New documentary:"BURIED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA -The True Story of Madeleine McCann.

[Carana]

The notion that Mr Smith was 'friends' with Murat seems to have its origins in what we read (at least on-line) from the files.

Here is the relevant part:

— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he [Martin Smith] saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone. He did not wear glasses at that time. He also states that the individual who carried the child was not ROBERT. He would have recognised him immediately.

August of 2006 is almost a year before the events in question.

Interestingly, there is a verbatim quote from Murat's lawyer Pagarete, stating that someone (and he appears to be referring to Martin Smith) contradicted Murat's alibi that he spent the evening May 3rd with his mother by stating that he (this person Pagarete referred to) saw Murat drinking in a bar that evening (May 3rd).

But nothing we read on line appears to corroborate that and the closest (to corroboration!) seems to be Martin Smith's statement.

Most odd ...

Pagarete probably picked that up from yet another tabloid half-myth. Smith did sue various papers for misrepresenting what he'd said.

[Benice]

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as a yes or no, but you know that, as you want to try and trap me into stating abduction is the likelt scenario, but NOTHING I have seen to date will convince me of that.

Now what do you precisely mean by clear evidence in this context ?

Fingerprints ?

The only ones identified were kate mccanns.

We only have the mccanns word the apartment was locked. They changed the story on that one as well.

The damaged crime scene, clearly contaminated by the mccanns and associates rummaging through the apartment ?

There in lies another question, if the mccanns believed Madeleine was abducted, why were they searching the apartment ?

Unless of course, that became part of the 'story' later.

 It doesn't make any sense.

The un-slept in bed ?

Why an 'abductor', why not more than one ?

Why take Madeleine, when her sister was younger and easier to carry ?

lastly for now, the dogs indications, after watching three programs today showing dogs at work, what I have seen of Grime's deployment of Eddie and Keela is par for the course, and watching a video of it and nit-picking which several posters on here and elsewhere are notorious for, is no substitute for being on the crime scene.

Very interesting Stephen -  but nothing to do with my post.

I'm not trying to trap you at all.   I merely asked you a simple question which was:-

Would you agree that just because no clear forensic evidence of an abductor was retrieved by PJ officers - that is not proof that such evidence never existed?

I'm thinking of footprints, hairs, fingerprints etc. which may have been in situ when Kate raised the alarm, but then due  to the large number of people and dogs going in and out of 5A, may have been contaminated/disturbed/destroyed or rendered irretrievable before the Forensic bods arrived.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion on what happened to Madeleine, merely to acknowledge the possibility that evidence of an intruder may have been inadvertently destroyed -  and therefore it is incorrect to make the claim that because no forensic evidence of an intruder was retrieved - that proves he didn't exist.

To remind you of the scene:-

Also, innumerable tracks [footprints] that were taken to be canine in origin mixed with red- and white-coloured chemical products, as used to see fingerprints, and an enormous quantity of hairs probably of animal (dog) origin that made it difficult to find possible traces, especially in the bedroom of two single beds and two children's cots from where the minor disappeared, and next to the aluminium window/door leading from inside the living room to the exterior area behind the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm   

[stephen25000]

Very interesting Stephen -  but nothing to do with my post.

I'm not trying to trap you at all.   I merely asked you a simple question which was:-

Would you agree that just because no clear forensic evidence of an abductor was retrieved by PJ officers - that is not proof that such evidence never existed?

I'm thinking of footprints, hairs, fingerprints etc. which may have been in situ when Kate raised the alarm, but then due  to the large number of people and dogs going in and out of 5A, may have been contaminated/disturbed/destroyed or rendered irretrievable before the Forensic bods arrived.

I'm not asking you to change your opinion on what happened to Madeleine, merely to acknowledge the possibility that evidence of an intruder may have been inadvertently destroyed -  and therefore it is incorrect to make the claim that because no forensic evidence of an intruder was retrieved - that proves he didn't exist.

To remind you of the scene:-

Also, innumerable tracks [footprints] that were taken to be canine in origin mixed with red- and white-coloured chemical products, as used to see fingerprints, and an enormous quantity of hairs probably of animal (dog) origin that made it difficult to find possible traces, especially in the bedroom of two single beds and two children's cots from where the minor disappeared, and next to the aluminium window/door leading from inside the living room to the exterior area behind the apartment.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm

On that basis, you also have to acknowledge, there might be no evidence to find, since there never was an abduction.

It works both ways, does it not.


and slightly off tangent, NO ONE has come forward revealing Madeleine's whereabouts, even with a substantial reward on offer.

One thing I've learned over the years about human nature, MONEY TALKS.

[Mr Gray]

On that basis, you also have to acknowledge, there might be no evidence to find, since there never was an abduction.

It works both ways, does it not.


and slightly off tangent, NO ONE has come forward revealing Madeleine's whereabouts, even with a substantial reward on offer.

One thing I've learned over the years about human nature, MONEY TALKS.

thta's right...there may or may not have been evidence at the crime scene which was missed or destroyed...

[ferryman]

Pagarete probably picked that up from yet another tabloid half-myth. Smith did sue various papers for misrepresenting what he'd said.

Particularly as Murat's legal representative, Pagarette should be fully conversant with all legal matters impinging directly on his own client.

[Carana]

Particularly as Murat's legal representative, Pagarette should be fully conversant with all legal matters impinging directly on his own client.

Yes, and he may well have filed the suit against JT in good faith for his client on the basis of tabloid rubbish claiming that she had positively identified him.

The tabloid or blog rumour was that it was for criminal defamation. If that was the case, the point may have been about malicious intent... but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that JT even pointed him out as a result of the van episode, let alone signed anything to that effect. Even if she had, I don't see what would have indicated malicious intent.

It was Amaral who stated that she'd "positively identified" him, plus numerous half-myth leaks in the tabloids,  including all kinds of rubbish that she had kept changing her versions, which really doesn't appear to be the case. If anything, she was extremely cautious about the whole thing, poor girl. 

I don't know who takes the decision to drop a criminal defamation charge. I would guess that officially it would be the prosecution / judge. I've no idea if it has even been thrown out or not... I can't see Murat pursuing it if he has a choice in the matter.

[Eleanor]

Yes, and he may well have filed the suit against JT in good faith for his client on the basis of tabloid rubbish claiming that she had positively identified him.

The tabloid or blog rumour was that it was for criminal defamation. If that was the case, the point may have been about malicious intent... but there is absolutely nothing to indicate that JT even pointed him out as a result of the van episode, let alone signed anything to that effect. Even if she had, I don't see what would have indicated malicious intent.

It was Amaral who stated that she'd "positively identified" him, plus numerous half-myth leaks in the tabloids,  including all kinds of rubbish that she had kept changing her versions, which really doesn't appear to be the case. If anything, she was extremely cautious about the whole thing, poor girl. 

I don't know who takes the decision to drop a criminal defamation charge. I would guess that officially it would be the prosecution / judge. I've no idea if it has even been thrown out or not... I can't see Murat pursuing it if he has a choice in the matter.

You might wonder about just how stupid Pagarete actually was.  Probably not that stupid.  It simply is not normal to pursue a witness to a crime, no matter what.
A witness statement is protected by Law.  Excepting, of course, that Jane Tanner never made such a statement regarding Robert Murat.
And I wouldn't care if she had done.  Is everyone who ever made a statement about any thing, to be subjected to Malicious Intent?
Good bye to anyone ever again making a statement in Portugal , ever again.

Who?  Me?  I never saw nothing.

[John]

Whether Martin Smith sent that e-mail to Richard Hall or not appears inconsequential as clearly Smith and Murat were never bosom buddies in any sense of the word. Smith was aware of Murat certainly having visited Luz for many years, what is not known is if Murat was similarly aware of Smith...not that it matters anyway imo.

[Eleanor]

Whether Martin Smith sent that e-mail to Richard Hall or not appears inconsequential as clearly Smith and Murat were never bosom buddies in any sense of the word. Smith was aware of Murat certainly having visited Luz for many years, what is not known is if Murat was similarly aware of Smith...not that it matters anyway imo.

Oh, absolutely.  All pie in the sky. although I don't actually care if Robert Mutate knew Mr. Smith.  But can you see Mr. Smith doing such a ridiculous thing when he has spent the last seven years wishing that he was never there.

Who sent it is by the by.  It doesn't actually amount to anything at at all.  Mr.Smith said that it wasn't Robert Murat.  That's the end of that.

[Carana]

You might wonder about just how stupid Pagarete actually was.  Probably not that stupid.  It simply is not normal to pursue a witness to a crime, no matter what.
A witness statement is protected by Law.  Excepting, of course, that Jane Tanner never made such a statement regarding Robert Murat.
And I wouldn't care if she had done.  Is everyone who ever made a statement about any thing, to be subjected to Malicious Intent?
Good bye to anyone ever again making a statement in Portugal , ever again.

Who?  Me?  I never saw nothing.

I expect it was dropped as JT never did identify him anyway, but I don't think a statement in Portugal would be protected if it could be proven to have been done out of a malicious intent to falsely incriminate someone. I would think that malice would be generally quite hard to prove, though, as people obviously do often make honest but mistaken statements or tip-offs.

In PT, everybody seems to file defamation suits against everyone else, many of which presumably eventually get dropped. It seems like a vicious circle: people file suits as soon as possible, without necessarily checking all the facts, as the court system is so slow. But just sifting through the amount of suits filed probably contributes to what makes it slow in the first place.

Various police officers in the Cipriano case were going to sue Leonor for having falsely identified them... until they realised that she never had picked them out in the ID parade.

[Mr Gray]

I expect it was dropped as JT never did identify him anyway, but I don't think a statement in Portugal would be protected if it could be proven to have been done out of a malicious intent to falsely incriminate someone. I would think that malice would be generally quite hard to prove, though, as people obviously do often make honest but mistaken statements or tip-offs.

In PT, everybody seems to file defamation suits against everyone else, many of which presumably eventually get dropped. It seems like a vicious circle: people file suits as soon as possible, without necessarily checking all the facts, as the court system is so slow. But just sifting through the amount of suits filed probably contributes to what makes it slow in the first place.

Various police officers in the Cipriano case were going to sue Leonor for having falsely identified them... until they realised that she never had picked them out in the ID parade.

They knew she could not identify them as she had a bag on her head

[Wonderfulspam]

Kates account of the winds which waited has been accepted without question by SY.

SY believe unreservedly that the winds did happen to blow with the force required to slam the door shut at the precise moment Kate went to pull it to, and that the wind then paused, whilst Kate tried to work out if some flat bedclothes were Madeleine, only blowing with the force required to flap the curtains once Kate had returned from her bedroom, them curtains informing her in the process that 'they' had taken her, y'know.

[sadie]

Kates account of the winds which waited has been accepted without question by SY.

SY believe unreservedly that the winds did happen to blow with the force required to slam the door shut at the precise moment Kate went to pull it to, and that the wind then paused, whilst Kate tried to work out if some flat bedclothes were Madeleine, only blowing with the force required to flap the curtains once Kate had returned from her bedroom, them curtains informing her in the process that 'they' had taken her, y'know.

It was a GUSTY night Wspam with GUSTS up to 20mph

We do not know what windows The Mccanns had left open in the sitting room, or even if they had left the patio doors slightly ajar in their bedroom.  With a southerly aspect, their bedroom could have become very hot, with a residual heat which made sleeping difficult.

To remind you, the sitting room windows on the side were not at ground level, but at more or less first floor level, so not a worry if left open.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/zzrearaptd.jpg


To reach their bedroom patio windows an intruder had to go up the outdoor stairs that we have seen Gerry descending from in photos.  They were visible to the tapas group, altho only illuminated at the bottom part as John pointed out and again a little at the top en route to the bedroom patio window ..I think a bush obscured their view of the bedroom patio doors, so possibly they were actually hidden from the tapas group.  The bedroom patio doors were not illuminated by the close street lamp, they were in the shadow.


I have wondered why there was no interest in these bedroom patio windows


On the image above you will see:

1)   Just how high the sitting room window was, (above the cop) so it should have been safe to have been  left open.
2)   The steps up, which lead to both patio doors but are not lit apprecuiably for the main part
3)   The round bush which probably might have hidden from the Tapas group, anyone using the bedroom patio doors.


With an open sitting room window or a slightly open bedroom patio door, there would have been opportunity for a through draught.  We dont know if either of these window/ doors was open.   The wind must have been coming from roughly the North.   

If either was open, as Kate partially closed the door, a larger door surface area presented itself to the sudden northerly gust /draft and a bigger force was produced on the door because of that.  Hence the way that a through draft /gust slammed the door shut.



I am not sure that i have explained that very well.

[Brietta]

Fact ::: to steer back to the topic of information re the McCann family and information about them being 'buried by the mainstream media'.
Very often there are good reasons for that such as decency and child protection; I can go into a site allegedly seeking justice for Madeleine whose members think nothing of posting very clear, recognisable images of Madeleine's siblings at a private outing with theirs and Madeleine's parents.

The mainstream media recognised Madeleine's siblings right to a private life - the 'truth seekers' showed themselves in their true colours.

[Luz]

Admin Note

This media presentation is provided solely for information and debating purposes.
No endorsement of its content is intended or implied.


Interesting video.

BURIED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA - The True Story of Madeleine McCann - PART 1

The Madeleine McCann disappearance has become one of the most enduring mysteries of our time. It has generated thousands
 of front page headlines in the UK press. Despite the unprecedented coverage, few people have any detailed understanding of the circumstantial and physical evidence of the case. The mainstream media has been used to create diversion and confusion over what really happened, rather than inform their readers about the facts.

Our four documentaries represent the most detailed film based analysis of the Madeleine McCann story, leaving the viewer with an understanding of the comprehensive establishment led cover up, and offer suggestions as to what all the evidence really points to.

The first film in this series, entitled “The Initial Storm” examines in a level of detail never described before in any TV documentary, the evidence of the first night when Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared.

Part I - The Initial Storm

www.blip.tv/richplanet/buried-by-mainstream-media-the-true-story-of-madeleine-mccann-part-1-6997432

All in all that documentary is spot on in the first 3 parts. I don't agree with part 4, but it doesn't invalidate a MAJOR work to get together all the info available about Madeleine McCann's demise.