Friday 11 September 2015

Missing People


BLUF: The Ocean Club booking sheets show there were more people present in the resort than the number shown added up to, more proof they were tampered with before being handed over to the PJ.


01. Introduction

Three times seems to be the right amount of times we break our summer breaks. We did so in 2014, and we did it again in 2015.

For some reason the Portuguese say there's isn't a 2 without a 3.

This year we broke our breaks with our “Playful molecules”, “Sigh...” and “Dura Lex Sed Lex” posts.

On the second one, “Sigh...”, we felt the need to put a stop to the hysteria generated by a simple computer glitch.

We were successful in helping the commendable efforts of posters like Syn, Nuala and BlueBag to put a stop to all the silliness that was taking place. The subject very quickly dwindled away shortly after our post.

But let's be very clear, the WBM/CEOP page thing was just pure and plain silliness.

We have in the past faced much worse clouds of clutter and have appropriately reacted to them by letting the soil naturally absorb their rain. The WBM/CEOP thunderstorm has passed and the sun has come back, so to make a mountain out of this molehill is to need a mountain of excuses when the real excuses (or reasons) ones are too inconvenient to admit or to be said publicly.

To use the molehill to make personal attacks is unbecoming but then again personal attacks are always demeaning to those who make them.

The positive side of the WBM/CEOP absolute silliness was that it made surface a series of individuals on both sides of the fence on this subject who passionately discussed it to its minutest technical details.

Only through genuine discussion can silliness be truly revealed and commonly understood as such.

We then said how strange we found it that those same people had “forgot” or “overlooked” to discuss in depth the tampering of the Ocean Club's booking sheets, however silly our revelations could have been, and seemed perfectly content that all had been because of OCR (Optical Character Recognition), which is, honestly just a silly thing to say. And we went to the trouble of showing why it was silly to say it was all due to OCR.

But the FACT these sheets were tampered with is far, far from being a silly thing and in our opinion does deserve a very serious discussion.

FACT is that we have shown VERY CLEARLY that they have been tampered with in our “Irrefutable proof” post. As we said, detractors said all was explained with OCR without explaining how such a sophisticated version of such software was able to recognise handwriting and doodles and and reproduce them digitally and then mumble up simple typed wording.

FACT is that we have also shown in our “Definite proof” post that the Ocean Club computer didn’t add up correctly the different types of apartments (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4, T3FP and T3FB) which it had listed.

FACT is that also in our “Balance: unbalanced” post we showed how the reason some had given for Tapas to be handed these sheets was ridiculous as the listed balances, or “saldos”, were also not correctly added up by the computer.

Many, many FACTUAL mistakes supposedly made by a single computer with direct implications to the Maddie case. Strangely (or not) they weren't discussed anywhere while a more than evident computer glitch that erroneously dated a webpage deserved a heated and passionate discussion.

These are FACTS. And the FACT that apparently they don't adapt to the theories of some doesn't make them any less FACT. They exist, they need an explanation for existing.

We have given ours. We wait for others to explain how these FACTS fit into their theories.

In the last paragraph of our “Sigh...” post we said “about the Ocean Club booking sheets, an instance where again the computer is blameless, we are not finished. We will be coming back to them with quite interesting finds. Of the reasonable kind, the kind people apparently prefer to pretend to ignore.”

That said, today, we are going to show another FACT about these booking sheets: how, not surprisingly, the number of people listed present was also incorrectly added up by the Ocean Club computer.

The computer shows there were more people than the same computer says that there were.

Just like it happened with its adding up of apartment type and “saldos”. One computer in particular with a very serious mathematical disorder.
 

02. Ref columns

We will now look at how many people, on each of these days, are listed as having been there.

Data from SHEETS: this information is in two of the columns in the booking sheets: “Ad” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cr” (Crianças/Children) below in red and blue respectively:


Data from TABLE: at the end of each day, or group of 4 pages, the values of the columns above are supposedly added up by the computer and shown as per table below:


The column headings for these in the summary tables are “Adu.” (Adulto/Adult) and “Cri.” (Crianças/Children).


03. OCR (im)precisions

To those alleging that OCR (Optical Character Recognition) malfunction is solely responsible for the inconsistencies we have found in these booking sheets we would love an explanation to how fascinatingly selective this OCR program would have to have been to only confuse “0” (zero) with “O” (capital letter O) and never confuse any other number with any other letter.

For example in these 24 pages (615 to 638) it never confuses any “5” with a “S” nor any “8” or “3” with a “B”.

But then it's quite ridiculous to even think OCR  was present in the reproduction process as what sort of program would, as we have already said, recognise with amazing accuracy handwriting and doodles (according to our detractors) but then confuse typed letters and numbers, isn't it?

We all know that no OCR was involved in the reproduction of these pages.

To say otherwise is just to be silly or to try to hide the sun with a sieve as the Portuguese say.


04. Adults and children same price? 

Also interesting to note is that there's a family, the DUNFORDs, occupying an apartment but no one knows how many people were in this family:


We would think that the number of people occupying an apartment would be a field with a mandatory entry but apparently it wasn't the case in the Ocean Club that week in 2007.

For how many people was this family charged for and on what basis?

The “sloppiness” with which these columns were supposed to have been filled is quite evident. When one is counting “adults” one must realise that one is not counting grown-ups but counting what the computer assumes to be adults because the receptionists frequently put adults and children together.

For example, we know that the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children. For some inexplicable reason, the receptionist introduced the whole family as adults:


For the Ocean Club computer Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann are adults and are counted as such.

The fact they are children does not alter the mathematical operation taking place when queried. Asked how many adults were there in the McCann family the computer will always return the same value: 5

One then must wonder what the children column was there for.

The receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, apparently couldn't care less in filling in or not the field of this column correctly when they just put the number of children together with the adults.

One would think those 2 columns, adults and children, existed to allow the computer to calculate the right amounts due as usually in hotels children pay less than adults but it seems that in the Ocean Club the prices for both were the same, which we note, is highly unusual in the industry.

Maddie, Sean and Amelie McCann were, apparently, to be charged as adults.


05. # ADULTS

As we said when one counts adults in these booking sheets one is in fact counting what the computer assumes to be adults.

As we showed, the McCanns were 2 adults and 3 children but the computer counts them as adults. In the end, when asked to count the number of adults present in a day, the computer will return a number of which 5 are the McCanns.

To simplify we have created a “database” blog, “Ocean Club Booking Sheets”, where we detail from where exactly on the booking sheets we have obtained the information and how we have reached the conclusions we have.

a. Adults listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:


Except the T4, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T3FP and T3FB) is added up correctly.

Note we are not counting the DUNFORDs, they would make the difference bigger.
 
72 of 328 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.95% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.13 % of adults than the 256 computer says there were.

b. Adults listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

71 of 330 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 21.52% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 27.41% of adults than the 259 computer says there were.

c. Adults listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

74 of 355 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 20.85% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 26.33% of adults than the 281 computer says there were.


d. Adults listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:


Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

82 of 368 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.28% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 28.67% of adults than the 286 computer says there were.

e. Adults listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:


Except the T4 and T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F and T3FB) is added up correctly.

79 of 350 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 22.57% of adults being disregarded.  Or to put it in another way, there were more 29.15% of adults than the 271 computer says there were.

f. Adults listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, adults pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:


Except the T3FP, no other apartment type (T1, T2, T3, T3F, T4 and T3FB) is added up correctly.

86 of 360 adults are not accounted for by the computer. That's 23.89% of adults being disregarded. Or to put it in another way, there were more 31.39 % of adults than the 274 computer says there were.

g. Overall differences for # adults:


On average, of the 348.50 adults listed daily, 77.33 (22.18%) of them were disregarded,

Also, and also on average, there were 28.51% more adults (please remember that there are children included in these numbers) listed than the 271.16 stated by the computer in the various totals tables.


06. # CHILDREN

As we have said above, many children were registered as adults. This explains why of the 795 registries present in the Booking sheets, only 74 (just less than 10%) have children registered.

We have already pointed out that the receptionists, and there were quite a number of them, couldn't care less filling in this field properly or not, as it seems as we noted that it apparently was standard procedure to put adults and children in the same field.

Plus, if it wasn't for the BALLINGERs one would be able to say that only families with only ONE child could have children put in computer as children.

If it wasn't for that 1 particular registry, we could almost state that this column only accepted “0” and “1” values.

Only BALLINGER has a “2”.

Of the 795 registries only 1 is a “2”, the BALLINGERs..

Of the 74 registries with children, 73 of them are “1”.

Fascinating.

Like we did with the adults we will show here how and from where we got the information for pages 615 to 618. For pages 619 to 638 we will provide the respective links.

a. Children listed on pages 615 - 618:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 615 - 618”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 615 to 618:


This, as will be seen, will be the only day where the totals of # children between table and sheets differ, in the case by 1.

The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

b. Children listed on pages 619 - 622:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 619 - 622”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 619 to 622:


The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

c. Children listed on pages 623 - 626:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 623 - 626”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 623 to 626:

 
The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

d. Children listed on pages 627 - 630:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 627 - 630”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 627 to 630:


The subtotals for apartments T1 and T2 are not added up correctly.

e. Children listed on pages 631 - 634:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 631 - 634”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 631 to 634:


The subtotals for apartments T1, T2 and T3 are not added up correctly. 

f. Children listed on pages 635 - 638:

Details can be seen on “Ocean Club Booking Sheets, children pages 635 - 638”.

This is the difference in terms of number of adults between what the computer has added up and what is listed on sheets 635 to 638:


The subtotals for apartments T1, T3 and T3F are not added up correctly.

g. Overall differences for # children:


Although there's only the difference of 1 in the totals, the subtotals are wrongly added up with no plausible explanation whatsoever.


07. Consolidated data adults + children


On pages 615 - 618,  of the 337 people listed, 71 (21.07%) were disregarded, 26.69% more than the 266 stated by the computer on page 618.

On pages 619 - 622, of the 340 people listed, 71 (20.88%) were disregarded, 26.39% more than the 269 stated by the computer on page 622.

On pages 623 - 626,   of the 366 people listed, 74 (20.22%) were disregarded, 25.34% more than the 292 stated by the computer on page 626.

On pages 627 - 630, of the 380 people listed, 82 (21.58%) were disregarded, 27.52% more than the 298 stated by the computer on page 630.

On pages 631 - 634,  of the 365 people listed, 79 (21.64%) were disregarded, 27.62% more than the 286 stated by the computer on page 634.

On pages 635 - 638,  of the 378 people listed, 86 (22.75%) were disregarded, 29.45% more than the 292 stated by the computer on page 638.

On average: of the 361 people listed daily, 77 (21.36%) were disregarded, 27.17% more than the 284 stated by the computer.

This is FACT.



08. Conclusion

Clearly, very clearly, there was the intent to show that fewer people were present in Luz than there really were.

Only the willingly blind, AKA the intellectual dishonest, can after 4 posts (“Irrefutable proof”, “Definite proof”, “Balance: unbalanced” and this one) continue to say that all is due to a faulty character recognition software either when making copies of these lists to hand over to the authorities or by PJ when making the DVDs that were handed out.

One also has to add to the blame of this amazing OCR version for the typed characters found among handwritten wording in the crèche sheets as shown in our “3 penguins in the desert” post. 

We know people will always believe what they want to believe but now we would like to add to that that some will just keep on saying they believe in what they don't believe at all.

We know they don't and many others like us don't. We know that they are bound to say they believe in something when they don't.

A shamelessness we silently enjoy observing. And by we, we don't mean just the team.

We now hope that all those who say they lost all respect they ever had for us because we adamantly refused to discuss the technicalities of the WBM/CEOP computer glitch, will now rise up and show how indeed superior they are to us and discuss technically, to its minutest details, the discrepancies we have found and exposed in the booking and crèche sheets.

Those with less technical capabilities we suggest they discuss why would the Ocean Club management want to convey the idea to the PJ that there were less people in Praia da Luz than really were there.

And we're only counting those who appear on the sheets because the number probably is higher but impossible to calculate as we don't know how many had their names deleted from the sheets when they were tampered with.

We won't hold our breath though waiting for the technical and non-technical discussions to happen. We'll just put on a smile that just says we know you've read us, you naughty, naughty you.

About the number of “missing people” VERY significant conclusions can be made but we will speak of them about that in the future.


09. September 2015

This could, or should be a Post Scriptum as we feel we have a duty to say something about what has happened and is happening since the start of this month, September 2015.

We have had someone say that Operation Grange should be shut down because it has already taken up a ridiculous £11M from taxpayers money.

By the way, we must note that the majority of this money is to pay salaries which means it would be spent anyhow, only from a different budget. As far as we know, now it comes from the Home Office and if Operation Grange wasn’t in place these salaries would be coming out of the Met.

For us much more important than the money spent is the ring-fencing of the manpower dedicated to Grange but we imagine that’s how services are rendered which can later be harvested as favours.

The following move by these people was to confirm that there was no problem whatsoever in closing down Operation Grange as even the parents of the missing child didn’t really mind if that happened, as they had taken several thousand from the Fraudulent Fund and put it into a another account in case the public police stopped searching for their daughter.

What they were basically trying to say was, please close the thing down as the parents understand that at some point enough is enough and they have enough money to proceed. How much? Let’s just say for now it’s enough.

Here was where this group showed their first sign of despair.

In wanting so much to find arguments to convince public opinion to shut Operation Grange immediately their desperation made them overlook that their argument represented an enormous shot in the foot.

First because Fraudulent Fund is, supposedly, about searching for Maddie.

To take money away from it with the objective of searching for the girl is to assume publicly the actual fund is for something else.

In fact if one reads the full objectives of the fund, the word “search” doesn't appear:

“To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;

To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and

To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.”
So the fund is not to search for Maddie. That’s not what, it seems, people have been donating for after all.

Others will have to search for her, thus the reason that if parents want to fund any sort of searching they had to create this account and transfer to it money from the Fraudulent Fund that was donated by people who did not do it to have her searched for (even though they thought they did).

However, as can be seen, the fund does contemplate clearly other objectives such as financial assistance to Madeleine's family. Grandparents, cousins... old aunt ..? Her trip to the supermarket? Mortgage, legal fees...? A new car?

Apparently only when others find her can then the fund money be used to secure her safe return to her family.

Note that the fact that only thousands were taken away from it to search for Maddie means that its largest chunk continues to be for those objectives other than searching for her.

Second because they have opened a door to scrutiny for fraud.

The withdrawal of these thousands have to be reflected somewhere in the fund’s accounting. As far as we know from the accounting papers presented for the past years there are no such movements of cash.

Someone, somewhere has to explain where the money for this new account has come from otherwise, if real, it's fraud.

With these 2 moves, this group launched an offensive with the objective of having Operation Grange shut down. Immediately. The reasons presented was because it was enough waste of money and parents didn’t mind.

Then apparently another group of people responded with a dry, no, we have no intention of shutting down the Operation Grange, it's fine as it is.

This provoked the most interesting reaction from the first group as they literally snitched about the luxurious conditions in which SY officers had stayed in Algarve last year.

Funny how MSM didn’t remember to have noticed this last year.

Luz had become a media circus and we’re sure that where SY was staying was no secret. Reporters from all over the world, but most importantly from Britain, witnessed SY going in and out of their luxurious resorts and then didn’t find the exaggerated luxury worthy of mention in their news pieces.

Only now they decided to find it outrageous.

But most importantly, and we’ll be coming back to this, this reaction clearly revealed despair which they only hinted of having before. This group of people were now showing to be in panic. We almost expected to read that the officers with the choice between 2 wines had gone for the most expensive and behold some of them had even used the pool on the weekend.

The second group of people reacted to this reaction by explaining that not only was there no intention of closing Grange as it was going on its own rhythm as an LOR had been sent to Portugal in July.

Panic semi-explained. Or panic explaining the importance of this LOR and in turn its importance explains the panic.

We don’t know what was requested in the LOR but we haven’t heard that anyone is to be notified to give statements so we’re supposing that it’s not about hearing new witnesses or arguidos.

Our bet is on forensics. That would make some BH quarters panic. And there seems to be panic abounding.

Lastly we had the group of people wanting to close Grange bringing up Ben Needham to force the closure. This we must say was a new low even for them. It’s sad that the UK only remembers Ben when someone wants to convey a message about Maddie.


So clearly we have 2 groups of people.

This gunfire volley show one side wanting to close Grange right away and another clearly wanting it to continue.

The fact that there are 2 sides begs the question: why are there 2 sides to UK’s “higher echelon” on Maddie?

Aren’t these things supposed to be controlled by a single person? The almighty Mitchell?

Is Mitchell suffering from some sort of a serious personality disorder or is he revealing to be someone who wakes up wanting something but after breakfast starts to want the opposite and repeats this process throughout the day?

If that “higher echelon” fractured in 2, who has defected and why?

Note, we have explained that this fracture happened a long time ago. In our opinion, it started when May asked CEOP for a report about Maddie.

The fracture showed its first visible sign in 2010 when Gamble volunteered to be ousted and then broke clean on May 2011 to be exact with the launching of Operation Grange.

Oh no, said most then, you’ve got it all wrong, it’s Mitchell and Mitchell alone who is running the show. We then said and continue to say it to this day that Mitchell only read a script someone with real importance wrote for him.

But the most important thing to be noted is the panic. Shown by the blunder about the fund v search account, the viciousness about SY’s Algarvian expenditures and resorting to poor Ben Needham.

And their panic can only mean one thing. Something is afoot.

Add to this David Cameron’s visit to Portugal shortly after deciding on the country to spend part of his holidays.

We cannot see any other issue besides Maddie that is of the exclusive interest of just the 2 countries. Plus the fact that Cameron took the trouble to come to Portugal personally should be, in our opinion, worrisome for those who showed panic.

Before that, we had as of December last year, a wall of silence from Scotland Yard. This wall included the internet where we witnessed the sudden lack of inside knowledge and the abrupt silence of some.

Then we had Clarence Mitchell abandon ship. He had tried to do so in May but things didn’t go well electorally. Having failed that he found the only excuse he could have for excusing himself out of the mess and that was to supposedly start a PR company which the last time we checked didn’t have a single like on its Facebook page. Quite strange for a PR company to say the least.

Then we also had the Sun open up its comments doors on its article about a psychic and his visions about Maddie. For those only following the case for the last couple of years, let us tell you that some of the comments we read, those making them would be afraid to think of them much less express them.

Something is afoot and as always we will be here watching.

We have said before and will say it again that we don’t believe the whitewashing is a possibility.

The Maddie case can only have one of 2 solutions: archival without conclusions or full truth (full as in 90% as we are not naïve to think the name of some will ever be revealed (if they are we will be pleasantly surprised)).

The post above is just our contribution to show deciders full truth is the only way to go.

39 comments:

  1. Thanks for this post, especially as I strongly believe that the term 'observer effect' is relevant to this case. The observer effect in science refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed.
    I do believe that because you have so diligently and meticulously 'observed' what is going on in this case, it will have made a difference to the eventual outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220493/Scotland-Yard-detectives-investigating-disappearance-Madeleine-McCann-stayed-200-NIGHT-hotels-Portugal.html#ixzz3ki3WvYV8


    The comments, oh dear...beware McCanns & Co., the british have taken the wool off their eyes!

    ReplyDelete
  3. https://mobile.twitter.com/AdirenM/status/642272080529072129?p=v


    N.M
    ‏@AdirenM

    Textusa is one of the most "academic"/investigative type of blog. But I fear they lose impact for not adopting articles format.
    #McCann
    2:42 AM - 11 Sep 2015

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous11 Sep 2015, 15:29:00

      It's like saying the Guardian would get more readers if it simplified its coverage and wrote like the Sun!!

      We'll stick with the "few" readers we have, thank you.

      :)))

      Delete
    2. The Sun and its proprietor ,Rupert Murdoch will not be far fro having fingers in the pie, in regard to the Madeleine McCann disappearance/ Abduction, as per Operation Grange remit?
      The UK police are in the hand of Murdoch and his cronies, note the links of Jonathon Rees to the killing of Daniel Morgan cover up, right the way up to Dodgy Dave Cameron via,Andy Coulson and fragrant Rebekah Brooks and the phone hacking,Scotland Yard,Yates of the yard,bribes from Murdoch?
      Case to be shelved and only reopened in 50 yrs time?

      Delete
  4. Great post again Tex thank you
    Computers go over my head but Wayback was common sense so I faired quite well unlike most. I'm still with whitewash because of the ramifications of McCann's now exposed but then a bloody good wordsmith I suppose could quell the tide of dissatisfaction.
    Great to see you back my friend x

    ReplyDelete
  5. Another great post Textusa, thank you, and good to see you back :)

    You said this (about the booking sheets being tampered with):

    Strangely (or not) they weren't discussed anywhere while a more than evident computer glitch that erroneously dated a webpage deserved a heated and passionate discussion

    It's very strange, even when I've brought up the booking sheets subject in other places and given links to your posts on this blog, no-one ever takes up the subject and discusses it. They will endlessly debate photos and whether a mark on Maddie's arm is a bruise or a shadow, but presented with the evidence you give us here that considerable effort was made to manipulate the information given to the PJ as regards who (and how many) people were in PdL the week Maddie went missing, nothing is said, no-one discusses it.

    I simply can't understand anyone claiming to be a "truthseeker" for Maddie ignoring all this evidence.

    And yet they do.

    Nuala x

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Nuala

    I agree with what you're saying but the issue I'm struggling with is this:

    If it is a fact the booking sheets were tampered with, what does it have to do with Maddie?

    I guess what is being suggested is that OC/MW fiddled with the sheets to hide the swinging holiday? Even if this was the case, it doesn't directly have anything to do with what happened to Maddie. Or does it?

    I suppose it is possible for the PJ/OG to use it as leverage if it was going on but struggle to believe that almost 200 staff (most/all must have known about swinging) have lied and kept quiet for 8 years.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 11 Sep 2015, 18:54:00

      You make a very good point. If I've understood you correctly, you're suggesting the reason that such things as the booking sheets don't get discussed elsewhere is because people don't see how it relates to what happened to Maddie, and I think you could be right.

      For a lot of people the issue is clear cut, Maddie died in the apartment and her parents and friends set about covering that up by pretending Maddie had been abducted. And what I see being discussed elsewhere in relation to this centre around things like how did she die, when did she die, who lied, what were the lies, how did they manage to hide Maddie's body and where etc. In other words the practicalities of the "event" itself.

      What I don't see being discussed elsewhere is why other holidaymakers were prepared to lie to help cover up what happened, why staff at the resort were prepared to do the same, in fact why there was a much larger cover up than just what happened to Maddie. Things get mentioned, but no in-depth discussion takes place.

      Now you've prompted me to ponder it, I think part of the answer lies in the questions you've asked me in your post. Perhaps people don't relate such things as the manipulated booking sheets to what happened to Maddie, it's like they regard it as a separate event and done for a separate reason so they just ignore it. They just want to nail the parents and their friends who they see as the guilty parties, so they're not interested in the wider picture.

      So to your questions:

      If it is a fact the booking sheets were tampered with, what does it have to do with Maddie?

      Think about how difficult it is to cover up the death of a child in a foreign country unless you have a lot of help from a wide group of people and whether or not you'd even attempt it if you didn't know you could absolutely count on that help.

      I guess what is being suggested is that OC/MW fiddled with the sheets to hide the swinging holiday? Even if this was the case, it doesn't directly have anything to do with what happened to Maddie. Or does it?

      Think about what reason there might be for a wide group of people to be prepared to help you cover up the death of your child and why those people would be prepared to lie for you, for years.

      Nuala

      Delete
    2. Hi Nuala. Thanks for the reply.

      I think due to me being a simple soul I just want to keep things as simple as possible.

      Focus on what happened to Maddie during the early evening of 3rd May and if any other crimes were committed thereafter, they will be exposed.

      Notwithstanding the PJ/OG overlooking other "lesser" crimes if they can nail those responsible for Maddie's death/disappearance.

      I want to make it clear it is not that I don't think these other issues aren't important, just that they aren't right now IMO. The case is complicated enough as it is after eight years.

      To your last paragraph and that is probably the biggest stumbling block to the tampered booking sheets theory. Even if just one or two people did that at the time, how do you explain not a single lowly employee has looked at the PJ files and seen a sheet they completed changed? And then commit a crime in not reporting?

      I genuinely can't think of a reason enough for possibly dozens of employees to notice something wrong and then not to report it.

      Or simply that not one of these people have succumbed to guilty knowledge in eight years.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 14 Sep 2015, 21:21:00

      You said "the tampered booking sheets theory" and I just want to point out that it's not a theory, it's a fact. It happened.

      Even if just one or two people did that at the time, how do you explain not a single lowly employee has looked at the PJ files and seen a sheet they completed changed? And then commit a crime in not reporting?

      I doubt that what you describe is a crime, it might be morally wrong but that is a different thing. The crime was committed by those who fed the police with false information in May 2007 when Maddie disappeared.

      I genuinely can't think of a reason enough for possibly dozens of employees to notice something wrong and then not to report it.

      Perhaps some have, we don't know, but anyway I think it's pretty obvious why people haven't spoken out (assuming they haven't). They see the help and protection the McCanns had in the aftermath of Maddie's disappearance so they don't want to get involved. Would you?

      Nuala

      Delete
    4. ''You said "the tampered booking sheets theory" and I just want to point out that it's not a theory, it's a fact. It happened.''

      No, it's a theory. No evidence has ever been presented which shows that the sheets have been tampered with. You, like Textusa, fail to understand that merely repeating something ad nauseum does not render it true.

      Frankly, you are becoming as big a con-artist as Textusa

      Delete
    5. Not Textusa 17 Sep 2015, 13:33:00

      It's a fact.

      The same as it's a fact that Stephen Carpenter's statement is full of lies, as is Raj Balu's and Neil Berry even tried to frame the laundryman Mario Marreiros because Mario Marreiros saw Berry in a place he had no business being.

      The McCanns lied, the T7 lied, nannies lied, fellow holidaymakers lied, and the creche records, Tapas booking sheets and OC booking sheets were tampered with.

      Many many people colluded in the cover up of what happened to Maddie McCann and that she died during a swinging event. That's a fact, the evidence is all there in the PJ files.

      Nuala

      Delete
    6. Not Textusa 17 Sep 2015, 13:33:00

      It's a fact.

      The same as it's a fact that Stephen Carpenter's statement is full of lies, as is Raj Balu's and Neil Berry even tried to frame the laundryman Mario Marreiros because Mario Marreiros saw Berry in a place he had no business being.

      The McCanns lied, the T7 lied, nannies lied, fellow holidaymakers lied, and the creche records, Tapas booking sheets and OC booking sheets were tampered with.

      Many many people colluded in the cover up of what happened to Maddie McCann. That's a fact, the evidence is all there in the PJ files.

      Nuala

      Delete
  7. Do they feel fear ,yes Textusa good to have you back ,

    ReplyDelete
  8. Insane/Not Textusa has said this in his corner of the internet:

    “I'll sum this up in a few words for you:

    The sheets which were printed off list the guests and their number. At the end of each report there is also a series of totals. We have already seen that there is no obvious correlation with some of the totals, but seeing as it was merely a sheet to inform the staff who was staying where and with which holiday provider it makes no difference.”

    And also says this:

    “Well that's strange. You see, there is no correlation at all between the list and the table. The columns do not correspond, and neither do the labels.

    For example - the list contains 14 columns

    The report, however, contains 21 columns.

    Only a handful of columns contain numerical data which could be totalled - the rest is information such as names and dates

    There is no correlation between the majority of columns in the list and the report totals - for example, the list allocates 56 apartments with a T2 code - the report totals 151. Or possibly 67, which may refer to those occupied, Without more information, who knows?

    This is not a spreadsheet with column totals. It is a list with a selected report at the bottom.

    There is only one quantity which correlates. The spend.

    The 'Saldo' column - yes, that's right, the one you earlier said was incorrect - is absolutely spot on to the cent. Add up each total in the list and it matches the total on the report = 4180.80”

    No correlation at all between sheets and table. Let’s play a daily game and just fill out sheets with numbers and let the staff solve the riddle.

    About the “saldos” or balances, we showed very clearly they were clearly tampered with:
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/05/balance-unbalanced.html

    The “saldos” were different from what stated in the sheets for apartment types to what each of these types of apartments added up to in the sum up table.

    Plus, in 3 of the 6 days in question, the full total was wrong.

    About the apartment types not being correctly added up, Insane had this to say to explain why it happened:

    “It should tell you that the totals are meaningless in terms of the conclusions you are attempting to draw. There cannot be more families than there are apartments in which to house them, but the fact that there are apparently more customers occupying a one bedroom apartment than there are one bed apartments, and fewer occupying a two bedroom apartment than the report lists should raise the possibility that some customers are EITHER WRONGLY CODED OR HAVE BEEN UPGRADED FROM A ONE BED TO A TWO BED, which is not uncommon especially out of the main season. The O'Briens for example are shown as occupying a T1, when they occupied a two bed apartment. SOME NUMBERS CORRELATE if you just count the ones on a Mark Warner holiday, BUT OTHERS DON'T, SO THAT ISN'T A FULL EXPLANATION.”

    To this day we’re still holding our breath waiting for this FULL EXPLANATION.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Speaking of staff, the nannies being shipped off to Greece was yet another media story with not a shred of evidence to support it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Mark Warner moved me from the Ocean Club about one week after - 13th of May, I believe. " In Catriona Baker Rogatory Interview

      "The Mail on Sunday has also learned that within 24 hours of that interview Ms Baker was dispatched by Mark Warner to take up a new position in the Greek resort of San Agostino along with four other members of staff.They were all linked to the seven holidaymakers who had eaten in the resort's tapas restaurant with Kate and Gerry McCann on the night of Madeleine's disappearance." Daily Mail


      Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-487506/Revealed-The-nanny-help-clear-McCanns-name.html#ixzz3li7yuAW1

      Delete
  10. Hats off to you, Textusa! You have certainly opened my eyes ... having noticed some discrepancies in numbers here and there (such as some families with children being counted as adults only) I have never gone through the sheets in detail to see how many times this happened, or what the totals were. Mea culpa!!

    A very interesting post and though-provoking post. Thank you x

    ReplyDelete
  11. Textusa…Good to see you back fully agree with you that whitewashing is not a possibility and this blog plays no small part in making sure that this doesn’t happen. For many years now you have almost accepted as inevitable that the couple and their friends will receive appropriate punishments for the events of May 2007 and have been looking beyond wanting to ensure that’s others receive the same for their part.
    Unfortunately a lot of other blogs and forums have not reached that level of certainty which is why you have some that are sure that a whitewash is on its way and others who spend so much time analysing information relating to the couple and getting caught up in silly debate about things like the WBM while ignoring your analysis of information that draws the OC and other people into the whole saga. There are those BHs certainly who encouraged this but I also feel there is a lot of people who have no interest in making sure everyone involved receives appropriate punishment. The one and only goal for these people “at present” is the prosecution of the couple. That may change if SY go down the route of only concentrating on the couple and their friends. Then I feel it will leave so many unanswered questions that debate will inevitably move onto the involvement of other.
    About your 2 solutions “archival without conclusions or full truth”………full truth (or the 90% you mention) is my bet on the likely outcome and it probably accounts for the length of time that the investigation has taken. I don’t believe that they will move on the couple and their friends and leave the door open for people like yourself and the ones who now concentrate only on the couple and their friends to go on full attack mode to seek the full truth. They must now (both the PJ and SY) let the masses know that it was them who brought the “full truth” to them, they know eventually it will all come out and they risk by not exposing it themselves being accused of further cover up.
    About “archival without conclusions” that will just leave them in exactly the same position they were in, in 2011. Britain’s name mud across the continent (if not the world), relations with Portuguese soured and a sizable minority of their own people more caught up in this case than they are about the refugee problem or any other major problem facing Europe today. I would be certain at this stage that this must have enough evidence to prosecute some people for some crimes and once you go down that line “archival without conclusions” becomes impossible

    ReplyDelete
  12. Stealing this from Vikki Scott and what she has posted on FB:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1668991906678629/

    '' CONFUSION HAS NOW MADE HIS MASTERPIECE '' - MACBETH

    Confusion could be a synonym for McCann. Fractured camps, endless regurgitation of theories and now divided speculation in respect of Mitchell's latest press release. If you have three apples and four oranges how long is a piece of string ? That might as well be the equation we need to solve the puzzle if we follow the trail so far laid.

    Mitchell's statement if nothing else has given us confirmation of what many of us knew already, that the McCann couple are being financially rewarded for playing an exceptional part in voraciously defending the certainty of abduction of their daughter by a stranger or strangers unknown. The transfer of monies from the fund to their private account has raised no eyebrows in the press. Surely, when the line spun for the last 8+ years has been that every penny raised by bake sales in schools or cheques in plain envelopes marked ' Kate & Gerry Rothley' were going to finance the search for Madeleine, some bright journalist would ask why there was a need to move money to a private, unaccountable repository ? In effect duplicating the publicly advertised aims of the fund regardless of what the fine print states.

    This latest little gem was running in tandem with a public debate as to whether Operation Grange had run its course. Various factions were rolled out to discuss the futile continuation of a publicly funded search that has seemingly yielded not one step further to solving this mystery. Such media debates, particularly when financially driven are a stroke of PR genius. What better way to make the public believe they actually have their opinion taken into account in matters that, if not already decided are very close to resolution by those in control. Do not read anything into statements made even by the most senior members of this investigation. The real players are in the shadows.

    This could not work better for the McCanns . One magazine actually ran a poll asking whether or not the police investigation should be shut down. Cue The Official Find Madeleine Facebook page urging its numerous followers to vote. 'No ! Please continue the search for our precious child'. Petitions, opinion polls and the like, no matter how many signatures they may garner have no influence on policy decisions made by governments or corporations and only serve as a conduit for the public to vent on subjects they feel passionate about. And they don't come more passionate than opposing views regarding the direction this investigation is going. It is a rare event that even a private business is shamed into a volte -face due to public opinion.

    I'm sure Kate and Gerry, presumably no longer having the ear of Scotland Yard would like nothing more than to see the investigation closed down but by making a public show of wringing hands, seemingly begging the authorities not to give up on Madeleine they are in a win win situation, for now. Even if Operation Grange continued indefinitely both know Madeleine will not be found. Nor, unless a patsy is found will the perpetrators, and presumably, even they know if the latter were to be the outcome it would have happened by now.

    Is this yet another duplicitous move by the doctors and their advisors? Yes, but I believe they are making the best of the deal handed to them by those calling the shots, in other words playing the game, endeavouring to stick to a script that is becoming more and more uncertain to them having been subject to so many rewrites.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  13. cont.

    I read the comments made here and in other places and I am amazed that most seem to be still labouring under the impression that Kate & Gerry are criminal geniuses controlling every move, press release and sound bite issued forth on this story. Everyone's favourite blogger and expert word meister recently wrote 'This is THEIR time This is THEIR rules' ( my capitals ). What a chuckle. I would like to see such assertions qualified. It doesn't take Hercule Poirot to deduce that if Mr & Mrs McCann were running the show it certainly wouldn't be drawing headlines eight years on. Wouldn't it have been more advantageous to have pocketed the proceeds from the book deal and serialisation fees and sailed off onto the sunset?

    The McCann child went missing and those responsible are being protected. For now at least those are the only definite facts here. That Kate and Gerry are calling the shots, no. There is no way on this earth that two insignificant doctors and their holiday companions would be protected by the full might of the British government. Some other event was happening in Praia de Luz that week and that some of those in attendance were powerful movers and shakers who needed to be protected at all costs. For those of you who have yet to read Textusa I urge you to visit the blog where all will become clear.

    Madeleine most likely died as a result of an accident sometime on 3 May 2007. To insist that it was prior to this date does not explain the absolute chaos that ensued that evening following the 'discovery' that she had gone. What did happen was that Gerry immediately went into self preservation mode not yet aware that he would be aided and abetted and ultimately controlled by those that needed to protect their own self interests. If this were Star Wars Kate & Gerry would be billed as Ewok #1 & #2. Hans Solo has yet to be unmasked if indeed he ever is. Are we to believe a group of 30 something doctors had the wherewithal, nous and contacts to summon a group of legal experts to the table within four days, let alone induce them to travel to another country.

    While the Tapas 9 were running around like headless chickens on the night of 3rd May desperately trying to convince everyone they had been the victim of a heinous crime, wheels were already in motion and the damage limitation plans were already being drawn up. A person or persons unknown, in attendance, having got wind of the event was immediately ensuring personal anonymity was guaranteed. Once Gerry was informed he would be receiving assistance to extricate from the mess the demeanour of the group changed. No more wailing Arabs or frantic phone calls. They were not alone.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  14. cont.

    You have no doubt read that The Telegraph reported the abduction at 12.01 on 4 May, online. This is taken as proof that the McCanns had contacted their influential press connections. But take a closer look ~

    12:01AM BST 04 May 2007 Comments

    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 Foreign Office is not noted for knee jerk reactions and even if the Mccanns had managed to make contact immediately would any civil servant worth his or her salt take the word of holiday makers that an abduction had in fact taken place? Indeed within two hours would it be apparent that the child was not going to be found asleep in a bush having wandered from the holiday apartment? And then we have to factor in the time. I doubt very much the decision to issue an official press release is taken by the junior who drew the short straw to answer the embassy phones approaching the witching hour. There is protocol observe, channels to go through, responsibility to be taken for any repercussions.

    ''A Foreign Office spokesman'' ''Consular assistance was being offered''

    That Gerry is full of his own self importance and labours under the belief that he can totally control any situation was a fortunate happenstance for those really running the show. He took to the task in hand like a duck to water. Kate though, is a different story. Although playing along we get glimpses of a woman tormented not only by the loss of her child but by the fact that she knows what happened and is unable to say. This I believe is why, in frustration she sometimes vents with such venom, almost giving the game away.

    And so began the game. Any conspiracy, and this is a conspiracy to mislead, needs to lay false trails. It does not take a detective's mind to see something is very wrong in the official story as reported and those in control know that members of the public will start digging in the hope of exposing the whole dirty little secret. Cue the false trails. This serves two purposes. One, it concentrates dissent in the wrong direction and creates a diversion in that there will always be factions of supposedly the same side who will disagree with each other. Two, it leads the trail away from the very real evidence that cannot be hidden but remains hidden from all but the very tenacious ( Again, see Textusa and the booking sheet analysis ). Another useful by product is the polarisation of differing public camps which we have seen, particularly lately ensures much time and energy is expended arguing with each other, voraciously defending their respective moral assertions.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  15. cont.

    What is important to remember is that anything seemingly revelatory that may be uncovered is almost certain to be as much a false trail as the more obvious. The detail and answer to any puzzle is usually to found in the mundane but human nature being what it is, it always wants the dirt, is always on the look out for scandal to explain any perceived cover up. Make no mistake, we only find that which we presume is the key if it is wanting to be easily found. Do not labour under the illusion that those controlling the play are inept enough to overlook anything that may be a game changer. Take the WBM discussion. Even supposing that it did grab prior to the 3rd May and there was a pre planned 'abduction', are we to seriously believe that this would be overlooked and left up for anyone to stumble upon?

    A perfect example is the much discussed paedophile angle and the vilification of Doctor David Payne. Indeed the constant discussions and accusations lead me to believe that some seeking the answer to Madeleine's disappearance will be disappointed if the reason for the protection does not lead to an high level paedophile gang. But it wont because it isn't the reason.

    Step back, take a considered look at the evidence and what have we got ? Nothing .

    This angle is seen as proof positive because of the seemingly damning evidence given by social worker in attendance, Yvonne Martin. I am not going into a detailed analysis of what is so wrong with the content of her statement but do we really think a veteran of child protection cannot recall whether a face she is familiar with from the course of her work is a dangerous child abuser or a protector ? Ridiculous ! That she was so adamant in impressing the P word on the PJ should also ring alarm bells. A professional, however subtle she thinks she was being, does not condemn such vile suspicions on anyone without proof positive. If this is how she works I fear for those she comes into professional contact with.

    But some cry, we have the Gaspar statements also. And I would say to this do we really to believe a female doctor who in her capacity as care giver, would fail to alert the authorities immediately if she had the slightest suspicion that a child was in danger ?

    I'm not even going to try and explain the CATS file. I have lost count the times I have seen reasoned explanation posted and ignored.

    So let us add it all up. CATS, Gaspar, Ms Martin. Yes it all falls into place. Except it doesn't. If paedophilia were the reason Madeleine met her death in PDL and someone important needed protecting it would be the easiest thing in the world to find a culprit to take the blame. Even Payne could take the bullet. No matter how much he protested his innocence he would have no way to fight a concerted plan to pin the blame on him. Wouldn't this be the easiest end to the whole sorry mess?

    The above 'clues', just a small part of the deception are nothing more than a distraction, a very successful distraction . Whoever decided to muddy the waters with this one must pat themselves on the back every time they visit the internet.

    We as those who seek to decipher the clues must distance ourselves from the emotional. Didn't Gerry once say ''Confusion is good '' ? Let us ignore the confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very well written article by Vikki Scott and the collusion of so many people to protect the perpetrators of the crime and yet no nearer finding the truth?
      Yet seemingly not one person has committed a crime in the operating of the "Find Madeleine McCann Fund", paying funds to fraudulent people, but not pursuing them through the Courts to obtain the return of the funds?
      Yet should the lead officer write a book based on case evidence,sued for Defamation, character assassination of the parents in Portugal.
      Let us hope Mr Goncalo Amaral has justice in his appeal?

      Delete
  16. Absolutely excellent - Hats off

    ReplyDelete
  17. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/madeleine-mccann-more-than-10m-spent-on-missing-person-investigation-government-reveals-a2949181.html

    Crime
    Madeleine McCann: More than £10m spent on missing person investigation, Government reveals

    Sebastian Mann
    Wednesday 16 September 2015 19:03 BST

    More than £10 million has been spent on the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it was revealed tonight.

    Home Office minister Lord Bates said the total cost up to the end of June was £10.1 million and the department has budgeted a further £2 million for the investigation over the next year.

    Madeleine - who was three when she went missing from the family's holiday apartment in the Algarve, Portugal, on May 3, 2007 - has become one of the most famous missing person cases of all time.

    In 2014, Metropolitan Police officers were sent to Praia da Luz as part of their continuing investigation into her disappearance.

    The figure was disclosed in an answer to a written parliamentary question in the House of Lords.

    Lord Bates said: "The total cost of the investigation in to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (Operation Grange), up until end of June 2015, is £10.1m. The Home Office has budgeted £2m for the investigation in 2015/16.

    "The Home Office funds this work from the Special Grant budget. The level of funding provided to the Metropolitan Police in relation to this investigation is reviewed regularly and will continue to be monitored."

    Additional reporting by PA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Camp 1 has played:

      The Maddie investigation should be shut down because it's taking too much money? News for you, not only we couldn't care less as we'll put in as much is needed.

      Our assessment: Camp 1 means business, openly stating the time to be influenced on this is part of the past.

      Delete
  18. http://www.netmums.com/your-child/facebook-to-start-sending-missing-children-alerts

    Facebook to start sending missing children alerts


    Facebook has announced a new Amber Alert scheme, which aims to use the power of social media to help find missing children.

    Facebook is to start sending missing child alerts in the UK to people who may be able to help.

    The missing child posts will appear high on News Feeds and be targeted at members in the areas where police are searching.

    When a child goes missing in the UK, posts will be sent out including a photo of the child, where they disappeared and any other relevant information, such as details of any suspected vehicle.

    It is hoped that more people who may be able to help will be alerted quickly.

    The scheme is backed by Kate McCann, whose daughter Madeleine went missing in 2003 and has still not been found.

    She told The Sun:

    “[Facebook's] involvement will mean millions more people will be alerted.

    The more people who see these alerts, the more likely we will be able to save children’s lives.”

    The scheme was launched after a growing trend over recent years for Facebook members to share posts about missing children.

    Facebook have said that the missing child alerts will be shown as the second item in users' News Feeds and will be issued only if a child is believed to be at 'serious risk' of harm.

    The scheme starts from today (16th September 2015).

    The extent of the search area will be determined by police. In some cases it will be a village and surrounding land, in others the whole of the UK.

    The move has been welcomed by the UK's National Crime Agencey.

    Sherri McAra, a tactical analyst for the NCA's Missing Persons Bureau, said:

    “When a child goes missing, public awareness is a vital tool.

    Facebook's support of Child Rescue Alert will not only enable an even larger number of people to be reached quickly - it means we can target the alert to greater effect by focussing on a specific search area.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Camp 2 replies:

      Are you going to make a move on a world symbol for Missing People? Supported by the world's biggest social network, Facebook????

      Our assessment: Lame reaction but what other options are there?

      Delete
    2. Textusa,Take a look at who owns/proprietor of face book one Rupert Murdoch,openly giving support to Mrs McCann in launching the new alert method on face book a bit like CEOP and who used to run CEOP Jim Gamble close friend to Madeleines parents?

      Delete
    3. Pressure groups working on behalf of missing persons Nonsense...But is it?

      “ As a highly mediagenic personification of childhood innocence, Madeleine could be constructed as an archetypal ͚ “sacred victim” Her respectable, articulate, and equally mediagenic parents were prime candidates for news media and public sympathy and support. Second, her image was immediately circulated on the websites of a global network of pressure groups working on behalf of missing persons.”

      http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1988/1/2012%20-%20TC%20-%20Madeleine%20McCann.pdf

      Isabel

      Delete
    4. Just check who wrote this! She's back!

      http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6641530/Facebook-alert-to-find-missing-children.html

      Facebook alert to find missing kids
      EXCLUSIVE: Sun campaign boost for tots in ’imminent danger’

      MILLIONS of Facebook users are to get alerts to help find missing children in “imminent danger”.

      From today messages will go to news feeds of UK users who are in the area where a child has disappeared or been abducted.

      It is a huge boost to The Sun’s Child Rescue Alert campaign launched last year. Police will launch the alerts through the charity Missing People.

      It will include a description of the child, a photo, if available, and details of any suspected vehicle or person.

      Facebook users can click “learn more” to reach the CRA site and get contact details. Clicking “share it” will spread the news to family and friends.

      Facebook has 36million users in the UK. Its trust and safety manager Emily Vacher, a former FBI agent, flew in from the US to launch the scheme.

      She said “Time is critical when a child goes missing. The CRA could mean the difference between life and death. If you see one on Facebook don’t ignore it.”

      Facebook was encouraged to create the programme after people were already using it and other social media to help find lost kids.

      In Canada when Baby Victoria was kidnapped at only 16 hours old cops used Facebook in their search.

      Within hours the abductor and baby were found. The CRA scheme started in the UK in 2005 but information was only shared between the police and media.

      It was used in 2012 in the search for tragic Welsh five-year-old April Jones.

      Last year in The Sun, Kate McCann, mum of missing Madeleine, launched a CRA sign-up scheme run by Missing People which 350,000 have joined so far.

      It allows people to get alerts on phones and computers. April’s mum Coral believes her daughter may have been OK if the scheme was in place in 2012.

      antonella.lazzeri@the-sun.co.uk

      Delete
  19. http://www.itv.com/news/central/2015-09-17/madeleine-mccann-investigation-has-cost-more-than-10-million/



    ITV Report 17 September 2015 at 10:54am

    Madeleine McCann investigation has cost more than £10 million



    The investigation into the disappearance of Leicestershire girl Madeleine McCann has cost more than £10 million, the Government has disclosed.

    Home Office minister Lord Bates said the total cost up to the end of June was £10.1 million and the department has budgeted £2 million for the investigation over the next year.

    Madeleine was three when she went missing from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal's Algarve on May 3 2007 and it has become one of the most famous missing persons cases of all time.

    Last year Metropolitan Police officers were sent to Praia da Luz to further investigate her disappearance.

    Lord Bates disclosed the figure in an answer to a written parliamentary question from Lord Black of Brentwood.

    "The total cost of the investigation in to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann (Operation Grange), up until end of June 2015, is £10.1m. The Home Office has budgeted £2m for the investigation in 2015/16.

    The Home Office funds this work from the Special Grant budget.

    The level of funding provided to the Metropolitan Police in relation to this investigation is reviewed regularly and will continue to be monitored."

    – Lord Bates, Home Office Minister
    Last updated Thu 17 Sep 2015

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://rr.sapo.pt/noticia/34409/investigacoes_ao_caso_maddie_ja_custaram_14_milhoes


    Investigações ao caso Maddie já custaram 14 milhões

    17 Set, 2015 - 14:58
    Em 2011 foi aberta a "Operação Grange", nome da investigação britânica ao desaparecimento da criança para rever toda a informação disponível.

    A investigação da polícia britânica ao desaparecimento em Portugal da criança inglesa Madeleine McCann já custou 14 milhões de euros (mais de 10 milhões de libras), informou o secretário de Estado da Administração Interna.

    Em resposta a uma questão feita pela Câmara dos Lordes, Michael Bates indicou que, até ao final de Junho, o montante gasto ascendia a 10,1 milhões de libras, estando orçamentados para 2015 mais dois milhões de libras (três milhões de euros).

    Madeleine McCann desapareceu poucos dias antes de fazer quatro anos, a 3 de Maio de 2007, na Praia da Luz, no Algarve.

    Foi após um apelo dos pais ao primeiro-ministro britânico que foi aberta em 2011 a "Operação Grange", nome da investigação britânica ao desaparecimento da criança britânica para rever toda a informação disponível.

    No ano seguinte foi anunciada a abertura de um inquérito formal e o desejo de inquirir várias "pessoas de interesse", tendo sido enviadas cartas rogatórias a 30 países, incluindo Portugal.

    Desde então, tem mantido uma equipa de agentes no caso, que já interrogaram vários suspeitos em Portugal e realizaram uma série de diligências, incluindo buscas numa área de terreno na Praia da Luz.

    Maddie desapareceu do quarto onde dormia juntamente com os dois irmãos gémeos, mais novos, num apartamento de um aldeamento turístico, enquanto os pais jantavam com amigos.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Are you going to make a move on a world symbol for Missing People? Supported by the world's biggest social network, Facebook????"
    OMG Textusa you are so so right about this. How have we missed how these people operate all these years. They are associating Kate McCann with such a high brand in the hope of 1. It place doubts in people minds about her guilt and 2. Maybe the government BHs will become frightened of the fall out from moving on her. With such blatant attempts to pervert the course of justice the government BHs must move quickly to reveal the truth. God only knows what they are capable off. It just goes to show that kate mccann has no control over what they are doing because they are setting her up to be linched.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Censored comment from Insane:

    "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Missing People":

    (censored).

    As for Isabel, what is your point? We all know there are numerous charities and associations involved in the 'missing people' sector. So why describe this as ''nonsense''?

    Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 17 Sep 2015, 13:44:00"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Textusa , note the irony in my use of "nonsense" and note the wording used by the study "pressure groups", then proceed to read the study if you wish. It is not a brillian piece but it is nteresting.

      "Endorsement" happens when one least expects to see it and not for the best reasons, or at least not for the reasons a decent person would expect.

      Isabel

      Delete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa