Kate and Gerry McCann - It was then it wasn't

The apartment was locked. Then it became unlocked.
The apartment was secure. Then it wasn't.
The shutters were smashed. Then they weren’t.
Madeleine’s bed was between the twins 2 cots. Then it wasn't.

The toy CuddleCat was in left in a 'high place'. Then it wasn't.
Kate 'knew not to touch anything in the crime scene’. Then she did.
The Gorrods searched all night. Then they didn't.
Renwick was on holiday with the McCanns. Then she wasn't.

The McCanns had been to Portugal before. Then they hadn't.
The McCanns dined at the Paraiso. Then they didn't.
Madeleine isn't called 'Maddie'. Then she was.
Madeleine isn't called 'Margaret'. Then she was.

Gerry McCann went into the apartment. Then he didn’t.
Webster doesn’t remember. Then she can.
O’Brien made a bed. Then he didn’t.
Tanner left the table. Then she didn’t.

The McCanns booked two tables in the Tapas Bar. Then they didn’t.
Oldfield saw Madeleine asleep. Then he didn’t.
Father Pacheco handed over the church keys at 4AM. Then he didn’t.
Then he did. Now he won’t talk about it anymore.

Sue Healy didn’t know Robert Murat. Then she did.
Norah Paul was Madeleine’s grandmother. Then she wasn’t.
Nora McCann was Madeleine’s aunt. Then she wasn’t.
Nora Paul said 'they could have covered it up'.

Brian Healy said they ‘hadn’t had too much to drink’. Then they had.
Najova Chekaya was 'working that night'. Then she wasn’t.
Kate McCann cries. Then she doesn't.
Kate McCann will take a lie test. Then she won’t.

Madeleine had wandered off. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine walked to the beach. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine fell asleep under a bush. Then she hadn’t.
Madeleine McCann hadn’t been abducted. Then she had.

Madeleine was abducted INTO the Mark Warner complex. Then she wasn’t.
Madeleine left by the bedroom window. Then she hadn’t.
The door was lying open. Then it wasn’t.
Mitchell 'knew how the abductor left the apartment'. Now he doesn’t.

Madeleine hadn’t been drugged. Then she had.
Madeleine had been drugged. Then she hadn’t.
The twins had been drugged. Then they hadn’t.
The twins hadn’t been drugged. Now they have.

Campbell tipped off the police. Then she didn’t.
Murat wasn’t at home that evening. Then he was.
Carpenter the cleaner dined with the McCanns. Then he hadn’t.
Edmonds the millionaire dined with the McCanns. Then he hadn’t.

Madeleine visited Murat’s villa. Then she hadn’t.
Murat translated witness statements. Then he hadn’t.
Jenny Murat wasn’t looking for tax cheats. Then she was.
A private plane left Portimao on May 3rd 2007. Then it didn’t.

Madeleine McCann is ‘like a student overdraft’. She isn’t.
Madeleine McCann is like ‘there’s no money in your bank account’. She isn’t.
Madeleine McCann is ‘that feeling in the pit of your stomach when you know you’ve got no money’.
Only Madeleine McCann isn’t. She really isn’t.

Nuno Lourenco’s Lies – Do these prove that something serious happened to Madeleine McCann earlier in the week?

Nuno Lourenco’s Lies – Do these prove that something serious happened to Madeleine earlier in the week?

by Hektor van Bohmen and Marina Guilsford - 25 July 2016

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS

Nuno Lourenco had a major impact on the first few days of the Portuguese Police investigation into the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

His statement to the Portuguese Police and accompanying police reports and photos can be seen here:

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NUNO_LOURENCO.htm

(Thank you once again to pamalam for that great encyclopaedia of Madeleine McCann information)

His full name is Nuno Manuel Lourenco de Jesus.

His ’phone call early on Saturday 5 May to the PJ seriously diverted investigation co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral and his team into contacting the German and Polish police, and INTERPOL, detaining an aircraft and its passengers at Berlin airport, and successfully asking the Polish police to visit Wojchiech Krokowski’s apartment in Warsaw, moments after he arrived back home.

Nuno Lourenco’s central claim was that a man - subsequently identified as Krokowski – had tried to abduct his three-year-old daughter outside a cake-shop/cafe in the tiny village of Sagres, at the extreme south-western tip of Europe.

 Nuno Lourenco and children - photo on Facebook, 2012

This claim has already been examined in detail on the CMOMM forum, in two ‘Krokowski’ threads. A poll was run on this thread:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child

Only 35 have voted so far, but out of those, 28 (80%) agreed that Nuno Lourenco’s statement was a lie.

TWO MATCHING DESCRIPTIONS OF A SUSPECTED KIDNAPPER

The rapidity with which the PJ investigated Lourenco’s lead was due to two key features in what he told the police:

A His description of a man wearing strange clothes, ‘classic’ shoes, with long dark hair, who ‘didn’t look like a tourist’, matched the description of an alleged abductor of Madeleine by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, only hours earlier (on Friday 4 May), (The Tanner sighting was later – and very controversially - ruled out by DCI Andy Redwood when, six years later, he told a BBC Crimewatch McCann Special programme (October 2014) that a man had suddenly come forward claiming that he was the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner. He told Redwood he had been alone, carrying his daughter home - in her pyjamas - in his arms, with no covering on her, after placing her in a night crèche. Amazingly, he still had the very clothes that both he and his child were wearing that night. Very few Madeleine McCann researchers believe what Redwood said)

and

B He had a photograph of a car which he said belonged to the man who (he says) nearly kidnapped his daughter. The police rapidly traced the car as a hired car rented by Krokowksi for the week 28 April to 5 May 2007.

GONCALO AMARAL IS FOOLED

No wonder Amaral’s team was excited, as this extract from Goncalo Amaral’s book (AnnaEsse’s translation) makes clear:

QUOTE:

From information from Sagres, we learn that an individual [Lourenco] has been surprised [by a man – Krokowski] on Mareta beach taking photos of several children and in particular of a little girl aged 4, blonde with blue eyes, who looks like Madeleine. It was the little girl's father who noticed him. This 40 year-old man, wearing glasses, tells the investigators that the photographer tried to kidnap his daughter in the afternoon of April 26th in Sagres.

He allegedly then fled in a hired car with a woman in the passenger seat. The stranger did not look like a tourist; brown hair down to his collar, wearing cream-coloured trousers and jacket and shoes of a classic style. This report reminds us of the individual encountered by Jane Tanner in the streets of Vila da Luz on the evening of Madeleine's disappearance.

Thanks to the father's composure, he managed to take a photograph of the vehicle. It's not very clear and does not allow us to make out the number plate, but we succeed, nonetheless, in finding the car. The car hire firm provides us with the identity of the driver. He is a forty-year-old Polish man, who is traveling with his wife.

Wojchiech Krokowski, from Warsaw - photo which appeared in a Sunday newspaper just weeks after Richard Hall published his second Madeleine documentary, The Phantoms

They arrived in Portugal on April 28th, from Berlin. At Faro airport, they hired a car and [stayed] in an apartment in Budens, near Praia da Luz. Unfortunately, on May 5th, at 7am, they had already left, taking with them their camera and all the photos from their holiday. We ask the German police, through Interpol, to monitor them as soon as they arrive in Berlin. All the passengers are questioned, but no one has seen a child looking like Madeleine. In Berlin, the couple take the train to return to Poland. Thus, the Polish trail comes to an end. We would like to have seen their photos...but that proved impossible.

UNQUOTE

A HOST OF IMPROBABILITIES

The improbabilities of Nuno Lourenco’s account of the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter have been set out in great detail in two places:

A On the CMOMM forum, on the Krokowski threads, here:

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10602-was-wojcek-krokowski-sagres-man-with-a-camera-the-template-for-both-tannerman-and-smithman

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12096-krokowski-2-nuno-lourenco-s-account-of-how-wojchiech-krokowski-nearly-kidnapped-his-child

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11402-richard-hall-s-film-the-phantoms-or-the-four-fabrications-explained-in-21-simple-points

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12123-textusas-article-30-oct-2015-on-sagresman-wojchiech-krokowski-a-good-article-excellent-original-research-some-great-conclusions-but-some-wrong-ones

and

B In a blog article by Textusa, one of his best, here:

http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/sagresman.html

If anyone reading this article post has not read these analyses, we would recommend that you have a careful look through them to satisfy yourself as to whether Nuno Lourenco told the truth or not.

But here anyway is a brief summary of the many ‘red flags’ which, to our minds at least, and to a good many others, effectively prove that his story is a lie, a complete invention, from start to finish:

1 Altogether, three different dates are given for when the kidnapping incident is supposed to have happened

2 The improbability of both Lourenco and his wife and two friends of his, both with their young children, taking no action when (allegedly) Krokowski was taking pictures of their children on a camera just yards in front of them

3 The improbability of Krokowski trying to abduct a young girl outside a bakery-cum-café in broad daylight, in front of several witnesses, while on a week’s holiday in Portugal

4 The improbability that Lourenco took a close-up picture of Krokowski on his mobile ’phone just after the alleged attempted kidnapping of his daughter, which failed because his finger was over the shutter

5 The improbability that Krokowski had parked his car well outside the village (see photo below)

6 The improbability of his account of following Krokowski to his car and then taking a photograph of his car before he drove off

7 The fact that the photograph he allegedly took on this occasion does not show either Krokowski or his wife

8 The improbability of Lourenco deciding not to report either the photographing of his children by Krokowski, or the alleged attempted abduction of his daughter to police until six days after he says these two incidents occurred (Sunday 29 April 2007).

9 In addition to all those improbabilities, the question of the timing of his call to police on the morning of Saturday 5 May is all-important. It occurred the morning after Jane Tanner had made her statement. It was made after Krokowski’s plane took off from Faro for Berlin. And his description of Krokowski matched that of Jane Tanner in almost every detail, as Goncalo Amaral and his staff were quick to realise (see quote above).

At this stage we invite all those reading our article to decide which of the following groups they fall into:

A Believe that Nuno Lourenco’s account is the truth

B Believe that Nuno Lourneco’s account is a total fabrication, or

C Not sure either way.

The rest of this post is in effect only addressed to those in Group (B), i.e. those who accept that Nuno Lourenco’s statement is a fabrication and want to understand why.

HOW KROKOWSKI WAS ‘FITTED UP’

We proceed by noting that it is agreed all round that Nuno Lourenco was describing Wojchiech Krokowski in his statement.

We believe that many, but by no means all, agree with us that Jane Tanner’s statement also describes Krokowski – and was meant to. (Even if you don’t agree with us on that point, you must at least concede that Goncalo Amaral and his team also thought that Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco were describing the same man).

How did Lourenco prove to police that the man they wanted was Krokowski?

Here we come to the crux of our article.

Nuno Lourenco had just two pieces of forensic evidence that pointed to Krokowski:

1 A photo of Krokowski’s hired car, taken at Sagres, and

2 His recollection of Krokowksi’s car registration number he thought featured the letters ‘AV’ and the numbers ‘67’.

Here is part of his statement:

QUOTE

Shaken by this situation, and without the least doubt that the individual’s [‘Krokowski’s] intention was to abduct his daughter, he got out his mobile and began taking various pictures of the individual [Krokowski], from the front, and in such a way that the individual would clearly see that the witness [Lourenco] was taking pictures. This did not work however, as the witness had his finger on the lens of the mobile camera. Even though the individual had left the kiosk area, he noticed that the individual had now situated himself next to the wheel of a grey-coloured, recent model Renault Clio. The witness noted the registration plate on a piece of paper which he eventually discarded, as will be explained later in this statement. This individual was accompanied by a woman, sitting in the passenger seat. The witness managed to take a picture of the vehicle which he handed over to the police, and which is now exhibited. The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007.



   NOTE: The top picture shows a parked car on the road out from Sagres. It was originally thought that this was the actual rented car hired by Krokowski and his wife. However, it has been pointed out that the car in the photo is a Vauxhall Corsa, not a Renault Clio, so it seems that the PJ was withheld Lourenco's actual photo. Nevertheless, from the very vague description of the whole alleged near-kidnapping by Lourenco, it appears to be the case that he alleges that Krokowski's car was parked some distance from the cake shop/café.



After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone, a few minutes later the couple in question left in the direction of the Sagres Fortaleza. Thinking that the recorded license plate would no longer be of any use, the witness threw (the) paper in the rubbish or on the ground.

UNQUOTE

More improbabilities

In reading this statement, a great many obvious questions arise. We might note to start with that at least three different dates have been given for the date this alleged near-kidnapping took place. Goncalo Amaral in his book gives a different date.

Here are some of the many other questions that arise:

1 How likely is it that, immediately after his daughter had nearly been snatched, he could take several pictures on his mobile ’phone in quick succession of Krokowski while he stood right in front of him, facing him?

2 How likely is it that on all of these occasions, he just happened to have his finger stuck over the lens of his mobile ’phone (indeed, is it technically possible when taking a photo on a mobile ‘phone that you cannot see if your finger is in the way or not?

3 How do we get from Lourenco taking photos straight in front of him to ‘noticing’ that he was now ‘next to’ the wheel of a grey Renault Clio? Did he chase Krokowski? Did he follow him on foot? Or did he just happen to ‘notice’ him out of the corner of his eye? Lourenco tells us nothing.

4 We are then told that he takes a photo of the car. Why does he only take one photo?

5 Lourenco says that he sees a woman next to Krokowski in the car – presumably his wife. Are we supposed to believe that all the time he was ‘nearly’ kidnapping a three-year-old, she was just meekly sitting in the car or hanging around Sagres somewhere, waiting for him to come back with a young girl?

6 If indeed Lourenco had taken a photo of Krokowski in his car, wouldn’t the most likely thing be for Krokowski to drive off in a hurry? But he doesn’t do this. Why not?

7 In fact, Lourenco says that they only drove off after ‘several minutes’. Again, are we to believe that Lourenco just stood there for several minutes, yards away from Krokowski’s car, not doing anything? Not taking more photos? Not walking up to Krokowski and confronting him?

8 Lourenco tells us that the photo was taken at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April. It is noteworthy that he emphasises this time by repeating that there is a date and time stamp: “The picture is recorded as having been taken at 18H08 on 29/04/2007. After taking the picture of the vehicle, with the date/time stamp recorded by the mobile phone…” Now where else in this case have we come across heavy emphasis being placed on the accuracy of a date and time stamp?

9 How credible is it that he (allegedly) wrote down the registration number of the car – and then got rid of it?

10 How credible is it that he now cannot remember if he threw it in a rubbish bin or on the ground?

11 And finally, one of the most pertinent questions of them all. This man - Krokowski - had (allegedly) been photographing four children on the beach earlier in the afternoon. Then, later Lourenco (allegedly) nearly had his three-year-old daughter snatched from his side. He admits that he has a mobile ’phone with him. Where is the ’phone call to the police?
While he’s on the beach? – No
Just after the kidnapping has ‘nearly’ happened? – No
While he’s taking a photo of Krokowski’s car and standing there watching him? – No
Later that evening when he gets home? – No
The next morning? – No
Later that day? – No
The day after (1 May)? – No
The day after that (2 May)? – No
The day after that (3 May)? – No
The day after that (4 May)? – No.
He waits until Jane Tanner has given her statement.
He waits until Wojchiech Krokowski’s plane has left the tarmac at Faro Airport for Berlin.
And only then does he pick up the ’phone, pretending that he is doing so because he thinks what happened to him may just be relevant to the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

So here’s what may have happened.

HYPOTHESIS A:

1 Nuno Lourenco’s entire statement is a tissue of lies

2 He did not invent his story on his own whether to gain attention or for any other reason

3 The attempt to identify Krokowski as a kidnapper was ludicrous as it is wholly contrary to common sense to think that a bloke on holiday with his wife could possibly have abducted Madeleine McCann

4 The purposes of his identifying Krokowski as the likely suspect included (a) diverting the Portuguese Police from pursuing other lines of enquiry (b) inducing the Portuguese Police to pursue a wild goose chase after Krokowski over Europe to Germany and Berlin, and (c) generally to promote the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted

5 The striking similarities between Jane Tanner’s description of the man she said she saw and Nuno Lourenco’s description of Krokowski (‘not a tourist’, clothes, long dark hair, classic shoes etc.) provide clear evidence of a co-ordinated plan for Jane Tanner and Nuno Lourenco to get the police to investigate Krokowski

6 There must have been a planning meeting to discuss this audacious plan

7 The striking fact that hairs of the same haplotype as those of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were both found in the very apartment in the Sol e Mar complex where Krokowski was staying raise these three possibilities: (a) that a planning meeting took place in Krokowski’s rented apartment (b) that Jane Tanner and Robert Murat were present at this planning meeting, and (c) that Krokowski was also present, thus enabling Tanner to describe him to the police on 4 May

8 Nuno Lourenco did not take the photo of Krokowski’s rented car at 6.08pm on Sunday 29 April but did so at another time later in the week

9 The time and date stanp on his mobile ’phone was forged.

10 For Krokowski’s car to have been photographed just outside Sagres, before Lourenco gave it to the police, suggests that Krokowski may have co-operated with this elaborate hoax.



GO TO PART TWO >>>

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13035-nuno-lourencos-lies-do-these-prove-that-something-serious-happened-to-madeleine-earlier-in-the-week 

Crime Analyst, Chelsea Hoffman's 'Madeleine McCann' book is complete

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13036-crime-analyst-chelsea-hoffman-s-madeleine-mccann-book-is-complete

Madeleine McCann: Just 72 days left till the end of Operation Grange. What then?

This is an interesting run of comments from the CMOMM forum that deserves a post of its own on this blog:

@paddinton wrote: I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then 3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover-up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

@Bishop Brennan wrote: Collusion was never required of any of the British police. The restrictive remit given to SY meant that none of the team were allowed to investigate the parents or the T7. By carefully misdirecting the team right from the start, and making sure that they stayed misdirected - no actual 'cover-up' was ever needed. The team would instead spend 4 years and £12m trying to find an imaginary abductor.

My 'conclusion' therefore : a total waste of everyone's time and money.

Tony Bennett wrote: I beg to differ with both of the above views.

I differ only slightly from @ Bishop Brennan, however. Where I disagree is with this statement of his: "Collusion was never required of any of the British police".

MY REPLY: Top Metropolitan Police officers may be corrupt (Operation Tiberius, Plebgate, Jimmy Savile, Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan etc. etc.) - but they are certainly not fools.

Rebekah Brooks ordered David Cameron who ordered Theresa May who ordered the then Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson to set up the Operation Grange review.

First off, Sir Paul Stephenson could have said: 'No, I am not doing this'.

He didn't.

He asked Commander Simon Foy to be the overall co-ordinator of the review. He also could have said 'No'.

He didn't.

The pair of them then chose Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, the Investigating Officer who negligently or deliberately botched the investigation into the murder of Jill Dando, to become the Senior Investigating Officer for this review. Campbell too could have said 'I refuse'.

He didn't.

The three of them - or maybe the entire senior management team of the Met - then approached Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, telling him in terms, 'We'd like you to be the Investigating Officer for this. Ignore the 17 alerts of Eddie and Keela to cadaver odour and blood. Ignore all the lies and contradictions. Spin this out until you've completed your 30 years' service in three years' time'. He also could have refused to accept this poisoned chalice.

He didn't.

Every single one of the above-named colluded in this expensive charade.

And now, by my calculations, Operation Grange has 72 days left.

It was announced on 3 April that six months' further work only was being authorised (by Theresa May), at a further cost of £94,582. That was another 182 days' work (3 April to 2 October 2016), or just under £520 per day.

With 72 days left, they have just over £37,000 left to spend.

Tick tock, tick tock, until 2 October 2016, nine years to the day after Dr Goncalo Amaral was booted off the Madeleine McCann enquiry - on his birthday.

So, after 2 October 2016...

...what next??


@Verdi wrote: @TonyBennett: ...what next??

At a guess I could say production of the long awaited grand exposé - The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann?


Tony Bennett wrote:

Ah, yes!

But also...

1. New appeals by Kate & Gerry: 'We must continue the search - no-one is now looking for Madeleine'

2. Rush of tabloid articles and even some more new books, along the lines of "Where it all went wrong - the disastrous Portuguese Police investigation and how 'chance after chance was missed'"


http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12700p125-bbc-radio-4-10am-26-4-16-uk-police-to-close-operation-grange-soon-if-no-new-evidence-emerges

Two new Freedom of Information Act requests (20 July 2016) on the costs of Operation Grange (each one sent to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police)

Tony Bennett Yesterday at 23:58

FIRST ONE

The following Freedom of Information Act requests are made to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police as it is hard to know where responsibility and accountability for this matter lies.

I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which, according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’

The original allocation of funds for Operation Grange was widely reported to be £2.5 million, to be paid for out of ‘a special Home Office fund’.

Please state:

1. The date the original allocation of funds was made, and whether the amount was £2.5 million or, if not, what was the amount?

2. For each subsequent extension of funds, please state:

(a) The date on which application was made for further funding
(b) How much on each occasion the Met Police applied for
(c) The date on which the Home Secretary approved additional funds, and
(d) In each case, what further funding was granted, and for what future period of time.

3. What code has been applied to all expenditures on Operation Grange, or, alternatively, where can one find expenditure on Operation Grange in the annual audited Home Office accounts?


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SECOND ONE

The following Freedom of Information Act requests are made to both the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police as it is hard to know where responsibility and accountability for this matter lies.

I ask these questions about the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Grange which, according to the remit set for it by former Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, is ‘to investigate the abduction of Madeleine McCann as if the abduction had occurred in the U.K.’

In 2013 and 2014 there were many references in the British press to expenditure by the Portuguese Police having to be met by the British government.

These expenses are known to include:

1. The cost of hiring an Alouette Mark III top-of-the-range Portuguese military helicopter

2. The provision of extensive physical support, assistance, supervision and other assistance in connection with two searches of patches of waste ground in Praia da Luz in 2014, and

3. Extensive assistance by way of Portuguese police conducting a series of ‘rogatory interviews’ of a significant number of alleged suspects

4. Translation services in connection with (a) the 2014 search of Praia da Luz (b) the rogatory interviews of suspects and (c) any other occasions.

Please provide the following information:

A. The dates that the Portuguese Police, Ministry of Justice or any other agency of the Portuguese government requested financial assistance or otherwise submitted any invoice or other demand for payment

B. In each case, how much was demanded?

C. List all payments made in connection with Operation Grange to the Portuguese authorities and give the dates they were made.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13024-two-new-freedom-of-information-act-requests-20-july-2016-on-the-costs-of-operation-grange-each-one-sent-to-both-the-home-office-and-the-metropolitan-police

Madeleine McCann and the Truth about the sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, that detected the scent of death

A very detailed analysis of the British sniffer dogs, Eddie and Keela, that detected the scent of death in the McCann's holiday apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes and in the McCann's car that they hired more than 20 days after Maddie disappeared.

http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/the-truth-of-dogs-mccann-case-and-more.html?m=1

The Big Theresa May I Want To Be Prime Minister Gallery

Monday, July 04, 2016

The Big Theresa May I Want To Be Prime Minister Gallery

Theresa May for Prime Minister?

Bad enough that you have overseen this appalling McCann travesty for years, rubbed shoulders with the protagonists, thrown millions down the drain in order to further the sham Operation Grange, and now, to further your own political aspirations, are prepared to risk as potential Prime Minister, throwing the country into further chaos and turmoil when the truth inevitably comes out and your duplicity is exposed for what it is.

Not if I can help it Madam.

Read more here: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-big-theresa-may-i-want-to-be-prime.html

Madeleine McCann: The Mystery of the Make-Up Photo - was it taken on the same day as the Last Photo?

This photograph of Madeleine McCann, the so-called ‘Make-Up Photo’, has probably caused more debate than any other, except the so-called ‘Last Photo’.

There is no serious doubt that each is a genuine photo. But there is a vital common question in relation to both photos, namely: when was each taken?

So far as the ‘Last Photo’ is concerned, very strong evidence, but not amounting to proof, has been presented on CMOMM that the Last Photo was taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29 April and not lunchtime on Thursday 3 May.

The photo I really want is to discuss again is the ‘Make-Up Photo’. And I will get straight to the point: could the Make-Up Photo have been taken on the same day as the Last Photo? Was it taken in Praia da Luz that week?

A REMINDER OF THE KEY POINTS ABOUT THE MAKE-UP PHOTO:

When did it first appear?

It was a still picture included in this very strange 2-minute video produced by Madeleine’s godfather, Jon Corner, and released on 1 May 2010:

Read more here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12958-the-mystery-of-the-make-up-photo-was-it-taken-on-the-same-day-as-the-last-photo

"All signs of Madeleine McCann erased as tired locals remove all missing posters from resort"

Shop owner in Praia da Luz says they do not want to be reminded of Maddie's disappearance any more

EXCLUSIVE
BY ANTONELLA LAZZERI

2nd July 2016, 10:23 pm

“MISSING” posters of Madeleine McCann have all been taken down in the resort where she vanished.

The pictures are no longer in bars, restaurants, supermarkets or the local church.

Read more here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12982-all-signs-of-madeleine-mccann-erased-as-tired-locals-remove-all-missing-posters-from-resort

Petition: Invoke Article 50 of The Lisbon Treaty

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133618

Theresa May: "Brexit means Brexit, no attempts to remain in the EU, no attempts to rejoin through the backdoor, no second referendum"

The Exeter connection: Clement Freud, Uri Geller, Jimmy Savile, Michael Jackson, Greville Janner (and Robert Murat?)

The Exeter connection: Clement Freud, Uri Geller, Jimmy Savile, Michael Jackson, Greville Janner (and Robert Murat?)

The article below has been sent to me by someone who used to be active in discussing the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann, but no longer is. Whether it has any direct relevance to Madeleine’s disappearance is very doubtful, but it is certainly fascinating background material for anyone interested in the way serial paedophiles like Clement Freud, Jimmy Savile, Michael Jackson and Greville Janner seem to cosy up to one another.

Exeter is a University town in Devon and was one of the few places to vote ‘Remain’ in the E.U. Referendum.

So far as the town of Exeter is concerned, several people connected with the Madeleine McCann case live in or near Exeter.

Let’s just list them:

1 Robert Murat’s two sisters live at Exeter (less than a mile from Jane Tanner) and Sidmouth and Murat flew out from Exeter airport to Faro at 7.00am on Tuesday 1 May 2007

2 Jane Tanner and her partner Dr Russell O’Brien moved to Exeter in 2007 and Jane Tanner is now a Web Marketing Officer with Exeter University. On the Exeter Universoty website, she self-describes herself as follows: “I maintain and develop the websites that represent the College of Social Sciences and International Studies. I work closely with the central CaMS team and the College ERICA team to create a consistent approach across all communications. I moved to Exeter and joined the University in 2007, following years of varied marketing roles for Fisher Scientific UK in the Midlands”

3 Jim Gorrod, Solicitor, employed by Ansteys and specialing in property law, and his wife Charlotte, live just two minutes’ walk away from Jane Tanner and Russell O’Brien. They were in Praia da Luz the same week as the McCanns. It is not known if the two families knew each other before 2007. Jim Gorrod was questioned by the PJ after he hired a blue or grey Corsa whilst he was in Praia da Luz and his wife was quoted as saying: “We know Dr O’Brien and Jane Tanner because we both have children of about the same age and we were staying in the same resort [the Ocean Club]”.

Plymouth is nearby, also in south Devon, and there are other Murat connections:

Des Taylor - the architect who designed the Murats' villa in Praia Da Luz, is from Plymouth.

Murat's aunt and uncle Sally and Ralph Eveleigh lived in Plymouth where I think at one time Sally Eveleigh worked for an adoption agency. She seemed to be into all kinds of weird and wonderful ‘alternative therapis’, one visitor to their Salsalito villa described it as “a fantastic, wonderful, amazing retreat!! We thoroughly enjoyed the massage, crystal healing and relaxation, Salsalito definitely has healing powers”, while the Eveleighs’ guest house at Casa Grande was advertised as follows: "We can also arrange for many different therapies, including Acupuncture, Applied Kinesiology, Aromatherapy, Reflexology, Massage, Bowen technique, Meditation and Yoga etc."

-------

As the article below makes clear, both Clement Freud and Uri Geller had strange Exeter connections:

4 In May 2002, Uri Geller bought a football club, Exeter F.C., currently in Division 2

5 Geller’s friend, pop star Michael Jackson, also became a Director of Exeter F.C. Geller’s son Danel also became a joint Vice-Chairman of Exeter F.C.

6 Uri Geller and Clement Freud jointly owned a racehorse

7 Uri Geller asked Michael Jackson to visit Exeter, to which Jackson allegedly replied: “I will come if you bring sick kids from hospitals”. He did visit Exeter later that year

8 Uri Geller and Greville Janner were close friends, and both were members of the magiclans’ club, the Magic Circle

9 Michael Jackson’s visit to England was co-organised by serial paedophile Greville Janner.

10 Clement Freud was a close associate of Uri Geller. Both of course have Jewish ancestry

11 Another man closely connected to Uri Geller, Clement Freud and Michael Jackson is was Paul Boateng, now Lord Boateng, who spent time with Michael Jackson at the House of Commons on his 2002 trip.

Before reproducing the article below, there were claims that Uri Geller was an agent for the Israeli spy service Mossad and there were claims that Geller’s role included enticing people who were paedophiles and then blackmailing them. There is no evidence that I am aware of that Geller was a paedophile, but here is an article from the Independent, only last year (2015):


Read more here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12957-the-exeter-connection-clement-freud-uri-geller-jimmy-savile-michael-jackson-greville-janner-and-robert-murat