail spree on the 2nd, but records the access glibly as MSN. A 'message read' is only referred to after this passage of activity.
Ironically, a comment in relation to 1 May reads: "This access is not significant from an evidential point of view".
Personally I wouldn't want to depend upon the sufficiency of these CEOP observations at all 'from an evidential point of view'.
night. --- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125...jenny Murat. McCannfiles
Here's a thing, sit talking in your kitchen and then try to focus on Police sirens 1.4 km away ....around 1mile. Personnally it can work if your outside on a clear night. Anyway in an old textusa(am I able to talk of her on this blog?) claims that police and ambulance have a different protocol in Portugal...all the world is a stage part 2. I give links if you wish as I'm on a phone today and is f#ckin difficult......so send links on request(sure you will have them anyway.)anyway a miles a long,way!!!
Textusa is correct. It has recently been confirmed to us by a Portuguese resident that police and ambulance services have different emergency sirens, but none were heard in the immediate vicinity.
So someone thinks they hear a distant siren. And?
That's as far as it goes. No connection to be made between that, possibly imaginary experience, and other events in PdL that night.
The siren story served a purpose and it was not to illustrate when Jenny Murat became aware of the missing child.
It does go to show that Mrs and Master Murat cannot be trusted with the actulite. The defence of St Robert Murat is powerful medicine,in another place,which I find hard to swallow. Which police force in UK would tolerate an elderly woman set up a collection point for photographic evidence. Likewise lots of testament to Robert Murat using a request for assistance as an excuse to stalk enquiries by police Statements that most definitely skirt around the truth.. A relationship with the McCanns even if it was only the introduction by Rajinder Balu and the offer of assistance,this is a previous meeting
Anyone displaying as poor a memory as RM should probably be on medication (or is on it already).
I can understand imprecise recollection of time, up to a point, but the potential for a 4-hour discrepancy is absurd.
Vagaries in time are one thing, but Murat junior's recollection of his own actions in simple 'yes he did or no he did not' terms (See: Hat Trick, further down) is comparable to Gerry McCann's not knowing whether he went into apartment 5A through the front door or the back.
Unless they were both early onset Alzheimer's sufferers there has to be something more to their respective stories.
Hi Martin. This was a hard video to listen to clearly due to over talking and a strongly accented English. I missed the original question asked of Jenny due to ever talking by the narrator and also there were a couple of words i couldn't make out due to the accent or cross talk. It would have been better if they had asked a question and there was a pause before the answer and vice versa. It would also have been better to hear from Robert himself rather than his mom. If anyone can identify the words lost due to cross talk or where they haven't pronounced it clearly, 8i would appreciate it.
(Jenny) oh he's suffered terribly, but, uh, he;s not here at the moment.
(Interviewer) Yeah, but, how does he, how does he feel about this? (J) Oh Awful and very bitter. Somebody has set him up and framed (as/us?)
(I) Why do you think that happened? (j) I don't know, probably the people who did it. We don't know.
(I) Yeah. How is he dealing with this? (J) Ahh, he's not too bad but, er, he can't work. He could not work for three months. He's not earned any money for three months, you know, which is very bad, very difficult.
(I) ? Maybe gonna have er, have some (evolution?) some changes, changes? (J) We hope so (laughs) we hope so
(I)The police, they mm, they make a lot of investigation and don't finds nothing to (?) robbers? (J) (Cross talk) We don't, we, we, the Porttuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing
It was interesting to note she used the plural WE to changes and (evolution?)of the case.
(Interviewer) Yeah, but, how does he, how does he feel about this? (J) Oh Awful and very bitter. Somebody has set him up and framed (as/us?) There is a dropped pronoun in relation to how he feels about this. This is why it is best to talk to the subject directly to see how they feel rather than a 3rd party. I had trouble with the last word, was it US or AS or something else? I note she used the noun PEOPLE which is plural rather than the expected singular PERSON She is implying that it was more than one person that is involved which could point to the mccanns and tapas 7. She does not specify who is setting him up nor framed him (tanner was the one who picked him out in an id viewing from a van) She uses the indefinite pronoun SOMEBODY indicating she does not know who. If she had used the pronoun THEY it would have implied she knew who was setting him up, who was framing him (the implied would be the mccanns and tapas 7 without identifying them specifically ( fear of lawsuits perhaps?)
Note she uses both SET UP and FRAMED What is her definition of set up? What is her definition of framed?
To set someone up is to make someone appear guilty of a crime.
Why would someone take the risk of setting an innocent person up knowing that there would be evidence to show they did not commit said crime? An alibi, video footage or CCTV footage, computer logs, time stamps for phone calls and even phone pings if on a cell phone?
It is a risky choice which could and would backfire.
If there was conclusive evidence that the person could not have committed said crime, it would then point the finger right back as the mccanns and chums and questions as to why they lied and what are the covering up for? (remember amanda knox blaming her boss initially)
She speaks of HIM being set up. She then tells us someone is framing US? If she uses the pronoun US why? Why would she join herself to the idea of being framed when the subject of discussion is her son Robert? To frame someone is to implicate them in a crime with false evidence. Was there evidence that could be used to frame Robert (and herself)? What would such evidence be? We know body fluids were found in the apartment,behind the sofa and in the parents bedroom in a closet, on kate's pants, cuddlecat and a child's red t-shirt. We also know body fluids were also found in the hire care, hired weeks after Maddie's alleged abduction. Perhaps these could be possibly explained away as minor injury to Maddie, such as a nose bleed or the graze on her knee from when she fell up the plane steps (allegedly on the way out to Portugal)?
Cross contamination perhaps or, as claimed, leakage from packages of meat, fish or dirty diapers in the trunk of the hire car.
We then also know of the smell in the car that was commented on by jon connor and noted by the neighbors who reported seeing the trnk door left open over night to clear the smell.
The problem arises though when it comes to the dogs reacting to cadaverine. The dog reacted only to human cadaverine. Kate's role as a GP, albeit a p/t locum of 1.5 days a week in a smallish practice was used as one explanation. She came into contact with multiple corpses prior to the vacation according to her mom (i think it was) This excuse was used to explain the cadaverine on kate's pants and cuddlecat, I did not hear of any explanation for the child red t shirt. The hire car indication was blamed on rotting meat, dirty diapers, and sea bass (loved by Sean according to gerry) as well as sweaty sandals. Basically a false positive. Remember though all these excuses for what was found and which was then denied by kate in the Leveson inquiry (perjury)
The problem arises then that kate was allegedly on extended maternity leave. According to the Leicester police she was on maternity leave.
In Leicester Police's letter of 16 May 2008 with Background Information on Kate, they mentioned that she was on maternity leave. "She works for the local NHS as a GP in Latham House, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. She is currently on maternity leave".
The date on the letter is 16 May 2008, a year after Madeleine's disappearance. Which means she was on maternity leave for about 2 years and 3 months.
Statutory Maternity Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:
26 weeks of Ordinary Maternity Leave 26 weeks of Additional Maternity Leave
You don’t have to take 52 weeks but you must take 2 weeks’ leave after your baby is born (or 4 weeks if you work in a factory)
The twins were born in January 2005. She would have returned to work in late fall, early 2006
Did Leicester Police get it wrong and meant compassionate leave?
If Robert was being framed, then evidence would have been left to implicate him, in some cases obtained long after Maddie's death and subsequently placed in the hire car.
This would indicate someone had access to Maddie's body between may 3rd when she was allegedly abducted and the hiring of the car several weeks later.
Who would frame an innocent person in the death of Maddie by putting cadaverine in a hire car, rather than in Robert's own car or, if he hired a car, that car? Who would place cadaverine in their own hire car, knowing it would lead to suspicion and awkward questions? A possible excuse is the the real killer had hired the car before the mccanns and it was bad luck they happened to hire the same car weeks later.
Implausible but not impossible.
Why then did the mccanns not demand to know who had hired the car before them and blamed them rather than come up with excuses for what was found?
Why would there be cadaverine in their apartment(able to be detected by trained cadaver dogs after approx 90 mins depending on environmental conditions such as hot or cold)
Why not place in in the Murats home and garden?
Why did Jenny use the pronoun US if this is the word she used? why would someone want to frame two people rather than one? It would be much harder to arrange it so evidence implicated two people rather than one. Is this because she, as a mother is supporting her son's innocence and that she feels that by doing so she also becomes a target?
Is there evidence genuine or planted that could implicate her as well as Robert? Does she think there is evidence to implicate her as well as Robert?
(I) Yeah. How is he dealing with this? (J) Ahh, he's not too bad but, er, he can't work. The word "but" should always be observed carefully, particularly observing the words that follow the word "but" in comparison to what preceded it. It can refute what preceded it, or can be used to compare, or even negate what preceded it. She doesn't really answer the question. Expected would be describing his emotions, how he feels about being wrongly accused, even a denial that he is involved. An example could be , "He feels dreadful, he has been wrongly accused of involvement, he didn't do anything to Maddie. He feels stress, fear of what may happen to him as he has received threats. He feels sympathy for the mccanns losing there daughter/ He believes the mccanns are involved in Maddie's death and he is angry they have not been arrested". You get the idea. Instead we get, he feels dreadful, followed by he can't work. Order is important.
I don't know when this video interview was made
He could not work for three months. Three is the liars number (Mark McClish) it doesn't mean the subject is being deceptive, things can happen at 3o'clock, there could be three people/animals etc, it could be the third floor etc. Its presence though is noted.
She uses the past conditional COULD to describe him not being able to work. Is he able to work now? Is he working now?
He's not earned any money for three months, you know, which is very bad, very difficult. Note the use of the number three again. YOU KNOW is used to ask the listener to take what is being said without question. No work = no money. She then tells us it is very bad, very difficult. What is her definition of bad? What is her definition of difficult? They both have a different meaning in her subjective internal dictionary.
How did they manage if he had no work and no income? What did his work include? What stopped him from working? Was it his own choice or imposed on him?
(I) ? Maybe gonna have er, have some (evolution?) some changes, changes? (J) We hope so (laughs) we hope so I couldn't make out clearly what the interviewer asked, it sounded like evolution which would fit in with the word changes The interviewer was probing to see what the subject knew about the case currently that the Portuguese Police had not spoken about nor the mccanns and tapas 7 and clarence mitchell.
She uses the pronoun WE indicating unity and shared cooperation. She repeats it which makes it sensitive. Any changes in the case, given she claims he was being set up and framed would be to their benefit as it would clear them of involvement and move the investigation in a different direction, hopefully pointing to the parents and tapas 7.
(I)The police, they mm, they make a lot of investigation and don't finds nothing to (?) robbers?? I couldn't make out the word prior to robbers due to over talking by the subject. The interviewer tells us the police have done a lot of investigations and have found nothing to show it was a robbery (one of theories purported at the time) The implication is the police have found nothing to show it was an abduction.
The subject interrupts the interviewer at the start of the question.
(J)(Cross talk) We don't, we, we, the Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing The pronoun WE is used to show unity and cooperation. She repeats it three times which could indicate sensitivity, however she is talking over the interviewer, it is possible the repetition is to make herself heard over him. She self edits though. She starts off saying WE DON'T and then continues with The Portuguese Police She then uses the pronoun YOU Which is distancing. It does however fit in with the generalization that the Portuguese Police don't speak about the case due to Portuguese law.
The word "but" should always be observed carefully, particularly observing the words that follow the word "but" in comparison to what preceded it. It can refute what preceded it, or can be used to compare, or even negate what preceded it.
we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing Note the qualifier ABSOLUTELY which is repeated twice making it sensitive. A qualifier is a word that when removed, does not change the meaning of the sentence. it weakens the sentence. WE is the pronoun used, indicating unity and shared cooperation. Here it is used in relation to what they have been told. Absolutely nothing is repeated twice making it sensitive. Anything in the negative is sensitive. Nothing is repeated three times making it very sensitive to the subject. There cannot be Nothing, there has to be a something. Expected could be "There is no evidence to implicate Robert/Us in the disappearance of Maddie another way could be There is evidence to show where Robert/We were that night, what Robert/We were doing, that shows Robert/We did not do anything to Maddie
Because is used to explain why something happened. It is used in the expectation of being asked a question such as "Why did you?didn't you do or say something"? SO is used to explain why something happened. Here we have two words which are used to explain why something happened. In statement analysis these words are always highlighted in blue and indicates sensitivity. here we have two words which would be highlighted in blue to show sensitivity. We have what is called a cluster of blues which makes this sentence highly sensitive to the subject.
Who has told them there is absolutely nothing? She doesn't tell us the Portuguese Police told them, she only told us the Portuguese Police don't tell you anything
She then tells the interviewer i was here with him that night, so i know there's nothing I would have asked more questions in regard to her last statement due to the sensitivity. How do you know there is nothing? What time did he arrive home? What time did she arrive home? What did you do? What did he do? What time did you go to bed? What time did you go to sleep? What time did he go to bed? What time did he go to sleep? Did you wake up at any point? What caused you to wake up? If you woke up, was Robert awake? If you woke up, was Robert asleep? If you woke up, what did you do? Did Robert wake up during the night? Do you know what he did? If you were both awake, what did you both do? What do you mean by absolutely nothing? Is there a possibility that Robert could have committed the crime whilst you were asleep? What is your relationship like with Robert? What say you if something is found that could incriminate Robert? What say you if something is found that could incriminate you? Why should i believe you? Is there anything else you wish to say?
Thank you SO much for your analysis. I did not expect anything like that measure of depth, but it is most assuredly welcome reading.
Not being practised in the fascinating science/art of Statement Analysis (I have read McClish), I would have missed much of the detail you provide here. Nevertheless there are a couple of remarks which leap off the page, so to speak, even before the untrained eye/ear, and which prompted my original question to you.
Now that we have your, dare I say it, undirected interpretation, I can have even more confidence in the 'red flags' I immediately saw waving at me from that interview.
Sincere thanks for responding as you have. It is very much appreciated.
A quite recent search by myself had failed to come up with the goods. It's not terribly important, but I was mentioning it to Martin who hadn't previously seen a photo of such. Still, it might make an introduction photo to an upcoming article. With suitable caption of course.
Her motive behind such altruism, so we are told, was that if people were ill-inclined to go to the cops, they could always leave any information with Murat senior. How very convenient, and just what you do as a civilian in the middle of a police investigation.
Now where have I heard similar?
Oh yes. Only t'other way round as you already know.
JM: "The Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because I was here with him that night, so, I know there’s nothing."
If the Portuguese police didn’t tell them anything, then who told them there is absolutely nothing? The British police? M
It's like watching tennis with you two - both holding service games to love!
Maren turns the key on this one, I pull the handle and Tania C throws open the door.
As for that picture of JM at her public desk...What a nice radiant smile for the camera.
'Tis vaguely ironic that all of this coincides with a diatribe from Blacksmith elsewhere on the interpretation of evidence (I might DM that one to you H. It clarifies his own position somewhat but IMHO reveals the mistake at the same time).
"a source close to the couple assures me they do not believe Murat took their daughter, regarding him as a "sad loner" whose involvement has distracted attention which could have been usefully deployed elsewhere."
Yet another distraction. To be added to 'bundleman', the yacht that never sailed, etc., etc. What would they have done without them?
"Weighed with various accrued morsels of suspicion against him - an unexplained 11.40pm phone call on the night of the abduction"
That's just 6 mins. after the 'end of activity' on JM's computer. Mmm.
"under such stress that he has lost more than a stone, and has turned from a non-smoker into a 40-a-day man"
What was he so worried about? He was innocent wasn't he?
"his denial of any involvement in Madeleine's abduction carried the ring of truth."
As in: "You know that crime no-one committed? Well it wasn't me either."
"He says he returned to Portugal, after a lengthy spell in Britain, at 9.40am, on Tuesday, May 1, two days before Madeleine's disappearance."
He returned after 6 weeks, his previous sojourn in Portugal being almost twice as long (11 weeks)
"So I am supposed to have planned the kidnapping of a little girl inside 50 hours," he told me, shaking his head.
"In that time, I supposedly identified the apartment where she was sleeping and spied on her, and worked out the times her parents went to dinner each night, then took her away. It's ludicrous."
Just one of the many ludicrous propositions put forward by the McCanns.
"If you want my opinion, it had to involve someone on the inside, who works at the Ocean Club.
No question. Someone had to unlock 5J after all!
"By Murat's account, he first learned about Madeleine's disappearance around 7.30am the following morning, when Samantha phoned from Devon after watching the news on TV."
'after watching the news', which broke on SKY TV at 7.48. Add a couple of mins. for the news to sink in and for sister Samantha to make the 'phone call to Portugal, which the mother apparently answered, and you're comfortably nearer 8.00 than 7.30.
"At some stage, he recalls, he spoke to Gerry McCann, but he can't remember what passed between them."
Err...I'm not going to comment on that.
"However, he told me adamantly that he has never been inside apartment 5A, and knows its layout only because he searched a similar flat in the same block."
And you believed him?
"Ironically, Murat believes his mobile phone offers the best hope of proving his innocence. He claims it is always switched on and in his possession."
I don't think Dewi L. would agree with that somehow.
"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language," he (RQM)said.
As reported on 2.6.07. He couldn't have been describing the police investigation which was far from completed. So what's he passing judgement on, I wonder?
"I'm going through exactly the same experience as the McCanns, so I can empathise with them,” he told me, seemingly unable to understand that no one - not even a man perhaps wrongly accused of child abduction - could begin to understand their torment.
writes David Jones, seemingly unable to consider that Kate and Gerry McCann might have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’
Friday 4 May
“I was holding a photograph of Madeleine, which he asked to see. As he studied it, he told me about his daughter back in England who was the same age, and who, he said, looked just like Madeleine. I was a little irked by this. In the circumstances, it seemed rather tactless, even if he was simply trying to empathize. I didn’t think his daughter could possibly be as beautiful as Madeleine – though of course, as her mum, I didn’t think any other little girl could be as beautiful as Madeleine. When he had finished translating, he turned and began to walk briskly away. Realizing I didn’t know his name, I caught up with him and asked.
‘Robert,’ he said.
'Thank you, Robert,’ I said.”
Isn’t it amazing what a mother’s mind can come up with, several hours after her daughter was abducted.
He remains adamant that the North African country is the most likely place for Madeleine to have been smuggled to after she disappeared from the Algarve. His detectives travelled there last month amid claims that they had narrowed down a region in the Rif Mountains where the four-year-old could have been held. But the expedition is not thought to have given them a breakthrough in the case. The agency has been silent about its operations in secret since Mr Marco was reprimanded by the McCanns for his public boasts that he would find Madeleine within six months and hoped to have her home by Christmas. The McCanns spent a quiet New Year's Eve with their two-year- old twins Sean and Amelie with relatives in Scotland. Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they would not celebrate without their oldest daughter. The couple are due to return home to Rothley, Leicestershire, tomorrow, the day before Gerry returns to work as a consultant cardiologist at Leicester's Glenfield hospital. Share or comment on this article
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505443/Kate-McCann-My-suspicions-Murats-alibi-night-Madeleine-vanished.html#ixzz3zcPAvw00 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have tried to post twice around the 22.32 article above....one should precede the above with a comment about Jayne Jensen noticing RM with this being corroborated by a British barrister. Please sort out my posts if they all should pop up. Very frustrating and accept my apology.
"holidaymaker Jayne Jensen, 54, also recognised the 34-year-old as a man she saw smoking a cigarette on the street corner opposite the McCanns' apartment."
Really?
This is the same man who, under the stress occasioned by suspicion had "turned from a NON-SMOKER into a 40-a-day man"
What was he doing smoking on the street corner opposite the McCanns' apartment? Practising for later?
Reading Kate McCann's various suspicions, together with the interjections by the 'family friend', it all sounds so concocted.
And then Clarence Mitchell (for it is surely he) has an episode of 'foot in mouth' disease:
"Mr Murat, who has a young daughter from a failed marriage, vehemently denies any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. His mother Jennifer, 71, has accused Metodo 3 of bribing witnesses to change their evidence.
"But a source close to the McCanns said: 'He is her son and most mothers would protect their children. Either she knows something or she is mistaken.'"
It's not entirely clear whether Mitchell's statement here is directly related to the accusation toward Metodo 3 described immediately above. Its positioning makes it appear so but he may just as easily have been referring to something else.
Either way it appears Clarence has dropped a marble.
He should simply have said "He is her son (blah blah), but she is mistaken."
Instead he gives out "Either she knows something or she is mistaken." telling us immediately that something significant in this case exists to be known.
But what could Jenny Murat possibly have 'known' with regard to Metodo 3's possibly corrupting witnesses? Did she see the handover of brown paper envelopes for herself? Nah. And yet, if she is not mistaken, then she 'knows something.'
Genaro Gonzalez is described as a 50 years old man, “who speaks fluently Italian” and comes frequently to Aljezur, where he is in charge of a real estate business. He admitted to Gazeta Digital that he is in charge of a real estate business in Aljezur, Algarve, but said that he is 29 years old.
"The front page of Correio da Manhã says: 'PJ on the track of third partner of Murat.'"
I must be psychic! Only a few days ago I said to 'Himself' I thought it was Harry Lime wot dun it (the third man, lol).
More seriously, Dewi L. (Kikoratton) reckons RM clocked up a lot of kilometres travelling to Lisbon. I don't think we can substantiate that, but Aljezur is handily situated NW of where the drama was first played out
I'm leaning on a lamp, maybe you think, I look a tramp, Or you may think I'm hanging 'round to steal a motor-car. But no I'm not a crook, And if you think, that's what I look, I'll tell you why I'm here, And what my motives are.
(Tempo Change)
I'm leaning on a lamp-post at the corner of the street, In case a certain little lady comes by. Oh me, oh my, . . .
“I have more important things to worry about, like running my business, paying my taxes and I also need to paint my house.”
I’ve come across this article before.
A busy man with no time to worry about the allegation that a corpse is buried under his driveway (and he also has to cook and smell flowers I guess )… That’s our Robert for you.
KM’s comment on said allegation comes to mind. She is too busy ‘searching’ and ‘pedalling’ to worry about her daughter’s remains.
The McCanns (to the Daily Telegraph on the 'first anniversary' May 2008 (as previously noted in 'What the Papers' say, McCannfiles, 18/8/2009):
GM: The experts are saying there is a strong chance Madeleine is out there but it's back to what we need to do which is address the situation: Who took her? Is that person alone? If they are alone they don't live in isolation, they live in a town, in a holiday resort, they interact with people and they might have accomplices we don't know what motivates them.
'Write about what you know' they say. The same goes for anyone trying to make it up. This story involves a 'loner' who lives just down the road in a holiday resort (factoring in what Kate is about to say next). And despite his 'loner' tag he might have influential contacts (accomplices). Who might that be? No resident of Skegness that's for sure.
KM: Even people who are classed as loners are known as the loner down the road.
So who do we think the McCanns might have been referring to here?
How about (as above): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
"a source close to the couple assures me they do not believe Murat took their daughter, regarding him as a "sad loner" whose involvement has distracted attention which could have been usefully deployed elsewhere."
That was in June 2007. A year later and they're insinuating he might have taken their daughter after all.
“But whatever we make of Murat, one thing is plain: he inhabits such a different world from the McCanns - caring parents, brilliant medical professionals, devout Roman Catholics.”
"Murat, an IT consultant on the Algarve..."
For the times they are a-changin'
“And despite his 'loner' tag he might have influential contacts (accomplices). Who might that be? No resident of Skegness that's for sure.”
“We are particularly grateful to Jim Gamble and the team at CEOP for the initiatives they have developed with us to help keep Madeleine's abduction in the forefront of the public consciousness.
But a harsh fact remains. Since July 2008, there has been no police force anywhere actively investigating what has happened to Madeleine. We are the only people looking for her.”
Sky News has been briefed on the contents of the hitherto unseen document - delivered in 2010 - which eventually led to the Metropolitan Police re-opening the investigation.
Asked if he thought Madeleine’s fate would ever be known, he brushed back his thick dark brown hair, rubbed his tanned chin and said: “I hope so, I believe it will come out one day.” He said Portugal’s financial crisis means “if the British do want to get to the bottom of this, it is a case of funding the Portuguese”.
EXPRESS: Asked if he thought Madeleine’s fate would ever be known…
RM : I hope so, I believe it will come out one day.
How from the above can one arrive at So, he doesn't think she will be found, dead or alive?
Hypothetically, even if RM doesn't think Madeleine will be found, dead or alive, do you think there is much wrong with his not thinking so?
In fact, he says he hopes and believes (as above) that it (Madeleine’s fate) will come out one day, and if it comes out one day, Madeline’s existential status will be established.
Kebabs, Chinese takeaway… The life of the wealthy.
No filthy affluence for me I'm afraid. The nearest I come to a Chinese takeaway these days is when the pooch walks me past the shop!
As to RM's "I believe it will come out one day", I am inclined to adopt a 'Tania C' approach to that remark, which strikes me as an inappropriate response to the question of whether Madeleine's fate would one day be known.
'I hope so, I believe so' or 'perhaps it will be discovered eventually' would have done the job, but what usually 'come out' (apart from Gay's in search of a moment's celebrity) are secrets. (Same thing almost).
It sounds as though Madeleine's fate is being 'kept under wraps' deliberately, not undiscovered simply because no-one has found her yet, dead or alive.
A fifteen minute search has come up empty under these search terms and similar:
matt baggott attempts to gag pilkington inquest (daughter is called Hardwick I've just noticed)
I'm a bit too tied up to search further, would you care to have a go in your own time. There's no rush and I don't think it's even going to contribute to a post, but I wouldn't mind reading the details. There is plenty on Baggott refusing to apologise for failing the Pilkingtons, but of the gagging, nothing so far.
It must have been so, for I have graphics related to the situation.
If Things Don't Change They'll Stop As They Are A prediction. And Teddy's having a rant.
Not forgetting: just as Simon and Garfunkel once suggested
Like minds Maren, I had already congratulated MR for his somewhat subtle but quite splendid bit of word play.
Eeyore, Eeyore. Nee nah nee nah. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/S6-KSDjihuI/AAAAAAAAWeM/zj6vlsUe3fk/s1600/nicked.jpg
Full photo essay starting: And of course more recently, Karen Matthews. http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2010/03/review-by-uk-police-nonsense-or-thin.html
When MR discovered that it was "jenny" that was online for much of that evening, I tried to picture a scenario that was a little more recognisable. "All the world is a stage" (tips hat to textusa):
I think of a living room. RM stares at the TV (or a book?), JM gazes at the laptop that is open beside her. 'Conversation' proceeds in fits and starts - between pages, sips, clicks, and the din of TV.
Could that be deemed to be an evening spent together - talking? (Charitably? just about.)
If I were in the business of creating a little vignette then that is the scenario that I might have invented - but only if I had known that "jenny" was online. The fact of this one known condition ("jenny" online) ought to have conditioned the account in a way that sounds more plausible than "talking in the kitchen".
Had I not known that JM was online, then the "stage" might have been set differently - Samuel Beckett style - two heads across a table, and an intensity broken only by the siren, continuous, or not. (Directors choice.)
Just a thought!
I remember an old punchline: eeyore t'know better!
Catriona Baker 'got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on 29 April 2007, in the minis club...' Previously she had 'written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.' (Rogatory statement, 18.4.08)
The OC bracelets would therefore have been available for issue from the Sunday onwards.
Even if said bracelets were fitted on a daily basis, would parents remove them after the morning session, before returning their child to the same crèche in the afternoon?
The official narrative sees MM re-admitted to the kid's club on both the Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, after KM had taken the 'tennis photo' and 'last photo' respectively. No wrist bracelet is visible in either image.
The absence of any 'tag' suggests that the photos in question were taken before the wrist bracelets were even issued, whether MM was pictured at the OC or elsewhere. Falsified dates attributed to these images would of course nullify photographic confirmation of MM's presence at the OC after 30 April (that date again!).
I quote here from one of Hagland's own articles in a British newspaper, “Money launderers are extremely well-funded, well-advised and make use of technically elaborate and sophisticated schemes to cover their tracks.”
Like an imagined scheme for the disappearance of a small child to help launder millions? Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help people recover from alcohol and drugs?
"Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help people recover from alcohol and drugs?"
Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help find people who are not genuinely 'missing' (AWOL absentees from hostels/detention centres etc. that distort the statistics, as even the police recognise)
If I may just disgorge one final thought regarding those photographs, why would anyone retrospectively falsify evidence of a person's public visibility if not to conceal the fact that the individual in question was not publicly visible at the time?
Even if said bracelets were fitted on a daily basis, would parents remove them after the morning session, before returning their child to the same crèche in the afternoon?
Quite.
And don't these types of crèche club thrive upon the excitement of "belonging to ..." that a bracelet might confer upon a little one in a new environment? I find it hard to imagine that a girl of Madeleine's age would want a bracelet to be removed. It isn't as though the parents themselves were reticent about the use of the crèche either.
Festival/"event" wrist bands are what I had envisaged: a durable ID in case of a child becoming separated from a group (irony becomes too dark). In my experience, such things are not designed to be removed at each and every juncture. What could possibly necessitate its removal? (Rhet)
Waterproof & Tough - Use Them In The Ocean Or Swimming Pool - They Will Not Rip Or Tear Discreet - Your Child's Information Is Kept Safe Inside The Band, Safe From Prying Eyes Disposable - Discard The Old Band And Update A New Band When Changing Hotels Or Contact Numbers.
Of course the predictable counter-argument from TM and cohorts would most likely be: "Oh the nannies didn't actually bother with wrist bands that week".
But then one would have to ask why Catriona Baker would make deliberate reference in her statement to the preparation of accessories she/they had no intention of using.
For my money the absence of that feature from the cornerstone photographs severely limits the time(s) when they could have been taken (Sunday most likely). Following which other things drop into place: A Sunday evening incident, a Monday that no-one wishes to talk about, a local bi-lingual in no hurry to return to Portugal but who cannot wait to get up that day to book his flight (confirmed at 01:57 a.m.), then a string of inventions to pad out the week.
This is like a developing mosaic in which we may just about see the overall picture. All that's missing is the 'bottom left' piece - what was it that happened to set the wheels in motion?
"The kangaroo Club had a specialized team with a program suitable for different age groups, from 3 to 12 years old. As you wrote, parents need to sign in, similar to a check in procedure, and parents will decide if their children will use a green, yellow or red bracelet, thus choosing if their children can go in or out when they wish or only with parents presence. Many parents with children aged 9 to 12, such as yours, will choose green bracelet so that the children can meet them at the large pool nearby."
“That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there."
Exactly how far might anyone be prepared to carry a 'little body' without transport? Somewhere short of a million miles I'd wager.
“I’ve always said Praia da Luz is the place where I feel closest to her.”
Well you've always said a number of things. All of them lies.
“It’s nearly nine years and that’s so ridiculous and so unbelievable."
That much is true however.
“If enough people had been mobilised and galvanised early then who knows what the outcome would have been.”
If...then... eh? What about, 'If enough people hadn't deliberately laid down in front of the bus it might actually have gone somewhere'?
"It’s the quiet times that are tough. Times when you are thinking about her".
Why don't YOU think about her for a change?
"I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”
You and countless others. Only they want an answer to a different question, not 'Are you quite sure we won't be 'banged up' for fraud later, once the Grange is closed?'
"You and countless others. Only they want an answer to a different question, not 'Are you quite sure we won't be 'banged up' for fraud later, once the Grange is closed?'"
Indeed. M
------------------------------------
"I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”
Kate, in ‘madeleine’
2007 “In mid-July I found Amelie standing in our room, looking at a photo of Madeleine in a frame by my bedside. ‘I miss my sister,’ she said quite clearly. ‘Where has my sister gone?’ I was caught completely unawares. I realized I’d underestimated both her grasp of the situation and the scope of her vocabulary.”
2016 You couldn't settle if you thought about giving up.
Mr Timothy accused celebrities such as Cumberbatch of “hypocrisy” for wanting to regulate the press that they have used to “build up” their own profile.
Mary Cavill · Constitution High School Of course Praia de Luz is where she feels closest, that's where the child is and she will never be older than 3 years. Nothing in their stories adds up, even to me [a]nd I have very little room to be judgemental of others!
You've set me scratching away at all things Diophantine, and too long neglected! I strongly suspect that your maths has travelled much further than my own. For n>=3: no luck! I do remember a specific proof for n=4, a classic reductio ad absurdum that must have appealed in days of yore?! Did Fermat see a general proof deriving from n=4, and/or did he completely jump the gun?
Notwithstanding the brilliance of Wiles, it remains intriguing. I wonder whether Fermat felt what appears to be so "obvious" (intuitively), only to realise that he couldn't arrive at the precise decription? I doubt even that, but I wonder - i.e. having the intuitive grasp of the appropriate "whole" (the metaphor as you might say?), within which the specifics might have been discovered. (Not so OT!)
Re "That's where she last was" - as you say, what sinister overtones. I don't profess to know what status an investigation might give to such remarks (zero in the case of OG), but how more decisive could it be?
“I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
So, the McCanns had previously provided information.
A check-in form (from another club in the Algarve)
Latour is difficult to recommend as a "good read". He infuriates me every bit as much as he dazzles, but this paper sits on every computer I own, and a paper copy is usually within reach. BL remains the only thinker I know of who explicitly addresses Turing (when he eventually gets there!) from a "literary" appreciation of Turing's own words, as well as from the empirical consideration of Turing as an "anti-formalist". It is original if nothing else.
One of the Richard Powers novels he refers to (Galatea 2.2) took the broad theme of Computer Theory meets Art - hence a little emblem for me. And a genuinely good read!
For the sake of being complete, and never letting a grudge lie!...when I linked (many moons ago) to Chomsky's posthumous attack on Foucault, it was with some certainty that numbered amongst his real targets was Latour!
It becomes ever more clear. A "sideways" thought had also occurred to me: it isn't as though Doctors are unaccustomed to people wearing plastic wristbands for the duration.
"I strongly suspect that your maths has travelled much further than my own."
Au contraire I'm afraid. The wheels came off that vehicle after '0' levels. I only noticed the peculiarity attaching to those square(Diophantine) relations a few years ago, having written a trivial BASIC programme (for fun) that generated a series of examples. It just strikes me as too convenient to be coincidental, and I'd be surprised if PdF didn't spot it, computer or no.
Thank you for the link (@08:24). I shall endeavour to broaden my horizons.
And at 08:28. Another pertinent observation. As an NHS outpatient one scarcely proceeds beyond reception before a plastic 'bangle' is attached.
"So, the McCanns had previously provided information."
It looks that way, doesn't it. I have tried without success to locate any photograph from the period involving children who spent time at the OC crèche and are seen wearing bracelets.
Playing 'devil's advocate', there is, I suppose, the possibility that Cat Baker was covering her own tracks, avoiding criticism by describing how she observed all the necessary protocols attaching to her post.
I don't think that was the case somehow. Why provide an answer to a question that hadn't been asked? The McCanns may have done so consistently, but Cat Baker was merely being interviewed as a witness.
So yes, 'Where is Madeleine's bracelet?' Absent from the right wrist on Tuesday, the left wrist on Thursday.
If TM should decide it was on her right wrist, that we've been viewing the Tennis photo the wrong way round all this time and that we're really seeing the subject's left side (where Gerry describes a skin blemish as being), then why was that photograph reversed in the first place?
I'm sorry but for me those photographs are retro-fitted acts of desperation.
No sooner do I digress with a question about 'the square on the hypotenuse' than 'Blacksmith' pops up with an introduction to probability theory!
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/
"Now, we don’t want to spoil people’s fun but a Wayback machine type theory involves at least half a dozen (such) speculations (for some of which, such as a Jim Gamble involvement, the odds are hugely increased) which take us to a number approaching the age of the universe. That number is the odds against the Wayback theory being true. As big as the age of the universe."
It's the easiest thing in the world (one of them anyway) to exaggerate a point by quoting 'odds' for or against.
The trouble is that in resorting to probability in support of an argument, one is recognizing a formal system within which 'odds' can be (and are) precisely calculated.
Unless one then proceeds with the relevant calculation those claims are, in my opinion, without merit and largely meaningless.
The conclusion of a Michael Caine film (Too Late the Hero) illustrates the point rather well:
"That man? That man was a bloody hero! He killed fifteen Japs single-handed — thirty, if you like."
I'll 'let off steam' concerning forms of representation another time!
If a broadcaster is being paid millions of dollars per month by Boeing to run their commercials then they aren’t going to be able to say anything negative about the war, it’s that simple.
“Why is it people appear not fully to understand the simplest of propositions they themselves make?”
The Tapas lot appear to be inveterate liars, negligent parents, lousy speakers and writers. Logical thinking is something they have not been introduced to as far as I can tell.
How would you be able to succeed in maintaining in a court of law that this provincial doctor’s (KM’s) grasp of the subtlety of the English language, and logic, is on a par with yours and Agnos’s?
FLT
A Pythagorean triple is a group of three positive integers, say, x, y, and z such that a right triangle exists with legs x, y and hypotenuse z. By the Pythagoras's theorem, the preceding statement is equivalent to finding positive integers x, y, and z satisfying the equation x2 + y2 = z2.
Substitute a Pythagorean triple 8,15,17 for x, y, z respectively to see that the following clarification is in order:
Some “Whole number solutions”, like 3, 4, 5, “to the equation x2 + y2 = z2 arise when the relations between the variables take the quadratic form:
z2 = x2 + (2x + 1), i.e., 'y' being expressed in terms of 'x'.”
Or perhaps to make it easier to follow:
(2y + 1) + y2 = z2, i.e., 'x2' being expressed in terms of 'y'.
What a timely post, thank you. This inter-blog "stuff" tires me. I have long thought that to regard the"MSM" as "sole perpetrators" of this, or any other affair, is the most naive of all positions. Nothing exists in isolation. What else did Leveson reveal (though he struggled not to) - but the entanglement of media, politics and policing? We are always dealing with an ecology of interests; and entanglement is certainly not synonymous with corruption. It is simply the requirement to be borne in mind.
A "theory" pertaining to some ill-defined, "numinous" force, is not what I find on this blog: "the MSM" are to blame. Ah yes, and The Gods have killed my cattle. Worse still (imho) is the propensity to bundle everything into "the mind". How easily have the judges, politicos and police been starstruck or deceived. A glance at recent newspaper comments would say that a great many people have certainly not been swayed by the aura "McCann". It is abundantly clear that, despite everything, a significant awareness has been upheld by many people on social media. And people can make their own decisions, informed as they are by the varied insights that they bring. (Enough already!)
Thank you so much for the links, and for the kind encouragement.
"How would you be able to succeed in maintaining in a court of law that this provincial doctor’s (KM’s) grasp of the subtlety of the English language, and logic, is on a par with yours and Agnos’s?"
With difficulty I imagine. It would be akin to contesting a 'diminished responsibility' plea!
Thank you for your Fermat links. Andrew Wiles was well worth his prize money but I suspect Pierre had found a shorter route to the summit.
Short and to the point. If parents are not expecting their daughter to disappear before their very eyes, taking photographs of her pyjamas after the event must represent something of a problem.
BeenBurned It's interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses developed a long-term real estate portfolio in New York worth more than a billion dollars and maintained it scrupulously for decades while telling their members that the world would end soon.
Re: media leverage. I'm certain that you will know this man's story (Nicholas Wilson), his estimation of the BBC, and the financial interests that he describes. It's a fascinating chart!
But returning to Kate’s ‘conviction’ that her daughter is in the Algarve, the mother-of-three stresses that free Child Rescue Alerts could have seen her daughter found safe and well “within hours, or a day”, instead of the reality that nearly nine years and over €12 million euros worth of British police time down the line, there still doesn’t appear to be a shred of credible evidence.
2014-10-07 Radio London: The McCann Snitch Dossier/Hogan-Howe
Eddie Nestor talks to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe about the dossier of alleged online abuse about the family of Madeleine McCann, reportedly (by Martin Brunt of Sky News) submitted by a "group of concerned, but anonymous web users".
Hogan-Howe states the file was handed in by the family of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02789bx
Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio
Detectives believe the witnesses who said they saw the British expat could have confused him with a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann, David Payne, who was out searching for the missing three-year-old....
...The medical researcher, who is 41, was searching around the complex that night and - in a street lit by orange streetlights - could easily have been mistaken for Mr Murat.
Although, as Fiona Payne suggests in her statement, she hasn’t got a very good memory for faces, I cannot imagine that she didn’t recognise her husband. How could she have been mistaken if Murat introduced himself to her.
"Erm, and I think, as I've said in my other statement, that's when I, around that time I saw Robert MURAT and that was at the front of the apartment. A I say, I'd been to'ing and fro'ing between the front and the back and I'd come out of the front, really just to see if anyone knew, had any information of what was happening, and, erm, Robert MURAT actually walked over to me and shook my hand and introduced himself, erm, and told me that he was, that he was a local, he was working with the Police and he spoke Portuguese and if I needed any help or wanted any help with translation then, erm, you know, he'll be there to help us. And I withdrew from him, I didn't, I don't know why specifically I remember him, I mean, I haven't got a very good memory for faces, I think the others will say, or people, but I remember him very clearly, because he looked a bit strange and he had a squint, he had glasses, he appeared as if he was with the Police, because he was standing in front of all these uniformed Police, and maybe it was my assumption that he was with them, erm, yet he was saying he was a local, and I didn't quite, in my mind, I said, well how come you're a local living down the road and you're here in plain clothes yet you're saying you're with the Police, it didn't, it just seemed a bit odd, erm, and he seemed overly in my face, I can't think of a better way of putting it, he was very quite sort of almost forceful in his introduction and, you know, at that point I was sort of almost trying to steer people away from the apartment, any extra people that weren't really needed in there, just because of what was going on inside and Kate's state, so I didn't really want somebody who I didn't know, erm, in there, erm, and I think I said in my previous statement to the PJ, there was just something that made me uneasy."
A source close to the inquiry said: "The similarity between the two has rendered many witness accounts virtually worthless."
But he added: "What is baffling is that Mr Payne's wife and two of his friends are among those who claim to have seen Mr Murat outside the McCanns' apartment that night. You'd think a wife would recognise her own husband."
The Paynes were unavailable for comment. They are due to be reinterviewed by British police on behalf of their Portuguese counterparts within weeks.
The people who saw Murat that night were telling the truth. Murat was there, but he and others (who?) knew that he was not Tannerman. The friends of the McCanns accepted ‘being mistaken’ (fully accepted as fact. - Jenny Murat) as Murat could make a legal complaint against Jane Tanner which he did later on and which resulted in a tacit agreement.
Nevertheless, I am convinced Tanner saw a man (not Murat) carrying a child.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the Tapas 'friends' were withholding information, not lying per se. It may be put in the same catagory though.
Kate's readers (in terms of believers) are not likely to read the PJ files, nor does the media it seems (or at least they don't inform their audience), but I really wonder who wrote 'madeleine'. M
I tend agree with you , I believe that most of the direct statements are basically the truth with bits left out. The statements of the Tapas crew conflict with times dates which are meant to obsfucation. The main problem people have is trying to pin down exactly what they are saying. It was almost as if they were scripted. Textusa believes Jane Tanner did see someone and that she is describing seeing Gerry,IIRC.
chrisengineer please stop these dreadful people from wasting any more police time ,four officers still working on this . how many 100,s of other children have vanished in europe in the intervening time ,all without the avalanche of publicity that this case attracts
It matters not that books are written, that documentaries are made, or whatever tripe the press wishes to print in their obsession to sanctify this loathsome pair , it matters not because it is all worthless, it is all utterly without worth until these fundamental questions are answered.
Personally, I don’t think Tanner saw Gerry, but it’s a possibility of course. To me Jane Tanner seems to be the most genuine person of that shallow group of friends, which says nothing :) M
Who knows? But her name appears on the front cover as the author of the work.
So whenever the day dawns that DCI Wall eventually submits evidence to the CPS, it is Kate who will have to defend the statements of fact (?) it contains. (Please wake me up should that ever come to pass).
I don’t know if it is relevant (perhaps I misunderstood RDH and he doesn’t refer to her looking very similar to Madeleine), but the girl with sunglasses is Lily Payne, not Ella O’Brien. M
You are quite correct. It's not the only discrepancy in the RDH account, none of which are crucial (yet), but you can bet on the 'nit pickers' of this world looking to claim the ship is not seaworthy owing to one loose rivet.
"she can string a few words together when she gets going."
26 paragraphs this time, 15 of which elapse before she tells her readers she hasn't actually watched the videos she began by announcing she won't support.
She's a writer alright, just as RDH is a film-maker (of sorts), and in view of which one should allow them both a certain amount of leeway I fancy (but only a certain amount mind).
It's always incumbent upon us never to throw the baby away with the bath water in any case.
Perhaps we should take heed elsewhere also. A few weeks hence and we might all have to 'pack up and go home' as far as the McCann case is concerned. (See Pat Brown's comment here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12480p40-katie-hopkins-in-dm-the-mccanns-should-accept-their-part-of-the-blame-and-didn-t-deserve-11-million)
196 comments:
Martin R. @16:48
No, I can't imagine RM sitting at a table and talking to his mother who was constantly using their computer. Perhaps the other way around, but that's not the case.
Cheers
Maren
Maren @21:50
They wouldn't have been playing cards either (I've read that mentioned somewhere).
It looks to me as if the 'I was at home all night' account is seriously overdrawn.
Kind regards
M.R.
Jenny Murat's fifteen-minute e-mail session of 2 May can be viewed on pages 1152 - 1154 here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_1_6.htm
(subsequent pages to confirm no relevant activity afterwards)
Regards
M.R.
M.R. 2.1 @14:01
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA6_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_6_p1165.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA6_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_6_p1158.jpg
“1. Where are the corresponding records of a minute's access for the Romigen website (22.50/51), and the subsequent 'gaming' at 22.52, as referred to by CEOP?”
Now, that’s a good question. I can’t answer, but I’m going to comment on that. M
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
“Contrary to what he said originally, he was not with Michaela when she went to a Jehovah witnesses' meeting between 20:00 and 22:00, which is why he didn't phone her, because she turns her phone off. He does not know if he called her after 22:00, but accepts that possibility. He does not remember having used the computer. He was home with his mother, when at 22:30 or a little later, he heard a siren of an ambulance or police. He commented on that with his mother, however, did not leave the house to investigate. He did not leave again until the morning, having gone to bed around midnight.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDX-KvKh96E
M @ 10:31
"He does not remember having used the computer"
(In other words he did not use either of them).
Thanks also for the 'JM responds to the Media link'
"Very bitter. Somebody has set him up."
"How do you think that happened?"
"We don't know. Probably the people who did it."
("We'll hit our own men", remember)
When interviewed by the police on 15 May, JM includes a reference to RM's business, "Romigen.com", the address appearing on the CEOP computer usage report, but not the PJ's own forensic trace to which that report relates.
"She recalls that they were talking until close to midnight about Robert'™s project, related to the property and called 'Romigen.Com". Finally they went to their bedrooms to pass the night."
The outcome of further 'suggestion' perhaps?
In addition, the cursory CEOP analysis makes no attempt to draw attention to or evaluate JM's 12 minute e-mail spree on the 2nd, but records the access glibly as MSN. A 'message read' is only referred to after this passage of activity.
Ironically, a comment in relation to 1 May reads: "This access is not significant from an evidential point of view".
Personally I wouldn't want to depend upon the sufficiency of these CEOP observations at all 'from an evidential point of view'.
Kind regards
M.R.
10.31..
night.
--- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125...jenny Murat. McCannfiles
Here's a thing, sit talking in your kitchen and then try to focus on Police sirens 1.4 km away ....around 1mile. Personnally it can work if your outside on a clear night.
Anyway in an old textusa(am I able to talk of her on this blog?) claims that police and ambulance have a different protocol in Portugal...all the world is a stage part 2. I give links if you wish as I'm on a phone today and is f#ckin difficult......so send links on request(sure you will have them anyway.)anyway a miles a long,way!!!
@12:12
The answer is in the question, I think. M
Questioned he [RM] said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous.
I received a reply only yesterday from N.M @AdirenM (twitter) who was in PDL and in 5A on the night of the third, never heard a thing re sirens.
Who by the way, I have asked to join the conversation.
Anonymous @12:12
Textusa is correct. It has recently been confirmed to us by a Portuguese resident that police and ambulance services have different emergency sirens, but none were heard in the immediate vicinity.
So someone thinks they hear a distant siren. And?
That's as far as it goes. No connection to be made between that, possibly imaginary experience, and other events in PdL that night.
The siren story served a purpose and it was not to illustrate when Jenny Murat became aware of the missing child.
Regards
M.R.
It does go to show that Mrs and Master Murat cannot be trusted with the actulite.
The defence of St Robert Murat is powerful medicine,in another place,which I find hard to swallow.
Which police force in UK would tolerate an elderly woman set up a collection point for photographic evidence.
Likewise lots of testament to Robert Murat using a request for assistance as an excuse to stalk enquiries by police
Statements that most definitely skirt around the truth..
A relationship with the McCanns even if it was only the introduction by Rajinder Balu and the offer of assistance,this is a previous meeting
Anonymous 4.2 @15:05
Indeed!
Anyone displaying as poor a memory as RM should probably be on medication (or is on it already).
I can understand imprecise recollection of time, up to a point, but the potential for a 4-hour discrepancy is absurd.
Vagaries in time are one thing, but Murat junior's recollection of his own actions in simple 'yes he did or no he did not' terms (See: Hat Trick, further down) is comparable to Gerry McCann's not knowing whether he went into apartment 5A through the front door or the back.
Unless they were both early onset Alzheimer's sufferers there has to be something more to their respective stories.
Maren
'Himself' has just copied to me a link to the Special Investigation Branch of the RMP, which I think he got from you.
Many thanks once again if so. It's as clear in its implications as 'H's' April calendar!
Kind regards
M.R.
Hi Martin.
This was a hard video to listen to clearly due to over talking and a strongly accented English.
I missed the original question asked of Jenny due to ever talking by the narrator and also there were a couple of words i couldn't make out due to the accent or cross talk.
It would have been better if they had asked a question and there was a pause before the answer and vice versa.
It would also have been better to hear from Robert himself rather than his mom.
If anyone can identify the words lost due to cross talk or where they haven't pronounced it clearly, 8i would appreciate it.
(Jenny) oh he's suffered terribly, but, uh, he;s not here at the moment.
(Interviewer) Yeah, but, how does he, how does he feel about this?
(J) Oh Awful and very bitter.
Somebody has set him up and framed (as/us?)
(I) Why do you think that happened?
(j) I don't know, probably the people who did it.
We don't know.
(I) Yeah. How is he dealing with this?
(J) Ahh, he's not too bad but, er, he can't work.
He could not work for three months.
He's not earned any money for three months, you know, which is very bad, very difficult.
(I) ? Maybe gonna have er, have some (evolution?) some changes, changes?
(J) We hope so (laughs) we hope so
(I)The police, they mm, they make a lot of investigation and don't finds nothing to (?) robbers?
(J) (Cross talk) We don't, we, we, the Porttuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing
It was interesting to note she used the plural WE to changes and (evolution?)of the case.
(Interviewer) Yeah, but, how does he, how does he feel about this?
(J) Oh Awful and very bitter. Somebody has set him up and framed (as/us?)
There is a dropped pronoun in relation to how he feels about this.
This is why it is best to talk to the subject directly to see how they feel rather than a 3rd party.
I had trouble with the last word, was it US or AS or something else?
I note she used the noun PEOPLE which is plural rather than the expected singular PERSON
She is implying that it was more than one person that is involved which could point to the mccanns and tapas 7.
She does not specify who is setting him up nor framed him (tanner was the one who picked him out in an id viewing from a van)
She uses the indefinite pronoun SOMEBODY indicating she does not know who.
If she had used the pronoun THEY it would have implied she knew who was setting him up, who was framing him (the implied would be the mccanns and tapas 7 without identifying them specifically ( fear of lawsuits perhaps?)
Note she uses both SET UP and FRAMED
What is her definition of set up?
What is her definition of framed?
To set someone up is to make someone appear guilty of a crime.
Why would someone take the risk of setting an innocent person up knowing that there would be evidence to show they did not commit said crime?
An alibi, video footage or CCTV footage, computer logs, time stamps for phone calls and even phone pings if on a cell phone?
It is a risky choice which could and would backfire.
If there was conclusive evidence that the person could not have committed said crime, it would then point the finger right back as the mccanns and chums and questions as to why they lied and what are the covering up for? (remember amanda knox blaming her boss initially)
Cont.
She speaks of HIM being set up.
She then tells us someone is framing US?
If she uses the pronoun US why?
Why would she join herself to the idea of being framed when the subject of discussion is her son Robert?
To frame someone is to implicate them in a crime with false evidence.
Was there evidence that could be used to frame Robert (and herself)?
What would such evidence be?
We know body fluids were found in the apartment,behind the sofa and in the parents bedroom in a closet, on kate's pants, cuddlecat and a child's red t-shirt.
We also know body fluids were also found in the hire care, hired weeks after Maddie's alleged abduction.
Perhaps these could be possibly explained away as minor injury to Maddie, such as a nose bleed or the graze on her knee from when she fell up the plane steps (allegedly on the way out to Portugal)?
Cross contamination perhaps or, as claimed, leakage from packages of meat, fish or dirty diapers in the trunk of the hire car.
We then also know of the smell in the car that was commented on by jon connor and noted by the neighbors who reported seeing the trnk door left open over night to clear the smell.
The problem arises though when it comes to the dogs reacting to cadaverine.
The dog reacted only to human cadaverine.
Kate's role as a GP, albeit a p/t locum of 1.5 days a week in a smallish practice was used as one explanation.
She came into contact with multiple corpses prior to the vacation according to her mom (i think it was)
This excuse was used to explain the cadaverine on kate's pants and cuddlecat, I did not hear of any explanation for the child red t shirt.
The hire car indication was blamed on rotting meat, dirty diapers, and sea bass (loved by Sean according to gerry) as well as sweaty sandals.
Basically a false positive.
Remember though all these excuses for what was found and which was then denied by kate in the Leveson inquiry (perjury)
The problem arises then that kate was allegedly on extended maternity leave.
According to the Leicester police she was on maternity leave.
In Leicester Police's letter of 16 May 2008 with Background Information on Kate, they mentioned that she was on maternity leave.
"She works for the local NHS as a GP in Latham House, Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire. She is currently on maternity leave".
The date on the letter is 16 May 2008, a year after Madeleine's disappearance.
Which means she was on maternity leave for about 2 years and 3 months.
Statutory Maternity Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:
26 weeks of Ordinary Maternity Leave
26 weeks of Additional Maternity Leave
You don’t have to take 52 weeks but you must take 2 weeks’ leave after your baby is born (or 4 weeks if you work in a factory)
The twins were born in January 2005.
She would have returned to work in late fall, early 2006
Did Leicester Police get it wrong and meant compassionate leave?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MCCANNS_BACKGROUND.htm
cont.
If Robert was being framed, then evidence would have been left to implicate him, in some cases obtained long after Maddie's death and subsequently placed in the hire car.
This would indicate someone had access to Maddie's body between may 3rd when she was allegedly abducted and the hiring of the car several weeks later.
Who would frame an innocent person in the death of Maddie by putting cadaverine in a hire car, rather than in Robert's own car or, if he hired a car, that car?
Who would place cadaverine in their own hire car, knowing it would lead to suspicion and awkward questions?
A possible excuse is the the real killer had hired the car before the mccanns and it was bad luck they happened to hire the same car weeks later.
Implausible but not impossible.
Why then did the mccanns not demand to know who had hired the car before them and blamed them rather than come up with excuses for what was found?
Why would there be cadaverine in their apartment(able to be detected by trained cadaver dogs after approx 90 mins depending on environmental conditions such as hot or cold)
Why not place in in the Murats home and garden?
Why did Jenny use the pronoun US if this is the word she used?
why would someone want to frame two people rather than one?
It would be much harder to arrange it so evidence implicated two people rather than one.
Is this because she, as a mother is supporting her son's innocence and that she feels that by doing so she also becomes a target?
Is there evidence genuine or planted that could implicate her as well as Robert?
Does she think there is evidence to implicate her as well as Robert?
(I) Yeah. How is he dealing with this?
(J) Ahh, he's not too bad but, er, he can't work.
The word "but" should always be observed carefully, particularly observing the words that follow the word "but" in comparison to what preceded it. It can refute what preceded it, or can be used to compare, or even negate what preceded it.
She doesn't really answer the question.
Expected would be describing his emotions, how he feels about being wrongly accused, even a denial that he is involved.
An example could be , "He feels dreadful, he has been wrongly accused of involvement, he didn't do anything to Maddie. He feels stress, fear of what may happen to him as he has received threats. He feels sympathy for the mccanns losing there daughter/ He believes the mccanns are involved in Maddie's death and he is angry they have not been arrested".
You get the idea.
Instead we get, he feels dreadful, followed by he can't work.
Order is important.
I don't know when this video interview was made
He could not work for three months.
Three is the liars number (Mark McClish)
it doesn't mean the subject is being deceptive, things can happen at 3o'clock, there could be three people/animals etc, it could be the third floor etc.
Its presence though is noted.
She uses the past conditional COULD to describe him not being able to work.
Is he able to work now?
Is he working now?
He's not earned any money for three months, you know, which is very bad, very difficult.
Note the use of the number three again.
YOU KNOW is used to ask the listener to take what is being said without question.
No work = no money.
She then tells us it is very bad, very difficult.
What is her definition of bad?
What is her definition of difficult?
They both have a different meaning in her subjective internal dictionary.
How did they manage if he had no work and no income?
What did his work include?
What stopped him from working?
Was it his own choice or imposed on him?
What changed after three months?
cont.
(I) ? Maybe gonna have er, have some (evolution?) some changes, changes?
(J) We hope so (laughs) we hope so
I couldn't make out clearly what the interviewer asked, it sounded like evolution which would fit in with the word changes
The interviewer was probing to see what the subject knew about the case currently that the Portuguese Police had not spoken about nor the mccanns and tapas 7 and clarence mitchell.
She uses the pronoun WE indicating unity and shared cooperation.
She repeats it which makes it sensitive.
Any changes in the case, given she claims he was being set up and framed would be to their benefit as it would clear them of involvement and move the investigation in a different direction, hopefully pointing to the parents and tapas 7.
(I)The police, they mm, they make a lot of investigation and don't finds nothing to (?) robbers??
I couldn't make out the word prior to robbers due to over talking by the subject.
The interviewer tells us the police have done a lot of investigations and have found nothing to show it was a robbery (one of theories purported at the time)
The implication is the police have found nothing to show it was an abduction.
The subject interrupts the interviewer at the start of the question.
(J)(Cross talk) We don't, we, we, the Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing
The pronoun WE is used to show unity and cooperation.
She repeats it three times which could indicate sensitivity, however she is talking over the interviewer, it is possible the repetition is to make herself heard over him.
She self edits though.
She starts off saying WE DON'T and then continues with The Portuguese Police
She then uses the pronoun YOU Which is distancing.
It does however fit in with the generalization that the Portuguese Police don't speak about the case due to Portuguese law.
The word "but" should always be observed carefully, particularly observing the words that follow the word "but" in comparison to what preceded it. It can refute what preceded it, or can be used to compare, or even negate what preceded it.
we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because i was here with him that night, so, i know there's nothing
Note the qualifier ABSOLUTELY which is repeated twice making it sensitive.
A qualifier is a word that when removed, does not change the meaning of the sentence.
it weakens the sentence.
WE is the pronoun used, indicating unity and shared cooperation.
Here it is used in relation to what they have been told.
Absolutely nothing is repeated twice making it sensitive.
Anything in the negative is sensitive.
Nothing is repeated three times making it very sensitive to the subject.
There cannot be Nothing, there has to be a something.
Expected could be "There is no evidence to implicate Robert/Us in the disappearance of Maddie another way could be There is evidence to show where Robert/We were that night, what Robert/We were doing, that shows Robert/We did not do anything to Maddie
cont.
Because is used to explain why something happened.
It is used in the expectation of being asked a question such as "Why did you?didn't you do or say something"?
SO is used to explain why something happened.
Here we have two words which are used to explain why something happened.
In statement analysis these words are always highlighted in blue and indicates sensitivity.
here we have two words which would be highlighted in blue to show sensitivity.
We have what is called a cluster of blues which makes this sentence highly sensitive to the subject.
Who has told them there is absolutely nothing?
She doesn't tell us the Portuguese Police told them, she only told us the Portuguese Police don't tell you anything
She then tells the interviewer i was here with him that night, so i know there's nothing
I would have asked more questions in regard to her last statement due to the sensitivity.
How do you know there is nothing?
What time did he arrive home?
What time did she arrive home?
What did you do?
What did he do?
What time did you go to bed?
What time did you go to sleep?
What time did he go to bed?
What time did he go to sleep?
Did you wake up at any point?
What caused you to wake up?
If you woke up, was Robert awake?
If you woke up, was Robert asleep?
If you woke up, what did you do?
Did Robert wake up during the night?
Do you know what he did?
If you were both awake, what did you both do?
What do you mean by absolutely nothing?
Is there a possibility that Robert could have committed the crime whilst you were asleep?
What is your relationship like with Robert?
What say you if something is found that could incriminate Robert?
What say you if something is found that could incriminate you?
Why should i believe you?
Is there anything else you wish to say?
My apologies for the long post
Tania C. @18:42 et seq.
Thank you SO much for your analysis. I did not expect anything like that measure of depth, but it is most assuredly welcome reading.
Not being practised in the fascinating science/art of Statement Analysis (I have read McClish), I would have missed much of the detail you provide here. Nevertheless there are a couple of remarks which leap off the page, so to speak, even before the untrained eye/ear, and which prompted my original question to you.
Now that we have your, dare I say it, undirected interpretation, I can have even more confidence in the 'red flags' I immediately saw waving at me from that interview.
Sincere thanks for responding as you have. It is very much appreciated.
Kind regards
Martin R.
I will reiterate Tania, I adore the way your mind works.
Thank you.
Thanks honey.
Even they i checked for spelling multiple times, i still missed a couple.
Jenny Murat giggling or aghast?
http://www.prphotos.com/p/SPX-007795/jenny-murat-at-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann--police-suspect-robert-murat.html?&ps=1&x-start=1
Good morning dearheart
As you say, but I was more interested in this photo depicting Jenny Murat's altruism, aka information gathering.
http://www.prphotos.com/p/SPX-007769/jenny-murat-at-missing-british-3-year-old-girl-madeleine-mccann--police-suspect-robert-murat.html?&ps=3&x-start=24
A quite recent search by myself had failed to come up with the goods. It's not terribly important, but I was mentioning it to Martin who hadn't previously seen a photo of such. Still, it might make an introduction photo to an upcoming article. With suitable caption of course.
Her motive behind such altruism, so we are told, was that if people were ill-inclined to go to the cops, they could always leave any information with Murat senior. How very convenient, and just what you do as a civilian in the middle of a police investigation.
Now where have I heard similar?
Oh yes. Only t'other way round as you already know.
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2011/10/leicestershire-most-incredible.html
Thanks Chuck
JM: “I was here with him that night, so I know there is nothing.”
Tania 6.2 @18:49
Excellent questions you would have asked them in regard to JM’s last statement. Thank you.
This came up in a picture search for a larger image. (yellow box)
http://findmadeleine.com/home.html
Fancy that. But I think we can safely assume, it's not information about Maddie's whereabouts that is their primary concern.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDX-KvKh96E
1:02
JM: "The Portuguese police don't tell you anything, but we have been told there is absolutely nothing, and we know there's absolutely nothing because I was here with him that night, so, I know there’s nothing."
If the Portuguese police didn’t tell them anything, then who told them there is absolutely nothing? The British police? M
Himself - Maren
It's like watching tennis with you two - both holding service games to love!
Maren turns the key on this one, I pull the handle and Tania C throws open the door.
As for that picture of JM at her public desk...What a nice radiant smile for the camera.
'Tis vaguely ironic that all of this coincides with a diatribe from Blacksmith elsewhere on the interpretation of evidence (I might DM that one to you H. It clarifies his own position somewhat but IMHO reveals the mistake at the same time).
Keep it up boys and girls.
M.R.
From Tania C:
"Does she think there is evidence to implicate her as well as Robert?"
Or does she 'know' they are implicated regardless?
M.R.
She knows, I think. M
Anonymous @18;32
Moi aussi
M.R.
Martin
Penultimate comment.
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/12/theresa-may-bernard-hogan-howe-nicola.html
Himself @19:40
penultimate comment leads to reading article which leads to:
"She has spoken out on behalf of her son because, like the McCanns, as a suspect, he is prohibited from speaking to the press under Portuguese law."
Good game eh? Make sure your story is aired in the media by a relative or, in the case of that other pair, a source close to the McCanns.
M.R.
Thank you for another great discussion, Himself, Tania, Martin, Maren, Anon(s?).
Our dear Dew also feels very strongly about RM:
dewi lennard @kikoratton 18 Dec 2014 at https://twitter.com/kikoratton
I believe Robert Murat was involved up to his neck. And his woman, too. Probably "passively", as useful tools of the McCann deception.
Piece to all.
rtgr
Fascinating stuff:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
"a source close to the couple assures me they do not believe Murat took their daughter, regarding him as a "sad loner" whose involvement has distracted attention which could have been usefully deployed elsewhere."
Yet another distraction. To be added to 'bundleman', the yacht that never sailed, etc., etc. What would they have done without them?
"Weighed with various accrued morsels of suspicion against him - an unexplained 11.40pm phone call on the night of the abduction"
That's just 6 mins. after the 'end of activity' on JM's computer. Mmm.
"under such stress that he has lost more than a stone, and has turned from a non-smoker into a 40-a-day man"
What was he so worried about? He was innocent wasn't he?
"his denial of any involvement in Madeleine's abduction carried the ring of truth."
As in: "You know that crime no-one committed? Well it wasn't me either."
"He says he returned to Portugal, after a lengthy spell in Britain, at 9.40am, on Tuesday, May 1, two days before Madeleine's disappearance."
He returned after 6 weeks, his previous sojourn in Portugal being almost twice as long (11 weeks)
"So I am supposed to have planned the kidnapping of a little girl inside 50 hours," he told me, shaking his head.
"In that time, I supposedly identified the apartment where she was sleeping and spied on her, and worked out the times her parents went to dinner each night, then took her away. It's ludicrous."
Just one of the many ludicrous propositions put forward by the McCanns.
"If you want my opinion, it had to involve someone on the inside, who works at the Ocean Club.
No question. Someone had to unlock 5J after all!
"By Murat's account, he first learned about Madeleine's disappearance around 7.30am the following morning, when Samantha phoned from Devon after watching the news on TV."
'after watching the news', which broke on SKY TV at 7.48. Add a couple of mins. for the news to sink in and for sister Samantha to make the 'phone call to Portugal, which the mother apparently answered, and you're comfortably nearer 8.00 than 7.30.
"At some stage, he recalls, he spoke to Gerry McCann, but he can't remember what passed between them."
Err...I'm not going to comment on that.
"However, he told me adamantly that he has never been inside apartment 5A, and knows its layout only because he searched a similar flat in the same block."
And you believed him?
"Ironically, Murat believes his mobile phone offers the best hope of proving his innocence. He claims it is always switched on and in his possession."
I don't think Dewi L. would agree with that somehow.
"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language," he (RQM)said.
As reported on 2.6.07. He couldn't have been describing the police investigation which was far from completed. So what's he passing judgement on, I wonder?
Martin R. @18:31
Fascinating stuff indeed.
"I'm going through exactly the same experience as the McCanns, so I can empathise with them,” he told me, seemingly unable to understand that no one - not even a man perhaps wrongly accused of child abduction - could begin to understand their torment.
writes David Jones, seemingly unable to consider that Kate and Gerry McCann might have been involved in Madeleine’s disappearance.
Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’
Friday 4 May
“I was holding a photograph of Madeleine, which he asked to see. As he studied it, he told me about his daughter back in England who was the same age, and who, he said, looked just like Madeleine. I was a little irked by this. In the circumstances, it seemed rather tactless, even if he was simply trying to empathize. I didn’t think his daughter could possibly be as beautiful as Madeleine – though of course, as her mum, I didn’t think any other little girl could be as beautiful as Madeleine. When he had finished translating, he turned and began to walk briskly away. Realizing I didn’t know his name, I caught up with him and asked.
‘Robert,’ he said.
'Thank you, Robert,’ I said.”
Isn’t it amazing what a mother’s mind can come up with, several hours after her daughter was abducted.
Kind regards,
Maren
Contd........
He remains adamant that the North African country is the most likely place for Madeleine to have been smuggled to after she disappeared from the Algarve.
His detectives travelled there last month amid claims that they had narrowed down a region in the Rif Mountains where the four-year-old could have been held.
But the expedition is not thought to have given them a breakthrough in the case.
The agency has been silent about its operations in secret since Mr Marco was reprimanded by the McCanns for his public boasts that he would find Madeleine within six months and hoped to have her home by Christmas.
The McCanns spent a quiet New Year's Eve with their two-year- old twins Sean and Amelie with relatives in Scotland.
Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell said they would not celebrate without their oldest daughter.
The couple are due to return home to Rothley, Leicestershire, tomorrow, the day before Gerry returns to work as a consultant cardiologist at Leicester's Glenfield hospital.
Share or comment on this article
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-505443/Kate-McCann-My-suspicions-Murats-alibi-night-Madeleine-vanished.html#ixzz3zcPAvw00
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have tried to post twice around the 22.32 article above....one should precede the above with a comment about Jayne Jensen noticing RM with this being corroborated by a British barrister. Please sort out my posts if they all should pop up. Very frustrating and accept my apology.
Anonymous @22:32
From your link:
"holidaymaker Jayne Jensen, 54, also recognised the 34-year-old as a man she saw smoking a cigarette on the street corner opposite the McCanns' apartment."
Really?
This is the same man who, under the stress occasioned by suspicion had "turned from a NON-SMOKER into a 40-a-day man"
What was he doing smoking on the street corner opposite the McCanns' apartment? Practising for later?
M.R.
21 May 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-456560/Madeleine-Portuguese-police-admit-fear-worst.html
Detectives today said they want to quiz a cousin of prime suspect Robert Murat.
Police sources said they were "very eager" to talk to Genaro Acosta Gonzalez, an estate agent working in Spain.
Is Genaro 'gen' in Romigen? M
Anonymous @23:01
Never mind. We'll get there in the end.
Reading Kate McCann's various suspicions, together with the interjections by the 'family friend', it all sounds so concocted.
And then Clarence Mitchell (for it is surely he) has an episode of 'foot in mouth' disease:
"Mr Murat, who has a young daughter from a failed marriage, vehemently denies any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. His mother Jennifer, 71, has accused Metodo 3 of bribing witnesses to change their evidence.
"But a source close to the McCanns said: 'He is her son and most mothers would protect their children. Either she knows something or she is mistaken.'"
It's not entirely clear whether Mitchell's statement here is directly related to the accusation toward Metodo 3 described immediately above. Its positioning makes it appear so but he may just as easily have been referring to something else.
Either way it appears Clarence has dropped a marble.
He should simply have said "He is her son (blah blah), but she is mistaken."
Instead he gives out "Either she knows something or she is mistaken."
telling us immediately that something significant in this case exists to be known.
But what could Jenny Murat possibly have 'known' with regard to Metodo 3's possibly corrupting witnesses? Did she see the handover of brown paper envelopes for herself? Nah. And yet, if she is not mistaken, then she 'knows something.'
You bet!
M @23:07
"Is Genaro 'gen' in Romigen?"
Wouldn't be at all hard to believe.
Perhaps we're looking at Ro(bert) m(urat) y Gen(aro) (Spanish version. The Portuguese for 'and' is 'e').
Maybe they deliberately misspelt the conjunction because it read better that way.
M.R.
What about Ro(Robert)mi(Michela)gen(Genaro).........
Have a read......https://missingchild.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/romigen-and-missing-madeleine/
Anonymous @23:45
I like yours better!
As a property marketing vehicle the web-site was singularly unimpressive by all accounts.
M.R.
Martin 8 February 2016 at 18:31
Maren 8 February 2016 at 21:19
Tops
Genaro Gonzalez is described as a 50 years old man, “who speaks fluently Italian” and comes frequently to Aljezur, where he is in charge of a real estate business. He admitted to Gazeta Digital that he is in charge of a real estate business in Aljezur, Algarve, but said that he is 29 years old.
http://gazetadigitalarquivo.blogspot.nl/2007/06/i-dont-know-mr-robert-murat-said-genaro.html
Anonymous @07:52
Additionally (from your link):
"The front page of Correio da Manhã says: 'PJ on the track of third partner of Murat.'"
I must be psychic! Only a few days ago I said to 'Himself' I thought it was Harry Lime wot dun it (the third man, lol).
More seriously, Dewi L. (Kikoratton) reckons RM clocked up a lot of kilometres travelling to Lisbon. I don't think we can substantiate that, but Aljezur is handily situated NW of where the drama was first played out
M.R.
Re: RM
May be of interest, particularly at 36:51
http://truthfrequencyradio.com/the-kev-baker-show-49374/
rtgr
8 February 2016 at 22:57
I'm leaning on a lamp, maybe you think, I look a tramp,
Or you may think I'm hanging 'round to steal a motor-car.
But no I'm not a crook, And if you think, that's what I look,
I'll tell you why I'm here, And what my motives are.
(Tempo Change)
I'm leaning on a lamp-post at the corner of the street,
In case a certain little lady comes by.
Oh me, oh my, . . .
Moscow shared MH17 radar images, Dutch probe ignored evidence, Russia tells victims’ relatives
https://www.rt.com/news/331833-mh17-dutch-probe-ignore/
http://tass.ru/en/politics/855451
https://www.facebook.com/PastafarischeKerkNL/
Lol, although I don’t do Facebook and isms, tha knows. Mx
rtgr @13:54
“I have more important things to worry about, like running my business, paying my taxes and I also need to paint my house.”
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/19/madeleine-mccann-police-robert-murat
Kind regards,
Maren
Maren @13:59
From your link:
"Murat, an IT consultant on the Algarve..."
Pardon me?
regards
M.R.
Maren 9 February 2016 at 13:59
Many thanks.
“I have more important things to worry about, like running my business, paying my taxes and I also need to paint my house.”
I’ve come across this article before.
A busy man with no time to worry about the allegation that a corpse is buried under his driveway (and he also has to cook and smell flowers I guess )… That’s our Robert for you.
KM’s comment on said allegation comes to mind. She is too busy ‘searching’ and ‘pedalling’ to worry about her daughter’s remains.
Kind regards.
rtgr
Martin Roberts 9 February 2016 at 15:19
Pardon me?
Indeed.
rtgr
Now then, now then...
The McCanns (to the Daily Telegraph on the 'first anniversary' May 2008 (as previously noted in 'What the Papers' say, McCannfiles, 18/8/2009):
GM: The experts are saying there is a strong chance Madeleine is out there but it's back to what we need to do which is address the situation: Who took her? Is that person alone? If they are alone they don't live in isolation, they live in a town, in a holiday resort, they interact with people and they might have accomplices we don't know what motivates them.
'Write about what you know' they say. The same goes for anyone trying to make it up. This story involves a 'loner' who lives just down the road in a holiday resort (factoring in what Kate is about to say next). And despite his 'loner' tag he might have influential contacts (accomplices). Who might that be? No resident of Skegness that's for sure.
KM: Even people who are classed as loners are known as the loner down the road.
So who do we think the McCanns might have been referring to here?
How about (as above): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
"a source close to the couple assures me they do not believe Murat took their daughter, regarding him as a "sad loner" whose involvement has distracted attention which could have been usefully deployed elsewhere."
That was in June 2007. A year later and they're insinuating he might have taken their daughter after all.
Martin R. @15:19
“But whatever we make of Murat, one thing is plain: he inhabits such a different world from the McCanns - caring parents, brilliant medical professionals, devout Roman Catholics.”
"Murat, an IT consultant on the Algarve..."
For the times they are a-changin'
“And despite his 'loner' tag he might have influential contacts (accomplices). Who might that be? No resident of Skegness that's for sure.”
That’s for sure.
Kind regards,
Maren
"Madeleine McCann Timeline Of Events 'Wrong'
"UK detectives say details of the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal have 'significantly changed'."
(Sky News 18:52, UK, Sunday 13 October 2013)
'The facts can be changed for anyone' (Anne Davies for BBC News, August 2009).
And Isaac Newton is turning in his grave!
www.independent.co.uk/.../were-no-cult-says-british-expats-group-1285..
Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’
“We are particularly grateful to Jim Gamble and the team at CEOP for the initiatives they have developed with us to help keep Madeleine's abduction in the forefront of the public consciousness.
But a harsh fact remains. Since July 2008, there has been no police force anywhere actively investigating what has happened to Madeleine. We are the only people looking for her.”
------------------------------
http://news.sky.com/story/1328374/madeleine-secret-report-on-police-probe
Sky News has been briefed on the contents of the hitherto unseen document - delivered in 2010 - which eventually led to the Metropolitan Police re-opening the investigation.
------------------------------
http://bit.ly/1SHEVry
http://bit.ly/1or10hl
10 February 2016 at 08:42 Your link http://bit.ly/1SHEVry
He don't do irony, do he?
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TP4ufcmIJ3I/AAAAAAAAeRk/sW6EjYUeBVw/s1600/after_ore.jpg
If nothing else, the first quote. Do stop!
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/10/im-sure-theyll-be-mortified.html
Well they would be wouldn't they?
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/10/kate-and-gerry-mccann-very-upset-at.html
Jim Gamble, Your Witness
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/05/jim-gamble-your-witness.html
By the by my little buttered mushroom, what's the Dutch for: Touched by his noodly appendage? Although I fancy "noodly" might pose a bit of a problem.
XX H
rtgr @10:37
I didn't post that link, but it's this article I think. M
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/were-no-cult-says-british-expats-group-1285145.html
May 5, 2013
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/397244/Madeleine-world-exclusive-Bring-them-all-back-to-Portugal
Asked if he thought Madeleine’s fate would ever be known, he brushed back his thick dark brown hair, rubbed his tanned chin and said: “I hope so, I believe it will come out one day.” He said Portugal’s financial crisis means “if the British do want to get to the bottom of this, it is a case of funding the Portuguese”.
"I believe it will come out one day."
So, he doesn't think she will be found, dead or alive? M
A fair assumption, Chuck.
Bonjour mon gros champignon au beurre.
The Dutch for “Touched by his noodly appendage” is Geraakt door zijn noedelachtig aanhangsel.
http://on.fb.me/1Qr1b2p
Mx
M @13:46
That's completely put me off my Chinese takeaway!
Anonymous @08:42
and this story (http://news.sky.com/story/1328374/madeleine-secret-report-on-police-probe) is replete with BS!
Regards
M.R.
Maren 10 February 2016 at 13:10
Himself 13:35
Martin 14:07
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/397244/Madeleine-world-exclusive-Bring-them-all-back-to-Portugal
EXPRESS: Asked if he thought Madeleine’s fate would ever be known…
RM : I hope so, I believe it will come out one day.
How from the above can one arrive at So, he doesn't think she will be found, dead or alive?
Hypothetically, even if RM doesn't think Madeleine will be found, dead or alive, do you think there is much wrong with his not thinking so?
In fact, he says he hopes and believes (as above) that it (Madeleine’s fate) will come out one day, and if it comes out one day, Madeline’s existential status will be established.
Kebabs, Chinese takeaway… The life of the wealthy.
Kind regards and bon appétit.
rtgr
rtgr @15:12
To your adventage due to your first language and your more optimistic view.
As you say, ‘it’ refers to her fate, but does it imply her existential status I wonder.
I admit I’m somewhat prejudiced. I call everything Murat says into question.
Kind regards,
Maren
rtgr @15:12
No filthy affluence for me I'm afraid. The nearest I come to a Chinese takeaway these days is when the pooch walks me past the shop!
As to RM's "I believe it will come out one day", I am inclined to adopt a 'Tania C' approach to that remark, which strikes me as an inappropriate response to the question of whether Madeleine's fate would one day be known.
'I hope so, I believe so' or 'perhaps it will be discovered eventually' would have done the job, but what usually 'come out' (apart from Gay's in search of a moment's celebrity) are secrets. (Same thing almost).
It sounds as though Madeleine's fate is being 'kept under wraps' deliberately, not undiscovered simply because no-one has found her yet, dead or alive.
regards
M.R.
Maren, Maren my dearheart.
Who wants something, moi?
Yes
A fifteen minute search has come up empty under these search terms and similar:
matt baggott attempts to gag pilkington inquest (daughter is called Hardwick I've just noticed)
I'm a bit too tied up to search further, would you care to have a go in your own time. There's no rush and I don't think it's even going to contribute to a post, but I wouldn't mind reading the details. There is plenty on Baggott refusing to apologise for failing the Pilkingtons, but of the gagging, nothing so far.
It must have been so, for I have graphics related to the situation.
If Things Don't Change They'll Stop As They Are
A prediction.
And Teddy's having a rant.
http://mccanngallerytribute.blogspot.com/2010/03/if-things-dont-change-theyll-stop-as.html
Thanks Chuck
There's a bloke here from LA of all places, who tears L Plod a strip over the case in question.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread506154/pg1
M.R.
The Sirens of The Lambs
“Eeyore, Eeyore”
Brilliant!
M
Not forgetting: just as Simon and Garfunkel once suggested
Like minds Maren, I had already congratulated MR for his somewhat subtle but quite splendid bit of word play.
Eeyore, Eeyore. Nee nah nee nah. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/S6-KSDjihuI/AAAAAAAAWeM/zj6vlsUe3fk/s1600/nicked.jpg
Full photo essay starting: And of course more recently, Karen Matthews.
http://themccanngallery.blogspot.com/2010/03/review-by-uk-police-nonsense-or-thin.html
Maren @19.32
Seconded! (I'll borrow it back!)
When MR discovered that it was "jenny" that was online for much of that evening, I tried to picture a scenario that was a little more recognisable. "All the world is a stage" (tips hat to textusa):
I think of a living room. RM stares at the TV (or a book?), JM gazes at the laptop that is open beside her. 'Conversation' proceeds in fits and starts - between pages, sips, clicks, and the din of TV.
Could that be deemed to be an evening spent together - talking? (Charitably? just about.)
If I were in the business of creating a little vignette then that is the scenario that I might have invented - but only if I had known that "jenny" was online. The fact of this one known condition ("jenny" online) ought to have conditioned the account in a way that sounds more plausible than "talking in the kitchen".
Had I not known that JM was online, then the "stage" might have been set differently - Samuel Beckett style - two heads across a table, and an intensity broken only by the siren, continuous, or not. (Directors choice.)
Just a thought!
I remember an old punchline: eeyore t'know better!
Regards,
Agnos
@himself....
Don't know if this article is of any use to you? Can give a few more links but a lot are just of story which you will know.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/psni-chief-matt-baggott-refusal-to-hand-over-files-is-not-a-coverup-30333422.html
I will open the link tomorrow, ain't in the mood to read about such a fine upstanding Christian gentleman. But thank you nonetheless.
If my memory serves, Baggott's excuse for not handing over the files was, wait for it, contravening the data protection act.
But it's not a cover-up.
Agnos 10.22 @20:57
I like the cut of your jib, sir!
Always a pleasure to read an elegant argument.
It's thanks to Maren we have the book open at the page marked 'computer usage.'
Kind regards
M.R.
rtgr 10 February 2016 at 23:13
I couldn't find the pcwatch article, though I didn't look very hard. It's academic really.
But the Belfast Telegraph starts:
Matt Baggott said intelligence documents were not shared due to a lack of legal clarity and concerns over data protection. . . .
. . . ."This is not about trying to cover things up," he said at the meeting in Belfast yesterday.
No, of course not.
rtgr
I haven’t lost you I think, but I’m not sure about any other visitors.
Well, eeyore t'know better! Thanks Agnos.
Regards,
Maren
Wenn Bach heute leben würde, säße er auch hinter den modernsten Rechnern und Keyboards.
rtgr
eeyore t'know better
Classic, Agnos.
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/jehovahs-witnesses-ordered-destruction-notes-10848053
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK9T4TlSYyk
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/12/science/ligo-gravitational-waves-black-holes-einstein.html
11 February 2016 at 20:14
Thank you. (Maren?) I just caught the back end of the news in the car not an hour ago.
Some nice little vids follow after your recommendation, Cassini and Huygens as it happens.
I shall go and sample another, dank je, Tulpen.
Hallo H
Graag gedaan. Veel plezier ermee.
Is it any wonder it's called double Dutch.
Mx
Catriona Baker 'got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on 29 April 2007, in the minis club...' Previously she had 'written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.' (Rogatory statement, 18.4.08)
The OC bracelets would therefore have been available for issue from the Sunday onwards.
Even if said bracelets were fitted on a daily basis, would parents remove them after the morning session, before returning their child to the same crèche in the afternoon?
The official narrative sees MM re-admitted to the kid's club on both the Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, after KM had taken the 'tennis photo' and 'last photo' respectively. No wrist bracelet is visible in either image.
The absence of any 'tag' suggests that the photos in question were taken before the wrist bracelets were even issued, whether MM was pictured at the OC or elsewhere. Falsified dates attributed to these images would of course nullify photographic confirmation of MM's presence at the OC after 30 April (that date again!).
I read the preamble, I shall read the article proper in the morn.
Could end up being quite interesting.
http://bit.ly/1oc9l8A
While this is not the place to make allegations, perhaps I could introduce another member of the McCann team into the equation: Gary Hagland. Hagland was employed by the McCanns for his expertise on money laundering. Again, quite why an expert on money-laundering was needed in a child-abduction case remains a mystery. Perhaps he would have been better employed by former Portuguese Prime Minister José Sócrates.
I quote here from one of Hagland's own articles in a British newspaper, “Money launderers are extremely well-funded, well-advised and make use of technically elaborate and sophisticated schemes to cover their tracks.”
Like an imagined scheme for the disappearance of a small child to help launder millions? Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help people recover from alcohol and drugs?
http://algarvedailynews.com/cases/madeleine-mccann/5471-mccann-s-pr-chief-stands-for-parliament
Anonymous @ 07:46
"Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help people recover from alcohol and drugs?"
Or even a reputed charity that is supposed to help find people who are not genuinely 'missing' (AWOL absentees from hostels/detention centres etc. that distort the statistics, as even the police recognise)
If I may just disgorge one final thought regarding those photographs, why would anyone retrospectively falsify evidence of a person's public visibility if not to conceal the fact that the individual in question was not publicly visible at the time?
Martin @21.34,
Even if said bracelets were fitted on a daily basis, would parents remove them after the morning session, before returning their child to the same crèche in the afternoon?
Quite.
And don't these types of crèche club thrive upon the excitement of "belonging to ..." that a bracelet might confer upon a little one in a new environment? I find it hard to imagine that a girl of Madeleine's age would want a bracelet to be removed. It isn't as though the parents themselves were reticent about the use of the crèche either.
How sad are these small reflections.
Ag.,
. . . . “I had no experience at all with private detectives,” Kennedy remembered
. . . . Kennedy then cast around for suitable private investigators to hire, and picked Método 3, a Spanish company.
As opposed to: http://bit.ly/1oc9l8A
'Looking For Madeleine’ by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan (Headline, £18.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £16.99 + £1.95 p&p
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11077525/Madeleine-McCann-I-listened-for-15-seconds-and-knew-they-were-innocent.html
Martin R./Agnos,
One might almost think that Madeleine was allergic to wristbands.
I set about looking for some more information, but where are the details when you need them?
Regards,
Maren
Maren,
I imagine that the bands themselves took this general form?
The question posed by Martin stands ever more strongly.
(Re your comment on the Murat thread: Suggestive nonsense. Hits the nail on the head I think!)
regards
Agnos
Great things are done by a series of small things brought together. To quote a certain Dutch painter!
Maren/Agnos
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/is-kate-mccann-liar.html
"The other thing MW do is put a wristband on the kids like they do at music festivals."
(Scroll down a long way - to the PPS - for a relevant photograph)
Thanks Martin,
Festival/"event" wrist bands are what I had envisaged: a durable ID in case of a child becoming separated from a group (irony becomes too dark). In my experience, such things are not designed to be removed at each and every juncture. What could possibly necessitate its removal? (Rhet)
Waterproof & Tough - Use Them In The Ocean Or Swimming Pool - They Will Not Rip Or Tear
Discreet - Your Child's Information Is Kept Safe Inside The Band, Safe From Prying Eyes
Disposable - Discard The Old Band And Update A New Band When Changing Hotels Or Contact Numbers.
Ag.
Ag(nos) @12:00
Of course the predictable counter-argument from TM and cohorts would most likely be: "Oh the nannies didn't actually bother with wrist bands that week".
But then one would have to ask why Catriona Baker would make deliberate reference in her statement to the preparation of accessories she/they had no intention of using.
For my money the absence of that feature from the cornerstone photographs severely limits the time(s) when they could have been taken (Sunday most likely). Following which other things drop into place: A Sunday evening incident, a Monday that no-one wishes to talk about, a local bi-lingual in no hurry to return to Portugal but who cannot wait to get up that day to book his flight (confirmed at 01:57 a.m.), then a string of inventions to pad out the week.
This is like a developing mosaic in which we may just about see the overall picture. All that's missing is the 'bottom left' piece - what was it that happened to set the wheels in motion?
Regards
M.R.
Ag., 13 February 2016 at 12:00
It isn't as though the parents themselves were reticent about the use of the crèche either.
Nor the subsequent use of wristbands.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TESXtGMv2DI/AAAAAAAAavA/_gZuJ4bboWg/s1600/go_on.jpg
As is the wont of parents whose first born has been abducted by paedophiles.
As is photo ops, photo ops on private jets, and more photo ops.
Dr Abbott (quietly, as they reach the foot of the stairs) There's enough material there for an entire conference. The Psychiatrist - Fawlty Towers
This pair will be the stuff of degree courses one day, never mind conferences.
May 1, 2007
http://bit.ly/1kpOc6I
14:30 MM (GM signed in, nobody signed out)
Kate McCann, in her book:
Tuesday 1 May
“We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea.”
Unless ‘the last hour and a half’ is an (unknown to me) expression, tea at 16:00?
By the by, I woke up to a snowy landscape, an opportunity to work my way through ice cream trips. M
M @13:50
'Been there. Done that.'
See 'Seventeen Come Sunday and 'It Never Rains' (both Oct. 2012):
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id400.html
Regards
M.R.
M.R. An excellent link. Thank you. M
Himself @13:16,
Lol! I'm tempted to say "my favourite episode", but each one was a perfect whole!
Martin @12:30,
Yes, that would be my reading too. The graphic atop the thread still stands!
Cheers all,
Agnos
http://www.lalibre.be/actu/international/la-justice-veut-poursuivre-un-diplomate-en-raison-de-ses-contacts-avec-moscou-56c15e8b3570b1fc11262e6f
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6931353/Maddie-not-taken-far-says-Kate-McCann.html
If you receive an alert do exactly what Kate says and “be the eyes and ears of a search”.
No comment. M
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g189120-d206418-r308961104-Penina_Hotel_Golf_Resort-Portimao_Faro_District_Algarve.html
"The kangaroo Club had a specialized team with a program suitable for different age groups, from 3 to 12 years old. As you wrote, parents need to sign in, similar to a check in procedure, and parents will decide if their children will use a green, yellow or red bracelet, thus choosing if their children can go in or out when they wish or only with parents presence. Many parents with children aged 9 to 12, such as yours, will choose green bracelet so that the children can meet them at the large pool nearby."
http://www.penina.com/penina-hotel/kids-kangaroo-club/meals-safety/
Maren 15 February 2016 at 06:28
Comment: What a creature she is.
I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve despite worldwide sightings, says Kate McCann
If anybody should know Kate, it has to be you.
Is that a subliminal hint Kate, akin to the Black Rock dream that Gerry says you never had?
Tania, Tania, wherefore art thou?
OT My guests (mourners) from Ireland arrive in an hour, so I shall be adrift until later in the week.
H
Anonymous @06:03
On dit:
Benoit de Looz
"Mon Dieu il aurait abusé de relations étroites avec les services secrets russes! Mais en fait nous ne sommes pas enguerre contre la russie et l'URSS est morte. Alors où se trouve le danger pour notre pays?"
Nice picture of the Kremlin/St Basil's though.
M.R.
Anonymous @06:28
'No comment'
Allow me.
“That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there."
Exactly how far might anyone be prepared to carry a 'little body' without transport? Somewhere short of a million miles I'd wager.
“I’ve always said Praia da Luz is the place where I feel closest to her.”
Well you've always said a number of things. All of them lies.
“It’s nearly nine years and that’s so ridiculous and so unbelievable."
That much is true however.
“If enough people had been mobilised and galvanised early then who knows what the outcome would have been.”
If...then... eh? What about, 'If enough people hadn't deliberately laid down in front of the bus it might actually have gone somewhere'?
"It’s the quiet times that are tough. Times when you are thinking about her".
Why don't YOU think about her for a change?
"I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”
You and countless others. Only they want an answer to a different question, not 'Are you quite sure we won't be 'banged up' for fraud later, once the Grange is closed?'
Bah! Humbug! (and that's putting it politely)
M.R.
M.R. @11:16
"I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”
"You and countless others. Only they want an answer to a different question, not 'Are you quite sure we won't be 'banged up' for fraud later, once the Grange is closed?'"
Indeed. M
------------------------------------
"I want an end, an answer. Whatever that it is.”
Kate, in ‘madeleine’
2007
“In mid-July I found Amelie standing in our room, looking at a photo of Madeleine in a frame by my bedside. ‘I miss my sister,’ she said quite clearly. ‘Where has my sister gone?’ I was caught completely unawares. I realized I’d underestimated both her grasp of the situation and the scope of her vocabulary.”
2016
You couldn't settle if you thought about giving up.
H @10:04
I'm sure we can keep rowing without you for a few days!
M.R.
http://news.sky.com/story/1642154/madeleines-mum-in-bid-to-save-missing-children
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may/12073516/Benedict-Cumberbatch-Stephen-Fry-Bob-Geldof-and-Chris-Martin-Theyre-pompous-hypocritical-and-self-obssessed-says-Theresa-Mays-former-special-adviser.html
Mr Timothy accused celebrities such as Cumberbatch of “hypocrisy” for wanting to regulate the press that they have used to “build up” their own profile.
https://twitter.com/DVATW/status/699166578135449600
Madeleine McCann was probably not taken far, mother says. How does she know this? DV
That’s where she last was and I don’t think she’s been taken a million miles from there. KM
"Exactly how far might anyone be prepared to carry a 'little body' without transport? Somewhere short of a million miles I'd wager." MR
Exactly. M
Indeed:
"That's where she last was, || and I don't think she's been taken a million miles..."
So no being is granted to Madeleine - since last she (KM) saw her?
Agnos
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/madeleine-mccann-is-still-in-the-algarve-claims-mother/ar-BBpvUp5?ocid=spartandhp
Mary Cavill · Constitution High School
Of course Praia de Luz is where she feels closest, that's where the child is and she will never be older than 3 years. Nothing in their stories adds up, even to me [a]nd I have very little room to be judgemental of others!
Agnos @14:32
Ah, the logic of (natural) language!
Why is it people appear not fully to understand the simplest of propositions they themselves make?
Here (and I congratulate you for spotting it) all hinges on the juxtaposition of but two words.
Such a beautiful example, but with such sinister overtones.
Completely O/T, may I share with you something I noticed about Pythagorean triples a long time ago?
Whole number solutions to the equation x2 + y2 = z2 arise when the relations between the variables take the quadratic form:
z2 = x2 + (2x + 1), i.e., 'y' being expressed in terms of 'x'.
I wonder whether Pierre Fermat derived his 'miraculous proof' from that elementary premise?
Unfortunately I am not mathematically equipped to decide the possibility or otherwise of cubic (and higher) functions being likewise reducible.
Kind regards
M.R.
https://twitter.com/SniersMoregut/status/699243788208861184
I don't do Twitter, but I do agree. M - lol
https://twitter.com/nikki_plummer/status/699317453604700161
https://twitter.com/jonathanharmer/status/699178489140920320
Martin @15.33,
xn + yn = zn...! Interesting.
You've set me scratching away at all things Diophantine, and too long neglected! I strongly suspect that your maths has travelled much further than my own. For n>=3: no luck! I do remember a specific proof for n=4, a classic reductio ad absurdum that must have appealed in days of yore?! Did Fermat see a general proof deriving from n=4, and/or did he completely jump the gun?
Notwithstanding the brilliance of Wiles, it remains intriguing. I wonder whether Fermat felt what appears to be so "obvious" (intuitively), only to realise that he couldn't arrive at the precise decription? I doubt even that, but I wonder - i.e. having the intuitive grasp of the appropriate "whole" (the metaphor as you might say?), within which the specifics might have been discovered. (Not so OT!)
Re "That's where she last was" - as you say, what sinister overtones. I don't profess to know what status an investigation might give to such remarks (zero in the case of OG), but how more decisive could it be?
Kind regards,
Agnos
Martin R./Agnos,
“I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAT_BAKER.htm
So, the McCanns had previously provided information.
A check-in form (from another club in the Algarve)
http://www.penina.com/media/861712/jjwh-852-kangaroo-club-check-in-form.pdf
Where is Madeleine’s bracelet? Preserved or ‘abducted’?
Regards,
Maren
Completely OT, but I thought I might post this link:
The paper from which I grabbed the various Turing suggestions of metaphor (re mathematics and science) was this - Latour: A Turing Test on Science and Literature.
Latour is difficult to recommend as a "good read". He infuriates me every bit as much as he dazzles, but this paper sits on every computer I own, and a paper copy is usually within reach. BL remains the only thinker I know of who explicitly addresses Turing (when he eventually gets there!) from a "literary" appreciation of Turing's own words, as well as from the empirical consideration of Turing as an "anti-formalist". It is original if nothing else.
One of the Richard Powers novels he refers to (Galatea 2.2) took the broad theme of Computer Theory meets Art - hence a little emblem for me. And a genuinely good read!
For the sake of being complete, and never letting a grudge lie!...when I linked (many moons ago) to Chomsky's posthumous attack on Foucault, it was with some certainty that numbered amongst his real targets was Latour!
Apologies for quite a diversion.
Agnos
Maren @8.20,
Thankfully back OT!
It becomes ever more clear. A "sideways" thought had also occurred to me: it isn't as though Doctors are unaccustomed to people wearing plastic wristbands for the duration.
Thanks as always,
Agnos
Agnos, thank you for the Turing link; added to my reading list. Maren
Agnos 15.2 @20:48
"I strongly suspect that your maths has travelled much further than my own."
Au contraire I'm afraid. The wheels came off that vehicle after '0' levels. I only noticed the peculiarity attaching to those square(Diophantine) relations a few years ago, having written a trivial BASIC programme (for fun) that generated a series of examples. It just strikes me as too convenient to be coincidental, and I'd be surprised if PdF didn't spot it, computer or no.
Thank you for the link (@08:24). I shall endeavour to broaden my horizons.
And at 08:28. Another pertinent observation. As an NHS outpatient one scarcely proceeds beyond reception before a plastic 'bangle' is attached.
Thanks and regards
M.R.
Maren @ 08;20
"So, the McCanns had previously provided information."
It looks that way, doesn't it. I have tried without success to locate any photograph from the period involving children who spent time at the OC crèche and are seen wearing bracelets.
Playing 'devil's advocate', there is, I suppose, the possibility that Cat Baker was covering her own tracks, avoiding criticism by describing how she observed all the necessary protocols attaching to her post.
I don't think that was the case somehow. Why provide an answer to a question that hadn't been asked? The McCanns may have done so consistently, but Cat Baker was merely being interviewed as a witness.
So yes, 'Where is Madeleine's bracelet?' Absent from the right wrist on Tuesday, the left wrist on Thursday.
If TM should decide it was on her right wrist, that we've been viewing the Tennis photo the wrong way round all this time and that we're really seeing the subject's left side (where Gerry describes a skin blemish as being), then why was that photograph reversed in the first place?
I'm sorry but for me those photographs are retro-fitted acts of desperation.
Regards
M.R.
It must be 'Maths Week'!
No sooner do I digress with a question about 'the square on the hypotenuse' than 'Blacksmith' pops up with an introduction to probability theory!
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/
"Now, we don’t want to spoil people’s fun but a Wayback machine type theory involves at least half a dozen (such) speculations (for some of which, such as a Jim Gamble involvement, the odds are hugely increased) which take us to a number approaching the age of the universe. That number is the odds against the Wayback theory being true. As big as the age of the universe."
It's the easiest thing in the world (one of them anyway) to exaggerate a point by quoting 'odds' for or against.
The trouble is that in resorting to probability in support of an argument, one is recognizing a formal system within which 'odds' can be (and are) precisely calculated.
Unless one then proceeds with the relevant calculation those claims are, in my opinion, without merit and largely meaningless.
The conclusion of a Michael Caine film (Too Late the Hero) illustrates the point rather well:
"That man? That man was a bloody hero! He killed fifteen Japs single-handed — thirty, if you like."
I'll 'let off steam' concerning forms of representation another time!
More 'Bah', 'Humbug' I'm afraid.
M.R.
Martin @11.39,
I'm not even tempted to feed a troll.
Particularly since the arrests are imminent.
Agnos
http://www.trueactivist.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-says-70-of-news-advertising-revenue-comes-from-big-pharma/
If a broadcaster is being paid millions of dollars per month by Boeing to run their commercials then they aren’t going to be able to say anything negative about the war, it’s that simple.
15.02 Agnos @14:32, M.R. @15:33
Congratulations are very well deserved indeed.
“Why is it people appear not fully to understand the simplest of propositions they themselves make?”
The Tapas lot appear to be inveterate liars, negligent parents, lousy speakers and writers. Logical thinking is something they have not been introduced to as far as I can tell.
How would you be able to succeed in maintaining in a court of law that this provincial doctor’s (KM’s) grasp of the subtlety of the English language, and logic, is on a par with yours and Agnos’s?
FLT
A Pythagorean triple is a group of three positive integers, say, x, y, and z such that a right triangle exists with legs x, y and hypotenuse z. By the Pythagoras's theorem, the preceding statement is equivalent to finding positive integers x, y, and z satisfying the equation x2 + y2 = z2.
Substitute a Pythagorean triple 8,15,17 for x, y, z respectively to see that the following clarification is in order:
Some “Whole number solutions”, like 3, 4, 5, “to the equation x2 + y2 = z2 arise when the relations between the variables take the quadratic form:
z2 = x2 + (2x + 1), i.e., 'y' being expressed in terms of 'x'.”
Or perhaps to make it easier to follow:
(2y + 1) + y2 = z2, i.e., 'x2' being expressed in terms of 'y'.
A few links in no particular order:
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130304105652.htm
www.occampress.com/fermat.pdf
https://www.math.wisc.edu/~boston/869.pdf
http://www.fermatproof.com/
Entirely with you with regard to the metal worker.
Anon @15.49,
What a timely post, thank you. This inter-blog "stuff" tires me. I have long thought that to regard the"MSM" as "sole perpetrators" of this, or any other affair, is the most naive of all positions. Nothing exists in isolation. What else did Leveson reveal (though he struggled not to) - but the entanglement of media, politics and policing? We are always dealing with an ecology of interests; and entanglement is certainly not synonymous with corruption. It is simply the requirement to be borne in mind.
A "theory" pertaining to some ill-defined, "numinous" force, is not what I find on this blog: "the MSM" are to blame. Ah yes, and The Gods have killed my cattle. Worse still (imho) is the propensity to bundle everything into "the mind". How easily have the judges, politicos and police been starstruck or deceived. A glance at recent newspaper comments would say that a great many people have certainly not been swayed by the aura "McCann". It is abundantly clear that, despite everything, a significant awareness has been upheld by many people on social media. And people can make their own decisions, informed as they are by the varied insights that they bring. (Enough already!)
Thank you so much for the links, and for the kind encouragement.
Agnos (taking a break!)
Anonymous @15:49
"How would you be able to succeed in maintaining in a court of law that this provincial doctor’s (KM’s) grasp of the subtlety of the English language, and logic, is on a par with yours and Agnos’s?"
With difficulty I imagine. It would be akin to contesting a 'diminished responsibility' plea!
Thank you for your Fermat links. Andrew Wiles was well worth his prize money but I suspect Pierre had found a shorter route to the summit.
The Metal worker?
Thanks and regards
M.R.
Anonymous @15:49
How silly of me. The metal worker? indeed.
I should have realised. Fortunately Agnos has just come forward with a kick up the rear!
Thanks again
M.R.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHbZVBE7fos
Anonymous @18:42
Short and to the point. If parents are not expecting their daughter to disappear before their very eyes, taking photographs of her pyjamas after the event must represent something of a problem.
http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20160204/REAL_ESTATE/160209923/jehovahs-witnesses-saved-368-million-in-real-estate-taxes-over-the-past-12-years
BeenBurned
It's interesting that Jehovah's Witnesses developed a long-term real estate portfolio in New York worth more than a billion dollars and maintained it scrupulously for decades while telling their members that the world would end soon.
Anon @13:00 - 13.08 (M?),
Re: media leverage. I'm certain that you will know this man's story (Nicholas Wilson), his estimation of the BBC, and the financial interests that he describes. It's a fascinating chart!
Ag.
Ag. @07:22
Nothing exists in isolation. (borrowed from guess who)
Many thanks for the link. M
http://portugalresident.com/new-maddie-frenzy-hits-global-headlines-as-kate-affirms-%E2%80%9Cshe%E2%80%99s-not-a-million-miles%E2%80%9D-from-the-algarve
But returning to Kate’s ‘conviction’ that her daughter is in the Algarve, the mother-of-three stresses that free Child Rescue Alerts could have seen her daughter found safe and well “within hours, or a day”, instead of the reality that nearly nine years and over €12 million euros worth of British police time down the line, there still doesn’t appear to be a shred of credible evidence.
https://twitter.com/lime_harry/status/699912839008559104
There you have it. M
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/6937251/The-twins-are-doing-really-well-but-they-want-their-sister-back-Kate-McCann-opens-up-about-Maddies-siblings.html
"They are up to date, they know everything, they know if we are meeting police.
"There is nothing kept from them."
Really?
She added: "They still raise money at school for the Find Madeleine Fund which is great."
Jehovah's Witnesses springs to mind.
And it seems they haven't moved home. M
https://twitter.com/Pohleetakal/status/699961056391778304
“The perpetrator of the crime is still at large.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNt4mV5csi4
0:50 “You mentioned Sean and Amelie, I’m very reluctant because of the level of intrusion into your life.” (Kate’s mask slips)
http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/139505385541/thursdays-daily-star-front-page-maddie-twins
Who owns the McCanns or are the McCanns totally desperate? Or both? M
https://twitter.com/Delly38d/status/519814407035949056
2014-10-07 Radio London: The McCann Snitch Dossier/Hogan-Howe
Eddie Nestor talks to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe about the dossier of alleged online abuse about the family of Madeleine McCann, reportedly (by Martin Brunt of Sky News) submitted by a "group of concerned, but anonymous web users".
Hogan-Howe states the file was handed in by the family of Madeleine McCann.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02789bx
Sorry, this episode is not currently available on BBC iPlayer Radio
Crime Control Theatre : http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/33/2/159.short
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYxG2F3Wd8c
https://twitter.com/PhilipIndigo/status/700257360825212928
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/national-press-print-abcs-january-mirror-losing-ground-against-cut-price-star-ahead-new-launch
Have you read comment Bampots?
http://bit.ly/1LvYhIf
Great post as usual from Dr R.
Wow! M
M @20:34
"Have you read comment Bampots?"
I have now. Thank you.
M.R.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-mum-kate-says-7399606
Again comments and again child neglect in the public consciousness.
Who will benefit?
As for the rest, will they get away with it? M
M @10:09
"she and husband Gerry, both 47, were amazed by the continuing support from total strangers."
So am I.
M.R.
lol
https://twitter.com/DailyMirror/status/700617214697857024
“Kate said…Maddie...”?
“Kate said that if the scheme had been around back in 2007 then Maddie, aged three at the time, may have been found within hours.”
How, may I ask?
Repeat after me: Don’t leave your little ones alone!
Not that I am convinced she left hers as alleged.
M.R @10:26
And so am I.
She said: “This Christmas we got hundreds of cards saying, ‘We haven’t forgotten her’, ‘We’re still looking’. It's staggering.
“They were from America, Russia, Japan — there was even one from Trinidad and Tobago.”
A picture springs to mind M
http://bit.ly/1Lx4C6r
In other news:
https://twitter.com/TobagoNewsLtd/with_replies
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZV9Ten-HkY
Anonymous @10:33
Thanks for the link. Just watched the complete series. The 'Twitterati' may not be alone in running for cover now.
https://twitter.com/DavidCookieeee1/status/701092072913293312
https://twitter.com/ilafrakes/status/701092503534104576
https://twitter.com/mrwilf/status/701042112377319425
Bad link on the middle one Chuck.
Deleted.
https://twitter.com/ilafrakes/status/701115100392988672
https://twitter.com/gazzathebookie/status/701110777923682305
https://twitter.com/DatAwkwardOne/status/701110409739300866
https://twitter.com/SamZalaiskalns/status/701109143021744128
https://twitter.com/mvplumber/status/701125576778711046
8 Jan 2008
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/madeleine/663407/Murat-could-be-wrong-man.html
Detectives believe the witnesses who said they saw the British expat could have confused him with a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann, David Payne, who was out searching for the missing three-year-old....
...The medical researcher, who is 41, was searching around the complex that night and - in a street lit by orange streetlights - could easily have been mistaken for Mr Murat.
Although, as Fiona Payne suggests in her statement, she hasn’t got a very good memory for faces, I cannot imagine that she didn’t recognise her husband. How could she have been mistaken if Murat introduced himself to her.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
"Erm, and I think, as I've said in my other statement, that's when I, around that time I saw Robert MURAT and that was at the front of the apartment. A I say, I'd been to'ing and fro'ing between the front and the back and I'd come out of the front, really just to see if anyone knew, had any information of what was happening, and, erm, Robert MURAT actually walked over to me and shook my hand and introduced himself, erm, and told me that he was, that he was a local, he was working with the Police and he spoke Portuguese and if I needed any help or wanted any help with translation then, erm, you know, he'll be there to help us. And I withdrew from him, I didn't, I don't know why specifically I remember him, I mean, I haven't got a very good memory for faces, I think the others will say, or people, but I remember him very clearly, because he looked a bit strange and he had a squint, he had glasses, he appeared as if he was with the Police, because he was standing in front of all these uniformed Police, and maybe it was my assumption that he was with them, erm, yet he was saying he was a local, and I didn't quite, in my mind, I said, well how come you're a local living down the road and you're here in plain clothes yet you're saying you're with the Police, it didn't, it just seemed a bit odd, erm, and he seemed overly in my face, I can't think of a better way of putting it, he was very quite sort of almost forceful in his introduction and, you know, at that point I was sort of almost trying to steer people away from the apartment, any extra people that weren't really needed in there, just because of what was going on inside and Kate's state, so I didn't really want somebody who I didn't know, erm, in there, erm, and I think I said in my previous statement to the PJ, there was just something that made me uneasy."
8 Jan 2008
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506598/Madeleine-witnesses-mistaken-friend-McCanns-Murat-night-disappeared.html
A source close to the inquiry said: "The similarity between the two has rendered many witness accounts virtually worthless."
But he added: "What is baffling is that Mr Payne's wife and two of his friends are among those who claim to have seen Mr Murat outside the McCanns' apartment that night. You'd think a wife would recognise her own husband."
The Paynes were unavailable for comment. They are due to be reinterviewed by British police on behalf of their Portuguese counterparts within weeks.
The people who saw Murat that night were telling the truth. Murat was there, but he and others (who?) knew that he was not Tannerman. The friends of the McCanns accepted ‘being mistaken’ (fully accepted as fact. - Jenny Murat) as Murat could make a legal complaint against Jane Tanner which he did later on and which resulted in a tacit agreement.
Nevertheless, I am convinced Tanner saw a man (not Murat) carrying a child.
I’ve always been of the opinion that the Tapas 'friends' were withholding information, not lying per se. It may be put in the same catagory though.
Just thoughts, as always. M
https://twitter.com/QueenOPortugal/status/701188690949705728
Kate's readers (in terms of believers) are not likely to read the PJ files, nor does the media it seems (or at least they don't inform their audience), but I really wonder who wrote 'madeleine'. M
I tend agree with you , I believe that most of the direct statements are basically the truth with bits left out. The statements of the Tapas crew conflict with times dates which are meant to obsfucation. The main problem people have is trying to pin down exactly what they are saying. It was almost as if they were scripted. Textusa believes Jane Tanner did see someone and that she is describing seeing Gerry,IIRC.
chrisengineer
please stop these dreadful people from wasting any more police time ,four officers still working on this . how many 100,s of other children have vanished in europe in the intervening time ,all without the avalanche of publicity that this case attracts
More comments:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/kate-mccann-believes-missing-daughter-madeleine-is-not-a-million-miles-from-algarve-a6874486.html#commentsDiv
And who will benefit?
"we solve cases so quickly nobody gets involved..." - Nicola Wall
M @09:23
Who wrote 'Madeleine'?
Whoever it was they dropped Kate in it. But in fairness to the scribe completely covering up a large floor with a small carpet is just not possible.
M.R.
Bewks
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/11/and-on-long-list-iiiiiits-kate-and.html
The main content you are familiar with.
It matters not that books are written, that documentaries are made, or whatever tripe the press wishes to print in their obsession to sanctify this loathsome pair , it matters not because it is all worthless, it is all utterly without worth until these fundamental questions are answered.
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/11/kate-mccanns-book-to-be-truthful-and.html
A book review. It starts off, where's the sick bag? But later it goes as far as editorial restraints allow I guess.
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2011/12/harrowing-of-kate-mccann.html
Anon @10:13
I agree with you about the Tapas statements.
Personally, I don’t think Tanner saw Gerry, but it’s a possibility of course. To me Jane Tanner seems to be the most genuine person of that shallow group of friends, which says nothing :) M
M.R. @11:01
It's Kate's story/script. Edited? M
"we solve cases so quickly nobody gets involved..." - Nicola Wall
Well that's alright then.
LOL
http://bit.ly/24jExDg
M @12:29
Who knows? But her name appears on the front cover as the author of the work.
So whenever the day dawns that DCI Wall eventually submits evidence to the CPS, it is Kate who will have to defend the statements of fact (?) it contains. (Please wake me up should that ever come to pass).
regards
M.R.
LOL, but perhaps there is some truth to what she's saying. Nobody gets involved.
M.R. We crossed paths. Comment @12:42 is in response to Himself @12:29. LOL nevertheless, M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrMUcwy4dO4
43:29
I don’t know if it is relevant (perhaps I misunderstood RDH and he doesn’t refer to her looking very similar to Madeleine), but the girl with sunglasses is Lily Payne, not Ella O’Brien. M
M @16:08
You are quite correct. It's not the only discrepancy in the RDH account, none of which are crucial (yet), but you can bet on the 'nit pickers' of this world looking to claim the ship is not seaworthy owing to one loose rivet.
regards
M.R.
https://twitter.com/spacesheepy/status/701466720997867520
https://twitter.com/QueenOPortugal/status/701472458830802944
Bugger me! The bouncing bomb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html?ito=social-twitter_dailymailUK
M.R. @16:38
you can bet
http://bit.ly/1XGrUOd
Oh well... M
http://bit.ly/1Q3soJ5
Refreshing comment. I couldn't agree more. M
M @19:54
Predictable or what?
M.R.
M @21:04
I didn't realise I had a fan club over there. I hope subscribers don't think I'm guilty of writing my own publicity (although it might be amusing).
Thanks for your personal support anyway. I believe we have the edge at this blog when it comes to analytical thinking.
Regards
M.R.
M.R. @19:20
Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found. - KH
Open to interpretation. M
MR 21 February 2016 at 19:20
Indeed. And has to go hand in glove with this well asked and well spotted question.
Maren 21 February 2016 at 18:07
https://twitter.com/spacesheepy/status/701466720997867520
Unlike the masses, I don't get giddy when thrown a few crumbs by the MSM. But that said, the Mail! the Mail!
Maren
Whether you agree with all, with some, or with none of Cristobell's article, she can string a few words together when she gets going.
Himself @09:54
"she can string a few words together when she gets going."
26 paragraphs this time, 15 of which elapse before she tells her readers she hasn't actually watched the videos she began by announcing she won't support.
M.R.
That didn't go unnoticed dear boy. The admission of such, kind of detracts from any subjective rant don't it?
H/MR
She's a writer.
M
M @10:51
She's a writer alright, just as RDH is a film-maker (of sorts), and in view of which one should allow them both a certain amount of leeway I fancy (but only a certain amount mind).
It's always incumbent upon us never to throw the baby away with the bath water in any case.
Perhaps we should take heed elsewhere also. A few weeks hence and we might all have to 'pack up and go home' as far as the McCann case is concerned. (See Pat Brown's comment here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12480p40-katie-hopkins-in-dm-the-mccanns-should-accept-their-part-of-the-blame-and-didn-t-deserve-11-million)
regards all
M.R.
Martin R. @11:09
Pat Brown and her 'knowledge of the British public'. I couldn't possibly comment.
As Simon Robinson says, 'the genie is out of the bottle'.
And I learned a new word, leeway. Thank you.
Kind regards,
Maren
M @10:51
“I now know the 'answer', in as much as I am 98% there on how the strings were pulled, but I couldn't possibly say.” R,CH
Yes, she is a writer whose writings are, in her own words, a “stream of consciousness” or a “gallop”.
Make of it what you will.
http://bit.ly/1QOAQBD
One and the same?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PH-HU.htm
http://bit.ly/21uZlne
Regarding info photo LF? Just guessing. Mx
Post a Comment