Madeleine McCann: Vector Addition.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple

Were the parents given a lie-detector test? If not, why not?

Were the parents given a lie-detector test? If not, why not?


in the early days they told anyone who would listen that they would be be perfectly happy to take a lie detector test

remember, this was shortly after kate refused to answer all 48 questions put to her when she was taken in for questioning

her husband in another room answered all the questions - obviously the detectives warned kate that by not answering and helping to advance the case, she was effectively hampering the case and thereby putting maddie in even more danger, were she still alive

but kate would not budge

in a similar vein, the parents very quickly found a (to them) suitable photo of maddie, and in it you can quite distinctly see an iris 'defect' (a colobama)

www.google.co.uk... T8-wH4GhOty_of0G&ved=0CEoQsAQ&biw=1407&bih=780

in maddie's right eye

now think about this

if you had abducted maddie, and were traveling with her somewhere in europe or perhaps north africa, you may well have cut her hair, maybe even dyed it black, the maddie case is the hottest thing on the planet now thanks to the intervention of gordon brown, bell pottinger pr, control risks group, clarance mitchel, the foreign office, in fact the full british establishment are out in force

so the LAST thing you want to do is 'spook the abductor'

the last thing you want to do is have A4 sized photos of maddie's right eye plastered all over europe

all the JP GNR portuguese police experts warned team mccann NOT to do it

because they said, it would be the kiss of death for the child if the parents went ahead

why?

because maddie becomes too hot to handle, that eye is like dna, it is like fingerprints, the 'abducter' could never venture out with a child with such a giveaway feature



but kate and gerry INSISTED the photo be released




getting back to the lie detector...

after a short time passed a UK newspaper announced that they would pay up front for a top expert to do a lie detector test on the parents, one by one

they refused

just like the tapas 9 (with the exception of one old lady) all refused to fly back and do a reconstruction

just like kate refused to answer 48 questions

just like the uk police refused to give the portuguese the mccanns medical records, financial records, police records, in fact, any records whatsoever...

There's an awful lot gone on behind the scenes, and it's deeply distressing. I can't help thinking of the film, Man on Fire, which was deeply disturbing.

If those two are completely innocent, wouldn't they demand a lie-test, to exonerate themselves?

of course, i would, you would, we all would

one final thing to add to the puzzle of why 'the establishment' got so involved so quickly

i read an interview translated from portuguese a couple of days ago, when the lead detective Goncalo Amaral was describing the political pressures he was under

he said from day one it became apparent that the brits were treating the affair as a matter of 'state security' (to my mind that means a partial DA-notice and/or superinjunctions have gone out, but of course we have no proof other than GA's statement above)

he then mentioned something absolutely extraordinary!

all the uk police officers assigned to the case and working in PdL were asked to sign the official secrets act...

think about it

the spooks flew out and demanded all uk cops sign the act, punishable i believe by life in prison if the act is breached

GA said he'd never seen anything like it in 27 years of police work

so what on EARTH is being covered up here?

i'll tell you one thing, if it was just a simple tragic accident, and the mccanns were 'normal' doctors, they would have been charged with something and the matter settled 4 years ago...

The McCann family has asked health professionals to look out for Madeleine McCann, a 4-year-old English girl with a coloboma of her right iris, who was abducted while on holiday in Praia Da Luz, Portugal, on May 3, 2007. 1 Madeleine's disappearance highlights the ever-present danger of child abduction worldwide, remembered in a national day—May 25—in the USA. Link


Quote: Carlos Anjos, Polícia Judiciária: "If that situation had been of an abduction, it would have been terrible for the child. Because if that child were to be sold, or something else... She was as good as... it was her death sentence. That situation, that day, advertising that photo, was simply the death sentence of that child."

*****

Gerry McCann: "We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy."

*****

In the Piers Morgan interview where Kate and Gerry were promoting their new book:

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye.....

Great thread, wasn't aware of many of the facts raised in it.

The spin and PR is incredible- if my daughter was abudcted and quite probably dead I would.............well I don't know how I would be but it wouldn't be like these two on Oprah and Morgan.

On the one hand Gerry tells us that they did nothing wrong, it was just like sitting in your back yard (which is spin of incredible and DISGUTING proportions), while on the other we are told not to blame them as nobody could blame them more than they already do- well which is it, you did nothing wrong or you did!


I was listening to Jeremy Vine's BBC Radio 2 lunchtime show recently, and he is normally quite the fence sitter, just directing opposing arguments- one segment was about the McCanns and he was no fence sitter on that vilifying all those who dared to suspect the McCanns (which is quite reasonable given most children die at the hands of their parents or people known to the family, as opposed to complete strangers, and we do not have any sightings of such an abductor)- it was amazing how "pro" McCann he was given how he normally directs his show, they certainly do have friends in high places.........


Accounts will be made, in tihs life or the next, that is the only comfort I take from it

Who knows - perhaps her surviving siblings have picked up snippets of information over the years that may eventually lead to some truth being disclosed in the future.

Originally posted by Atlantien

I think Maddy was a handful in the house hold and with twins and a hyperactive child, the parents had their hands full. it seemed to me that Kate took the burden of the kids on her shoulder and the night of the "party" she did something that went horribly wrong.

Which is what I thought. According to news reports she was a fractious child AND had been complaining about being left alone?
The other thing is that just after such disappearance, surely the normal reaction would be to run round the streets frantically searching? As someone else said - if it was my dog even - I would be out there.

Originally posted by starchild10

Originally posted by Atlantien

I think Maddy was a handful in the house hold and with twins and a hyperactive child, the parents had their hands full. it seemed to me that Kate took the burden of the kids on her shoulder and the night of the "party" she did something that went horribly wrong.

Which is what I thought. According to news reports she was a fractious child AND had been complaining about being left alone?
The other thing is that just after such disappearance, surely the normal reaction would be to run round the streets frantically searching? As someone else said - if it was my dog even - I would be out there.

so sad, the very fact that she was complaining about being left alone at that age- this highlights how often she was not in adult company

Since the story first broke, I have always had suspicions about it. My theory is .........

Either one or both of the parents gave Maddie a sleeping tablet (Zopiclone etc) or possibly Diazepam, before going out with their friends for an evening of eating and drinking.

Medications given to children is quite dangerous at the best of times. They would have access to drugs.

They later found that they had 'accidently' overdosed and killed Maddie, they then panicked and hid her body before going to the Police etc etc.

reply to post by starchild10


That was me that said that about searching for hours for my dog,yes every parent I have discussed this with cannot believe you would not be bothered to search for your infant daughter and then talk to police like dirt and refuse to co operate helping to find your child!

I have also thought about the medication theory,however just looking at both of their deamenors and attitude,I think its actually more unplesant than that.

I read a chilling item on the Mcann files website about a witness who overheard Gerry and another man saying something horrific.And gesturing about something.I cant even bring myself to type it.

Imo the children were given no sleeping medication during the holiday. Mrs. Fenn the witness living above the apartment of the McCanns heard at least on one occasion - her hairdresser claims it was more than once - Maddie crying for more than one hour, which most probably excludes sedatives and also the checking system they claimed was in place. Which is an important point. If none of them bothered checking the children regularly the group of friends must have been terrified at the prospect of possible neglect charges in a foreign country in case one of the children had a deadly accident. Therefore would be much more inclined to help in a cover-up than if they had supervised their children properly.

Re: sedatives
The rumour only came up when the twins did not wake up the night of the imo staged abduction when police and staff were searching the apartment. That night the twins might indeed have been sedated to avoid them waking up at a crucial stage in the removal of their sister.

reply to post by JoRen


I wonder if Madeleine had found a bottle of pills lying around and had swallowed enough to cause herself serious harm?

A parent coming in to find her would be confronted with a child, possibly already dead, who had over-dosed on something they'd been careless enough to leave where she could find it.

If that was the case the panic and cover-up would make sense because they would be at great risk of having their remaining two children taken away.

Three possible reasons for a cover-up

- fear of neglect charges (imo a reason for the friends to support the cover-up but too weak for the original cover-up)
- fear of homicide charges, if a parent directly caused her death
- fear of what might have been found in an autopsy (drugs or signs of previous abuse)

reply to post by paperface


Please do because it may help one of us in trying to research further independently and we might finally nail this one and figure out what happened.

2nd

Originally posted by curious7
reply to post by paperface

 

Please do because it may help one of us in trying to research further independently and we might finally nail this one and figure out what happened.

2nd

It is known as the Gaspar statement and within the PJ files

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk...

There is infact even a blog named after this Gaspar statement.
It includes a quick clip of the Mcanns that I had forgotten about called "We are Amused",Im genuinly interested to see what people think of its contents,it was commented on strongly a few years ago I recall.

Its the post Saturday, 3 April 2010
gasparstatements.blogspot.com...:56:00-07:00&max-results=7

When I originally read the "Gaspar statement" I interpreted David Payne's little pantomime as being related to breast feeding and not a troubling or sinister inquiry at all but one that might be seen as inappropriate and open to misinterpretation by an onlooker.

However, another troubling and possibly related association made by Yvonne Warren Martin with regard to David Payne might, if bourne out by further investigation, add serious weight to the Gaspar statement.

www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk...

On May 04, 2007, at around 07H00 she heard about the disappearance of an English girl from Praia da Luz, Lagos, from Sky News or BBC.
- Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.

- At around 09H00, she met the McCann couple next to the apartment from where the child had disappeared, accompanied by a third person, a male, who seemed quite familiar to her.

- This third person of the group appeared to be an intimate (friend) of the family as he was the one who, when the media arrived, began to explain what was happening and answering questions, thereby saving the couple from this upset. Afterwards, she further confirmed his closeness to the family when she saw him taking care of the couple's twins, also small children.

- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

- However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help - an action that appeared quite strange to her.

When she was back home, following the case on English television, she saw the same individual and this time, her initial doubt faded and she concluded that she had seen the face in the course of her professional activity in child protection, not being able to discern if he was a suspect/arguido or witness

The "third individual" referred to by Yvonne Warren Martin is David Payne.

With regards to the individual who was close to Madeleine's parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, can she remember concretely the place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation.

Ms. Martin, in making an approach to the police, was suspicious of possible involvement of the parents in Madeleine's disappearance and was hoping that police would check to see if David Payne was on a registry of paedophiles or child abusers.

To my knowledge the results of such a check have not been publicized.

Personally, I think this whole line of inquiry is a red herring, similar to the one occasioned by the news reporter who thought there was something odd about Robert Murat. It's just intuition, but I don't think there is anything to a paedophile related connection between David Payne and this case.

At the risk of coming across as a "keyboard commando", I sometimes wonder how this case would have turned out if the investigation were being handled by Edward G. Robinson or James Cagney.

I can see Gerry McCann's pontifications about how the police should be doing their job being greeted by Robinson with a hard right to the bread basket, just to set the tone.

Or Cagney bitch slapping Payne in a cell and threatening to hand him his career in tiny shredded pieces unless he "spills his guts".

But that's Fantasyland. Resolving this case is going to have to be done in entirely different ways.

Originally posted by RocketIII
. . . Goncalo Amaral was describing the political pressures he was under

he said from day one it became apparent that the brits were treating the affair as a matter of 'state security' (to my mind that means a partial DA-notice and/or superinjunctions have gone out, but of course we have no proof other than GA's statement above)

he then mentioned something absolutely extraordinary!

all the uk police officers assigned to the case and working in PdL were asked to sign the official secrets act...

think about it

the spooks flew out and demanded all uk cops sign the act, punishable i believe by life in prison if the act is breached

GA said he'd never seen anything like it in 27 years of police work

I wonder if it is a violation of the Official Secrets Act to inform someone that you have signed the Official Secrets Act.

so what on EARTH is being covered up here?

This is speculation only, not proven fact, but I am speculating that they were trying to cover up incompetence by people associated with the Labour Party at a very high level, who were duped into using the Foreign Office to reinforce a story told by people who would later be widely suspected of participating in a criminal conspiracy.

Getting the police to sign the Official Secrets Act, if that indeed happened, and I don't know that it did, but if it did, is a handy way to keep them from leaking information about the case and thus a means of sweeping facts under the carpet.

You've heard the expression "walking dead man".

I am speculating only, but I believe that some very clever person turned this case into a "walking dead man" at precisely 12:01 BST May 04, 2007, when a story that they arranged to have released by the British Foreign Office was uploaded to the website of the Telegraph newspaper.

That was the moment, I am speculating only, that the police investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann took a bullet right between the eyes. Still, years later, hardly anyone realizes what happened.

The British have an expression that fits the situation and I would speculate that there are people in the Foreign Office who would agree that the Madeleine McCann case is a . . . "monumental cock-up".

People who remember the hypothesized, not proven, timeline constructed earlier in the thread to illustrate the steps involved in getting a story released by the Foreign Office, starting from Praia da Luz, will recall that our hypothetical Mr. X, the foreign office functionary, didn't understand the purpose of the story.

Let's look at that point in a little more detail. Here is the story that appeared on the Telegraph website (all emphases mine):

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

Comment

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

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

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

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

The bewildered Mr. X of the Foreign Office, followed orders and gave the story to the representative of the Telegraph, and then went back to bed.

Keep in mind that this story is dated two hours and one minute from the moment that Kate McCann is generally believed to have alerted her husband and holidaying friends that Madeleine had been "taken".

If one believes the sequence of events, it means that they searched for Madeleine for a certain amount of time, probably less than an hour, and then contacted the UK with the eventual result of involving the Foreign Office in the situation in time to release the story at 12:01 AM, May 4,.

Does anyone actually believe that this is how it happened? Apparently most people do.

One thing to note about the story is that there is no description of Madeleine in the story, aside from her age.

The focus of the story, and this will be a theme that carries on throughout this case, up to the present time, is Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry.

Madeleine is already, for all practical purposes that might be accomplished by this news story, forgotten.

The British Foreign Office in a very brief story, has given us the parents' version of what happened and finishes by telling us that they did the right thing, right away.

Anyone who has said anything different, in the widely disseminated mass media, from that day forward, has payed a heavy financial price for saying so.

Looked at in this light, it is perfectly obvious that this original story, filed 121 minutes after the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance by Kate McCann, is not intended to facilitate in any way the recovery of the missing child.

How could it? "A three-year-old British girl . . ." is essentially a description of all three-year-old British girls everywhere.

It's effective, practical purpose is to validate and endorse the actions of Madeleine's parents and to clamp their fate firmly to the fate of the Labour government of the time, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, through the good offices of the government's humble servants in the Foreign Office, "bless 'eir bleedin' 'arts".

I found this article today - the 'Tapas Seven' are due to be interviewed again by Scotland Yard:

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Scotland Yard detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann are set to interview the so-called Tapas Seven.
The group are friends of Kate and Gerry McCann who dined with them at a tapas restaurant on the night of Madeleine's disappearance five years ago and are central witnesses in the case.
The team of detectives has been analysing every scrap of evidence that was gathered when the little girl first went missing and interviewing key witnesses again.
Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood has three detective chief inspectors, five detective sergeants and 19 detective constables who are being supported by six civilian staff and three officers from the specialist murder review group

Details of their original interviews here:

www.mccannfiles.com...

and an analysis of Kate and Gerry's speech patterns during their many interviews, which is extremely interesting:

www.mccannfiles.com...

I got the link to the mccannfiles from sueloujo's post on the second page of this ATS thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

(the mccann files link may already be on this thread - but I've put it here so it's easy to find in light of the new info in The Daily Mail article).

Originally posted by ipsedixit
People who remember the hypothesized, not proven, timeline constructed earlier in the thread to illustrate the steps involved in getting a story released by the Foreign Office, starting from Praia da Luz, will recall that our hypothetical Mr. X, the foreign office functionary, didn't understand the purpose of the story.

Let's look at that point in a little more detail. Here is the story that appeared on the Telegraph website (all emphases mine):

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies
12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

Comment

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

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

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

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

The bewildered Mr. X of the Foreign Office, followed orders and gave the story to the representative of the Telegraph, and then went back to bed.

Keep in mind that this story is dated two hours and one minute from the moment that Kate McCann is generally believed to have alerted her husband and holidaying friends that Madeleine had been "taken".

If one believes the sequence of events, it means that they searched for Madeleine for a certain amount of time, probably less than an hour, and then contacted the UK with the eventual result of involving the Foreign Office in the situation in time to release the story at 12:01 AM, May 4,.

Does anyone actually believe that this is how it happened? Apparently most people do.

One thing to note about the story is that there is no description of Madeleine in the story, aside from her age.

The focus of the story, and this will be a theme that carries on throughout this case, up to the present time, is Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry.

Madeleine is already, for all practical purposes that might be accomplished by this news story, forgotten.

The British Foreign Office in a very brief story, has given us the parents' version of what happened and finishes by telling us that they did the right thing, right away.

Anyone who has said anything different, in the widely disseminated mass media, from that day forward, has payed a heavy financial price for saying so.

Looked at in this light, it is perfectly obvious that this original story, filed 121 minutes after the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance by Kate McCann, is not intended to facilitate in any way the recovery of the missing child.

How could it? "A three-year-old British girl . . ." is essentially a description of all three-year-old British girls everywhere.

It's effective, practical purpose is to validate and endorse the actions of Madeleine's parents and to clamp their fate firmly to the fate of the Labour government of the time, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, through the good offices of the government's humble servants in the Foreign Office, "bless 'eir bleedin' 'arts".

edit on 27-1-2012 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

I completely agree with the conspiratorial nature of this case and subsequent highest level cover up however, why choose the Telegraph? Isn't that a Tory paper? I agree with the link to the labour Guberment - GM's brother was linked to them wasn't he? I just don't get the use of the Telegraph - doesnt make sense...but then again nothing in this case does other than they are obviously guilty/complicit etc etc