Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[Brietta]

I know.

I've known that since September 2007.

That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.


Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid

 &%+((£

FALSE

(1) The source for this quote is a TV interview

(2) Various versions of this quote appear on anti-McCann websites and discussion forums

(3) In the actual interview, Clarence Mitchell is referring to claims that evidence had been found which proved that    Madeleine's body had been in the McCann's hire car.

(4) This was later proved to be false.

The actual Source
The actual source was an interview with Clarence Mitchell on Sky News on 20th September 2007 and is therefore a primary source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1vV33GlsY
The following is a transcript of the relevant portion (starts at approximately 0.25 secs):-

Quote:
"It appears to us that they were looking at one particular set of circumstances and, as I’ve said a number of times already, any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that. Please bear in mind Gerry and Kate have not been accused of anything."

Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078192/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2041

[sadie]

They are still looking for "THE ABDUCTOR". Another recent Freedom of Act question I asked resulted in Grange announcing they've not found Smithman yet. And after the BBC and the Met spent millions on beaming the Crimewatch Special to 7 million viewers...

PETITION SIGNERS NOW:  1,522 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562             

You are making assunptions there Blonk.

You say that in response to your question,  SY announced that they have not found Smithman yet

Since when has Smithman definitely been The abductor?


ETA:  Who knows, they may have found the abductor, but are unable to make any charges stick due to lack of evidence?  If he is an elite as I suspect, they are hardly going to splash their suspicions over the internet or to the media, are they?

[Alfred R Jones]

FALSE

(1) The source for this quote is a TV interview

(2) Various versions of this quote appear on anti-McCann websites and discussion forums

(3) In the actual interview, Clarence Mitchell is referring to claims that evidence had been found which proved that    Madeleine's body had been in the McCann's hire car.

(4) This was later proved to be false.

The actual Source
The actual source was an interview with Clarence Mitchell on Sky News on 20th September 2007 and is therefore a primary source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1vV33GlsY
The following is a transcript of the relevant portion (starts at approximately 0.25 secs):-

Quote:
"It appears to us that they were looking at one particular set of circumstances and, as I’ve said a number of times already, any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that. Please bear in mind Gerry and Kate have not been accused of anything."

Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078192/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2041

[ferryman]

Brietta got there ahead of me.

Apologies ....

[Alfred R Jones]

I know.

I've known that since September 2007.

That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid

 &%+((£

[ Edited ]

Do you think Clarence Mitchell's word is God in media circles?  If so, please explain why you think this.

[Admin]

FALSE

(1) The source for this quote is a TV interview

(2) Various versions of this quote appear on anti-McCann websites and discussion forums

(3) In the actual interview, Clarence Mitchell is referring to claims that evidence had been found which proved that    Madeleine's body had been in the McCann's hire car.

(4) This was later proved to be false.

The actual Source
The actual source was an interview with Clarence Mitchell on Sky News on 20th September 2007 and is therefore a primary source. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q1vV33GlsY
The following is a transcript of the relevant portion (starts at approximately 0.25 secs):-

Quote:
"It appears to us that they were looking at one particular set of circumstances and, as I’ve said a number of times already, any evidence they may or may not have found which gave them cause for suspicion of Gerry and Kate can be wholly and easily explained should it come to that. Please bear in mind Gerry and Kate have not been accused of anything."

Madeleine McCann - Exposing the Myths
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39078192/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2041

Thank you for clarifying this Brietta in your usual clear and concise manner.  Inaccurate, misrepresented or false information has no place on this forum as regular members and readers will know only too well.

[blonk]

Please only post comments relative to the Petition, all other content is being moved.

Please note, a new thread to discuss the Chief Prosecutor's Archiving Report and the Trial Judgement in respect of the checking remark will be launched shortly. TY

PETITION SIGNERS NOW 1,537 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562

Some people on this thread have said that this petition is 'pointless.'

However, despite our inability to use the public media to promote this petition, 1,537 have signed it so far. Do they think it is 'pointless'? I doubt it.

Undoubtedly, many more would sign it if they became aware of it, but we have limited opportunities to promote it.

The petition asks for 'a full report'. It specifically highlights the role of the government and the security services.

I suspect most people, when signing the petition, always knew that the target of 10,000 signatures - which would trigger a government response - was unlikely to be reached.

So why, in that case, have they signed it at all?

I think, because it is one of the few ways they can express their concern. Concern about a 5-year-long, £12 million investigation that began in highly unusual circumstances. Concern that its remit was strictly limited from the start. Concern that it never appeared to have any realistic prospect of finding the alleged abductor. Concern that it has achieved nothing at all and is never likely to.

Then again others are especially interested in why the government and various security services have been all over this case in a major way from the outset. Why? What is their real interest in this case? Maybe some people have signed for that reason.

Whether we get any more signatures or not, we will bring the petition to the Prime Minister's notice after 22 April, when the petition ends.

To put it simply, if it does nothing else, the petition servers as a rallying point for those who have concerns about the case as a whole and the very strange investigations - both private and official - that have gone on to try and solve it. 

Again my warm thanks to all who have signed it so far           

[Angelo222]

PETITION SIGNERS NOW 1,537 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562

Some people on this thread have said that this petition is 'pointless.'

However, despite our inability to use the public media to promote this petition, 1,537 have signed it so far. Do they think it is 'pointless'? I doubt it.

Undoubtedly, many more would sign it if they became aware of it, but we have limited opportunities to promote it.

The petition asks for 'a full report'. It specifically highlights the role of the government and the security services.

I suspect most people, when signing the petition, always knew that the target of 10,000 signatures - which would trigger a government response - was unlikely to be reached.

So why, in that case, have they signed it at all?

I think, because it is one of the few ways they can express their concern. Concern about a 5-year-long, £12 million investigation that began in highly unusual circumstances. Concern that its remit was strictly limited from the start. Concern that it never appeared to have any realistic prospect of finding the alleged abductor. Concern that it has achieved nothing at all and is never likely to.

Then again others are especially interested in why the government and various security services have been all over this case in a major way from the outset. Why? What is their real interest in this case? Maybe some people have signed for that reason.

Whether we get any more signatures or not, we will bring the petition to the Prime Minister's notice after 22 April, when the petition ends.

To put it simply, if it does nothing else, the petition servers as a rallying point for those who have concerns about the case as a whole and the very strange investigations - both private and official - that have gone on to try and solve it. 

Again my warm thanks to all who have signed it so far           

I agree with the Petition in that Scotland Yard have themselves fuelled controversy by creating a vacuum around the case.  They spend over £12 million on a child disappearance case and they think they can palm the public off with the odd crumb?

[Benice]

I agree with the Petition in that Scotland Yard have themselves fuelled controversy by creating a vacuum around the case.  They spend over £12 million on a child disappearance case and they think they can palm the public off with the odd crumb?

So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'.     Surely not.

[stephen25000]

So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'.     Surely not.

Who provided the press/media with all the details of the re-interviews last year ?

[Benice]

Who provided the press/media with all the details of the re-interviews last year ?

Ask Angelo - apparently he regards  those details as 'crumbs' that we are being palmed off with.   Do you?

[Angelo222]

So do you think SY should have kept the perpetrators informed of their progress then - by giving the public a running commentary on the case - rather than the 'odd crumb'.     Surely not.

They could have provided more information to the public but I suspect they have failed to unearth anything which is somewhat embarrassing for them.  Redwoods departure was all part of the plan to wrap it all up imo.

[stephen25000]

Ask Angelo - apparently he regards  those details as 'crumbs' that we are being palmed off with.   Do you?

As you know well Benice, I have no regard for the SY investigation AT ALL.

[Benice]

They could have provided more information to the public but I suspect they have failed to unearth anything which is somewhat embarrassing for them.  Redwoods departure was all part of the plan to wrap it all up imo.

Assuming that you agree that SY should not give out information which may be helpful to the perpetrator(s) - what sort of information do you expect from them?   Information about what?

[Benice]

As you know well Benice, I have no regard for the SY investigation AT ALL.

Yes Stephen I am well aware that you think you know better than SY.