Friday, 21 October 2016

The road of no return and apologies

(image from here)
1. The road of no return

We haven’t researched the Ben Needham’s case as well as we have with Maddie’s.

The reason we have dedicated ourselves to Maddie’s case is because of the political, economic, judicial and media powers involved and of the incredible amount of accomplices from all layers of society in obstructing justice and perverting its course, make it absolutely unparalleled in history and certain to never to be matched ever again.

Our quest is for the truth. Nothing but the truth. And if we strive for that for Maddie, we have the exact same desire for Ben Needham.

Up until recently, the 2 cases shared 3 things:

- A British toddler went missing from a Southern European sovereign country: Ben in Kos, Greece and Maddie in Praia da Luz, Algarve;

- The public took a very passionate interest in their cases;

- Both had an especially dedicated British police force dispatched to the towns they went missing from, twice in Ben’s case and once in Maddie’s.

Outside this, as of last month they also started to share what we call a “prospective patsy”.

In the case of Ben, it was a bulldozer driver, Konstantinos Barkas “outed” in the Mirror article of Sept 16, 2016 by Lucy Thornton “Ben Needham investigation breakthrough as cops probe witness claims missing tot was killed” and later confirmed in another article from the same paper on the same day by Tom Parris, Lucy Thornton and Andy Lines “Digger driver at centre of Ben Needham police probe was successful businessman who 'knew everyone on the island'

In the case of Maddie we have had a dying, now deceased, paedo, an arrested one, a pig farmer, an Ocean Club driver, a drug addict and a homeless boy.

All of the above burned at the stake by the Brit tabloids, if we missed any, we apologise.

Even if one of them was or is guilty then all others would have been cruelly slurred without excuse. Is anyone expecting for the tabloid press to learn anything from that? Those who are, please put on your dunce hat and stand in the corner with your back turned to the rest of the class.

One has to wonder why the tabloids don’t pick on people who can afford lawyers. No, one doesn’t have to wonder, because when it comes to justice and more specifically to the Brit libel justice, Orwell grins upon us from the skies with his “all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”. An effective gag that many dictators envy.

Then we also had a deceased water treatment plant worker, Euclides Monteiro.

However Euclides had the peculiarity of having the Brit tabloids insisting that he had been cleared by the PJ. Not that great of a mystery as we explained in our “Person of interest” post.

Outside the above, until last Monday, that’s all they shared. A separate post would be needed if we were to detail differences between the two cases.

As of Monday, they now officially share death.

Scotland Yard says: “Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, in charge of the hunt for Madeleine (…) added that there was a possibility that she had not left her family's holiday apartment alive when she disappeared in May 2007.

(…)

Redwood said the assumption that Madeleine was abducted "may not follow with all our thinking" on the case.”

South Yorkshire police says: “Ben Needham died as a result of an accident”.

In Maddie’s case, Scotland Yard officially thinks Maddie may have not left the apartment alive and in Ben’s case South Yorkshire police states Ben died as a result of an accident near the farmhouse where the family was staying.

But the interesting difference between the 2 cases is what has resulted from the statement that was read in Kos and later published on South Yorkshire’s FB page: South Yorkshire have committed themselves to a thesis and Scotland Yard have yet to do that.

South Yorkshire police has gone down commitment lane.

From their statement on Monday:

“It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.”

(…)

“The recovery of this item [toy car], and its location, further adds to my belief that material was removed from the farmhouse on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared.”

With these words South Yorkshire police have committed themselves to a thesis, one they say they don’t have doubts about: “However, based on the information that I have now, as a result of an extensive and thorough investigation, it is without doubt that the current line of enquiry is the most probable cause for Ben’s disappearance.”

With the above said South Yorkshire police has now to answer the following questions:

- What is the evidence that says Ben died?

- What is the evidence that says that death resulted from an accident?

- In exactly what way did the finding of the toy car made police deduce that Ben died in an accident?

- What exactly was that accident, how did it happened and who exactly was present?

- What exactly were the materials removed from the farmhouse on the day Ben disappeared?

- What exactly were the materials removed from the farmhouse “shortly after the day” Ben disappeared, taking into account that the place would not only be crowded but evidently the centre of all attention?

- What happened to Ben’s body? By whom, from where and when was it taken?

We will be waiting for the answers to these questions specifically.

South Yorkshire police HAS to be able to answer them. They derive from what they have stated as certainties.

South Yorkshire police in Ben’s case has gone down a path from which they can no longer return from.

Please be aware that in no way means that path is one of truth, it just means that they have committed themselves to something and we are waiting to know what it exactly is.

It has to be something. The poker player has now sat at the table and has started to bet. The public want to see the cards. No way back now.

Before telling us off because we are disrespecting the South Yorkshire police officers who have spent the last 3 weeks in Kos, recent history has shown that any action from the British police deserves the highest degree of scepticism.

The Maddie case is very unfortunately just one of many examples why such scepticism is not only due but expected.

In fact, we think Ben Needham is an opportunity for the British police to regain some of the credibility the British authorities are so desperately in need of. All they have to do is present us with the truth, whatever it may be.

Unfortunately, in the same paragraph they said Ben died as a result of an accident DI Cousins from South Yorkshire police, said “My team and I know that machinery, including a large digger, was used to clear an area of land on 24 July 1991, behind the farmhouse that was being renovated by the Needham.”

This makes it seem like the line of inquiry they are about to reveal that they have chosen is in making effective the “prospective patsy”, the Greek bulldozer driver.

(image from here)
A bulldozer is quite a big thing. A noticeable thing. A memorable thing.

A hit and run accident with a bulldozer with the body being picked up and taken is not exactly a fast event nor a discreet one.

Not wanting to get into gruesome details, one would expect that even if body taken, the damages that a bulldozer would cause a body the size of a small toddler – or any other body of any other size for that matter – would leave very evident forensic traces on the ground and we are led to believe the ground was minutely scoured by the authorities and nothing of the sort was found.

People do say the darndest things, one just doesn’t expect for the police to do the same.

We do hope that, IF the option is to stray away from the truth (which we truly hope is not the case and if it is then one will have to ask why), at least one expects that whoever is coming up with the fake storyline is aware that a book has been written on the subject with many, many details about what happened.

Facts are facts. To bend fiction around fact doesn’t make it fact. What it normally does is to make it be the key that opens the Pandora’s Box. That’s what history teaches us all and what so many have refused to learn or think they are able to fool it.

One thing we are witnessing is people failing to see how important the toy car really is.

We will wait to know the specific details of where and how it was found as well as the results of the soil analysis that we are certain has been done.

(image from here)
However we now know one very important fact: it is bright yellow with bright red numbers and paintings. A very visible object.

It would be impossible to think that after 3 weeks of intense and minute searching, an object that colourful not to have been noticed if it was above ground.

3 weeks of searching just in 2016. Add to that the searching done in 1991 and 2012. All with a very fine tooth comb.

The visibility of the object tells us that it was found buried. Those familiar with the Greek hot and dry climate and soil are not surprised why it was so well preserved. If it had been contact with the atmosphere all these years it would have suffered significant erosion.

The fact that it must have been buried raises a lot of interesting points.

First, if we are right, it discards the hypothesis of it having been discarded or dropped accidentally. To have been buried shows intent.

As we don’t think Ben could have buried the car himself, someone else must have done it.

As no one has come forward to say they did it before he went missing, and by now they would have, it means it was buried after he disappeared.

It also means that someone wanted to hide this vestige. Someone who found that being seen with this particular toy would be compromising.

In a hit-and-run-by bulldozer scenario it would mean the person would have taken the body and then return to the crime scene and bury the toy car there.

Let’s first tackle the hypothesis that the criminal returning to the crime scene (very common and feasible) and on his way there finds the toy car had been dropped by Ben when he accidentally killed him.

That alone would have to withstand how such a visible object so near the farmhouse had not been spotted by anyone by then. When searching for the little boy, that yellow toy would be a significant indication of which direction Ben could have gone.

We aren’t seeing how it would be possible for it not to have been seen by searchers but let’s suppose that is what indeed happened.

Upon finding the toy car, in a forensically free location, what does a criminal decide to do? Instead of picking it up and quickly getting away with it as fast and as discreetly as he could from there, he decides to kneel and bury the toy.

With what tools? Hopefully they won’t tell us it was with his bulldozer.

And when people are all around searching for a missing child, a man on his knees digging near the farmhouse is not noticeable? No one, would come up and ask him what he was doing and why?

Nor would the freshly moved earth be noticeable afterwards?

If it wasn’t because the criminal found an accidentally dropped toy and having buried it there and then, it could only be that whoever had Ben’s body decided to return to the crime scene with the car with the intent to bury the toy near the farmhouse. To taunt the family when it would be found many years later?

And is the toy car one of the items removed “on or shortly after the day that Ben disappeared” from the farmhouse?

If so, what was the reason to remove the toy car from the farmhouse?

If not one of the items removed, in what way does the material South Yorkshire police say it was removed fit in with the toy’s burial site?

Maybe, just maybe, Maddie’s bungling burglar is the same man as Ben’s bulldozer toy burier. If not the same fictional character, then the world is starting to have one too many fictional criminals who defy any basic logic and reasoning.

Knowing the Greeks, without strong evidence we wouldn’t advise exploring the bulldozer driver thesis too much.

If anything the Maddie case should have taught the British authorities is that the people from Southern Europe aren’t natives nor should be treated as such. They are nationals in their own country as much as Brits are when in the UK and are as much pleased in seeing foreign police digging up their terrain as any Brit would be if foreign police came to the UK to investigate a crime scene.

Brits should treat nationals in their territory in the exact same way they expect to be treated by foreigners in the UK. The mistake of confusing hospitality and politeness with submission seems to be a common mistake made by British authorities.

How many Brits would accept the Greek police to come digging in a farmhouse in their territory because of a case of a missing Greek boy that the Brit police had been unable to solve for 25 years?

And as a result of that digging on British soil how many Brits would be happy to have a Brit bulldozer driver being accused by the Greek police of accidentally killing that little boy without very solid evidence?

We’re certain that a phrase made up of 3 words (how, dare and they) would fill the papers and airwaves of the Brit media with rightful indignation.

The response from Valantis Barkas, Konstantinos Barka’s son, in the Daily Mail article of Oct 18, 2017, by Nick Fagge “'My beautiful father did NOT kill Ben Needham. Why has his name been dragged through the mud?' Fury of Kos digger driver's son who claims Ben's mother 'should be ashamed'” says it better than anyone.

It’s clear that he’s very willing to fight in his father’s name and for his father’s name.

He’s not the only one not happy about this. People are picking up that this bulldozer story is not a very likely one, much less one that can support minimally any kind of accusation. This is a comment we received yesterday and chose not to publish but preferred to include it in today’s post:

“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The messages":

2001: Documentary / reconstruction of the day by the family, grandfather finds a small child's toy car near farm : Christine , Ben's Grandmother : -"That's not Ben's. He had two toy cars. We never found them, never seen them, or looked for them. I never even thought about it until you just said that."

2012, digs in Kos : "Crucially, they have found the wheels and bonnet of metal Dinky cars Ben was playing with at the time.

Inspector Colin Hope said: “We are clearing the mound. We have been able to excavate down and we are recovering items like old beer cans which have sell-by dates of 1992.

“So we are certainly down to the level we need to be at and beyond.

“We have small parts of what look like tiny, little cars.

“We have found plastic bits of toys, little bits of dolls, from two metres out from the house to 30 metres. Some of those have been taken down and shown to the Needhams.

“They don’t recognise them, but that’s to be expected after the time we are looking at.”

The search is on course to be finished by the end of the week."

2016: Toy car is found that leads SY Police to conclude Ben died in an accident and his death was covered up by a digger operator.

Why now, why only now when this has been a constant in the investigation? Why also, accept it now but not then?

From Kerry's Book "Ben" : PG 84

"It was a blissful afternoon. Those who wanted the sun sat in it and those who didn’t sat in the shade of the trees. And it was so peaceful. Earlier in the day there had been a digger truck transporting rubble from a building renovation at the bottom of the lane to the top. The driver had to pass the farmhouse to dump the hardcore ready to be used to improve the dirt track before driving back down again, kicking up a trail of dust with it’s heavy wheels as it went. But now building work had stopped there for the day, and they were able to eat undisturbed."

Blaming a man who cannot defend himself anymore on no evidence is a despicable act. He may be no longer with us , but he does have a family who is.


 Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 20 Oct 2016, 12:23:00”

One must stress that as far as we know, at this point in time the South Yorkshire police have not explained under what exact circumstances they think Ben died.

They have not yet said it that it was Konstantinos Barkas who did it. They have strongly suggested that’s what they are going to do but they haven’t done that yet.

They have only committed themselves to something and we are waiting to find out what that something exactly is.

The only certainties they have given us is that they think Ben is dead and that he died in an accident.

And if they are determined to follow truth as much as we are then all will make sense, all will be clear, all pieces will fit and all questions will have a quick, transparent and logical answers with no ermms... whatsoever. Truth is unique, raises no questions, leaves no doubts.

On our part we will wait for further details from the police on the case, such as being shown where and under what circumstances the toy car was found (for example, we do want to understand how deep in the ground it was buried), to make any more assessments on this case.

We have only commented about what South Yorkshire police have chosen to tell us when they committed themselves to their theory.

And they do have to say something. Leaving things as they are, without saying anything further, is not only not finding closure as it would make, without a shred of evidence, absolutely no reason and without any fair trial, for the blame to gravitate towards Konstantinos Barkas like metal to a magnet. People would then have to ask why.

That’s exactly what we want Operation Grange to do, to commit themselves to a thesis. They can say it was Superman, a bungling burglar or even the Tooth Fairy who abducted Maddie, we don’t care, we just want them to tell us something and commit themselves to that.

Then, like we are doing with the South Yorkshire police now we will listen attentively and ask the questions we feel we should.

The longer South Yorkshire police come out with the specific details of their theory, the more reasons they give to those who possess a very high propensity to fabricate that things are always fabricated.

Now on Commitment Lane they can go either into Deceit Alley or into Truth Avenue. The choice is theirs.

We won't publish comments on theories about what happened to Ben but we will read comments with interest.

The last thing we would like to highlight from the police’s statement is this:

“The fact that we have not had a direct result during this visit to Kos does not preclude the facts that we know to be true.”

We don’t think we need to expand on this and on how it also relates to the Maddie case.

And talking about noticeable things, isn’t it strange the silence from the McCanns since South Yorkshire police declared Ben dead?




(image from here)
2. Apologies

As we explained in our Oct 14 “The messages” post, the ghoul tours move was a double-barrel shotgun shot in it’s own foot to the other side that really hurt their cause.

Unlike some who pretend they continue to live in some alternate reality bubble, the other side decided to issue an apology.

It came in the form of an article from the Sun on Oct 17, 3 days after our post, written by Antonella Lazzeri who alone is responsible for the redefinition of what a woman of ill-repute is.

Quite the title: “WORLD'S HUNT FOR MADDIE - We reveal the 8,685 ‘sightings’ of Madeleine McCann across 101 countries as desperate parents Kate and Gerry McCann continue search

We think that someone should point out to Antonella, or if it’s not her doing it then to whoever is responsible, that Azores is not a country but an integral part of Portugal. Just like the Canary Islands and Ibiza are a part of Spain.

8,685 is quite a number!

And if one is to go by the subtitle, then one has to feel sorry for Operation Grange: “The Met police has collated reported sightings under Operation Grange, but not all details have been released”

6,865 sightings reported under Operation Grange! Wow!

Operation Grange only opened shop in 2011, so if one takes into account that “sighting fever” happened much before that in the summer of 2007, then how many total reported sightings have there been??

But one just has to go into the 3rd paragraph to see that it wasn’t exactly so: “Many of the sightings were collated by Portuguese cops and stamped “NFA” – No Further Action – as they believed the youngster, left, was dead, compounding the despair of parents Kate and Gerry.”

So not all under Operation Grange then.

The 2007 Maddie sighting summer made the sightings have a credibility of almost zero. We say almost because they still have to earn some points to rise up to that value.

If 1 of those 8,685 sightings was really of Maddie that would mean that 8,684 of them were wrong. A very significant amount of bogus information, even if a good quantity of these sightings could have been well meant and well intentioned, for Operation Grange to lose their time and resources in ruling it out.

We do think the majority of the sightings were to deliberately misinform. Those of us who lived through that summer seriously considered tagging our little daughters and granddaughters with a sticker saying “I’m NOT Maddie”.

And hasn’t Kate McCann dismissed the sightings as ridiculous when she said Maddie wasn’t taken a ‘million miles’ from the Algarve?

The Sun on Feb 15 this year published an article with the title “I’m convinced my Maddie is still in the Algarve despite worldwide sightings, says Kate McCann

And who wrote that article? Not sure if people are familiar with her but it was one Antonella Lazzeri.

So why bring up this ridiculousness now?

Because it makes it seem that Operation Grange has been really busy. A praising article. Or as the Portuguese say “caressing the dog’s fur” to calm it down.

To calm Operation Grange after the stupid ghoul tours blunder.

To be noted is the bit about the McCanns on the headline “as desperate parents Kate and Gerry McCann continue search” especially taking into account that the couple is not mentioned again in the article.

So this was basically a “Well done, Scotland Yard, you’re the greatest of the great!” followed by a whimpering “could you please archive as Gerry and Kate will continue?”

No, Antonella, the McCanns don’t have any money to continue. That has been made very clear.


Even in an apology, Antonella blunders. But then again, when has Antonella done anything right?

Oh, and other side, you having Jim Gamble on Sky TV criticising Theresa May,  doesn’t seem to us to have been the best of ideas:


After all, do you think defiance is the best way to go about things? It does make it seem you really didn’t mean to apologise, doesn’t it?



Post Scriptum:

We recommend that readers view this video on Ben Needhams case made in 2001:

30 comments:

  1. Just going to say "THANK YOU" and leave it at that x

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very delicately written article regarding Ben. And an all round very high dose of intellect and insight.

    ReplyDelete
  3. PART1

    And these we are asked to take as facts:

    The toy car, which you mentioned in your post that has been an issue on 3 different occasions.

    -From never having been thought of again until 2001,
    -To being found in 2012 in police digs,
    -To being found again in 2016.

    Are you kidding me?

    The farm was a building site, it is quite natural that the toy cars (which the family admits , have not looked for them on the day or even after until 10 years later) would have been carried with rubble to any given tip at any given time. Moreover it is not a secret tip. Tips get full and a new debris dumping site must be allocated. A tip so secret it is in plain sight as a digger moving about would be rather the opposite of discreet.
    SHORTS

    Ben Needham’s shorts were hanging on a tree by the kitchen door . The shorts disappeared. Had this scenario of the Digger Driver be true, are we to believe that he :

    1 –Accidentally runs over a child in the immediate area outside the kitchen (bear in mind this is a building site and this is not a house with roof windows or doors) , nobody hears the digger outside involved in a accident ,the Needham’s dog at the property does not bark as he usually does at strangers, and the digger driver then proceeds to:

    1- cleans the area of vestiges of an accident
    2 -Jumps out of the digger and collects the shorts from the tree just outside the kitchen where the family and house owner are
    3 –Jumps back on the digger

    and transports the toddler to :
    a) that site and moves him again later
    b) The other site , half a mile away.

    c) Comes back for the toys? Whatever for? Then the logic would be to bring the toy cars with him there and then.


    Without the dog barking? Without being seen or heard by the family that described Ben going quiet for around 3 minutes? Without being seen by the family who came outside and started looking around farm house? Why would he go back for the shorts or indeed the toy cars? Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. PART 2
    DIGGERS:

    As mentioned in your post, both the documentary and the book there are no mentions of diggers. There is a mention by Stephen in his hypnosis session of a concrete mixing truck, pouring cement on a building site down the road. The book goes as far as to mention that the diggers had stopped working for the day and there was silence and they enjoyed lunch under a tree or in the sun. The same silence, alas, that permitted hearing that Ben had gone quiet.

    ALLEGED CONFESSION:

    It wasn’t so much a confession, but a friend, an anonymous friend, claiming that Dino was sweaty and shaky (well in 40 Degrees who wouldn’t be)
    That during the years he asked him was it possible that he had run over the child WITHOUT knowing , to which he replied NO
    That the last time he asked was it possible he did run over Ben without knowing or noticing he said maybe , maybe it is a POSSIBILITY. . Does this sound like a confession to you? Nor does it to me. What I see is a man tormented by this so called friend asking him repeatedly could he have run over the child without noticing it, and that means in the present or in the future. Without knowledge , not accidentally. That was not the question and there is an abysmal difference.


    And with this flimsy plot an innocent man was blamed, an innocent dead man, who has a family. live on ITV and in the Mirror . I fear we will hear no more in substance to what we heard on the last day of media briefings. This is a crime, although in the UK you cannot libel the dead, do bear in mind that in countries like Greece and Portugal there is such a crime fully contemplated in the law. It is called offending the memory and honour of a deceased person. Which is what the police and the media have done in this sick voyeuristic exercise. Sadly we seem to have come to a point in human nature, where big brother is no longer a show contained in a house with selected people. It has now invaded all areas of life.

    Finally, I totally agree the same that clamoured the innocence of Euclides Monteiro and the other 1001 burglars in Portugal, are now quiet and taking it as a fact that Dino is guilty or saying nothing because it is perceived as wrong. Why the double standards? . Maybe every mean stepsister needs a Cinderella for people to make sense of things. The eternal battle of good and evil.


    ReplyDelete
  5. We would like to inform readers that we have just added a Post Scriptum to the current post, a video of a 2001 documentary which we recommend viewing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mirror: "Dino, who died of cirrhosis last year aged 62"
    Mail (Dino's son's outrage:"Dinos died of cancer last year."
    Remember how Brit scum press pushed that GA was an alcoholic?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have just posted on JFM about the Hypnosis & now seeing it after reading on post on SM & web sleuths has confirmed my gut feelings. Surely the forensic Psychologist picked up on this lads body language?
    I know very little on the BL, only I've only picked up titbits on the subject, off McCann FB groups & the one of Gerry rubbing the side of when asked did he harm his daughter is also seen here.
    I am suspicious of the witness who came forward about the Patsy wanting to claim the €12.500 do wonder if this witness knows the real culprit & split the reward. I also hope the Police find some evidence that connects to the real culprit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Maybe its my ignorance of the details of this case but i have not seen, nor read of, the SY police using any cadaver or blood dogs on this latest dig - have i missed something - are dogs now incredibly unreliable ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did in the 2012 digs. The media did not report did the dogs alert or not .

      However , considering this present site searched in 2016 had an ancient graveyard in it , cadaver dogs probably would not be of much use since they would alert to that.

      Delete
  9. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-37583035

    Soil tests were done at 2nd site before the big trench was dug, to compare with first site

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unpublished Anonymous at 21 Oct 2016, 18:45:00,

    We are are keeping to our statement about not straying into publishing theories whilst the case is ongoing and will wait for the South Yorkshire police to detail their theory.

    Thank you for understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Textusa do you think there is any link to the police publishing their theory on Ben needham and SY nearing the end of operation grange

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 21 Oct 2016, 21:48:00,

      We apologise but prefer not to answer that question at this point in time.

      Thank you for understanding.

      Delete
    2. It is another news coincidence - many that have happened in the past regarding the McCanns and their PR.

      Delete
    3. Unknown,

      Interesting to see you react.

      Interesting to see you react on this particular comment.

      Interesting to see you react on this particular comment, in the way you reacted.

      In all of the above, replace the word "interesting" with "nice" and "very pleasant", and read over and over the various options as many times as you need.

      Delete
  12. That is an interesting question .. I wonder if police have learnt lessons from Op Grange's handling of Maddie case.. and have perhaps decided it is wiser to be more forthright.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This also brings to mind the Scotland Yard dig in Portugal where something of interest was found - although what the item actually was was never disclosed. Something also that had presumably been buried.

    ReplyDelete
  14. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/22/family-of-digger-driver-take-legal-action-against-ben-needhams-m/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3861812/Children-Kos-digger-driver-accused-killing-Ben-Needham-SUE-British-toddler-s-mother-saying-hoped-father-burning-hell.html

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/digger-drivers-family-sue-mother-of-ben-needham-85cwc3cnn

    We knew the Greeks wouldn't keep quiet. They have this tendency to defend their own to the limit. And when they know they're right, then do step aside.

    We would REALLY recommend that some people read this paragraph from current post very attentively: "Facts are facts. To bend fiction around fact doesn’t make it fact. What it normally does is to make it be the key that opens the Pandora’s Box. That’s what history teaches us all and what so many have refused to learn or think they are able to fool it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very interesting paragraph from the Telegraph article:

      "But even if the latest line of inquiry is in fact true, why did the lead investigator come to me at the end of the investigation here to apologise for the inconvenience caused and the reference made to my father's name?"

      So South Yorkshire police apologised to the Barkas' family? It seems to be the case. Interesting.

      Delete
    2. http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2016-10-22/family-lawyer-not-aware-of-legal-proceedings-against-kerry-needham/

      Delete
  15. Ben Needham– ‏@FindBenNeedham

    Statement from Kerry Needhams solicitor @No5Chambers Ian Brownhill. #helpfindben 💙 #BenNeedham

    Following recent reports that legal proceedings have commenced against Kerry Ann Needham, I can confirm that to date no papers have been served on Kerry. Ms Needham has received no pre-action protocol correspondence with regard to any claim or action.

    Ms Needham and her family are at present in a period of reflection but will continue to seek the truth surrounding Ben's disappearance. Those of us assisting the Needham family will continue to do so fearlessly, the overarching aim always being to reunite this family and protect the rights of a mother and her child.

    The overwhelmingly strong support of the British public will no doubt mean that such work will continue as is necessary to uncover the truth as to Ben's disappearance. And, may I take this opportunity to thank the British public on behalf of the Needham family and the Find Ben Needham campaign team.

    Ian Brownhill.
    Barrister
    No5 Chambers (London)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To complement Needham’s Barrister’s statement above, we think this is relevant:

      http://www.itv.com/goodmorningbritain/news/ben-needhams-sister-leigh-anna-we-arent-completely-sure-the-car-is-his

      Ben Needham's sister Leigh-Anna: 'We aren't completely sure the car is his'
      9:27 - 18 OCT 2016
      The sister of missing toddler Ben Needham has brushed off claims by police in Greece that her brother is most likely to have died in a tragic accident on the island of Kos.

      Speaking this morning, following the discovery of a toy car that could have belonged to Ben, Leigh-Anna Needham said: "I still remain hopeful that he's out there.

      "The toy car has been shown to my mum and my grandparents. My nan is only 90 percent sure that it's one that is similar to one Ben had.

      "We can't say for certain that it was Ben's. It could be Ben's, it could also not be Ben's."

      She continued: "Without any remains, I will still have hope that he's out there.

      "I'm sort of half angry they didn't find anything because we were told to prepare for the worst"

      Delete
    2. And also this:

      http://www.hallamfm.co.uk/localnews/leighanna-needham-hopes-brother-ben-is-still-alive/

      Leighanna Needham hopes brother Ben is still alive

      Posted on Friday 21 October 2016

      The sister of missing Sheffield toddler Ben Needham's told Hallam the result of the latest digs on Kos was the "worst possible outcome" for the family.

      Leighanna Needham still has hope that Ben is alive - after he went missing in 1991 on the Greek island.

      South Yorkshire Police announced on Monday they think he was killed by a digger - after they found a toy car thought to be his at one of their dig sites.

      Leighanna has told us

      "We still don't have the answers to a 25 year old nightmare so I think in my eyes this is the certainly the worst outcome."

      "We've fought for this since 1991, we're still no closer to finding out the truth. Its very difficult for us."

      "We were told to obviously prepare for the worst - we imagined that the worst would have been finding Ben's remains but to be honest I actually think that this is the possible worst scenario."

      (…)

      Delete
  16. The UK Police committed themselves to the thesis that Ben Needham died accidentally, but could hardly be more ambiguous about the circumstances of the accident. Plus their credibility was instantly trashed by the media voicing very loudly harsh criticism coming from both families. It looks like a stage.

    ReplyDelete
  17. https://mobile.twitter.com/FindBenNeedham/status/790463963456823296

    Ben Needham – ‏@FindBenNeedham

    Please join us on 29th October 2016 to celebrate Ben's 27th birthday by changing your profile picture for the day
    #helpfindben #BenNeedham
    01:04 - 24 de out de 2016


    There seems to be a clear discrepancy between South Yorkshire police and the Needhams.

    South Yorkshire police seems to have failed, at least until today, to explain to the Needhams why they think Ben has died in an accident.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Without a body how on earth can S.Y.P. state with any certainty that he died from an accident? Absolute agenda driven rubbish.

      Delete
    2. They must know they have committed themselves to it and they have said the accident happened where he was last seen playing. So we have the needham stating both in their book and the documentary that all was quiet around the farmhouse and that the digger had stopped for the day when he disappeared. We have the policeman saying the accident happened at the time they said he disappeared. Like the McCann case whoever caused the accident knew that they couldn't deliver the body up for examination. The question as with the McCanns WHY

      Delete
    3. It is worth noting that every single e-mail, internet search entry, SMS message etc. is all stored by a certain agency in the Cheltenham area.

      While none of those items can be theoretically accessed, and importantly, used in a Court nor to take operational decisions in other agencies -- they can indeed me accessed by some people, even if no one will ever acknowledge this or record this.

      That information may well be then, theoretically, be used to tip off an investigating agency to save money and time in a particular case -- because if you cannot prove something happened, but have information indicating that it did -- and the said information has been acted upon but did not bring about further advancement in the case -- you might as well bring the whole thing to an end.

      That of course, can be very frustrating, for investigatory agencies and of course, those who provided said information. Yet that is the legal framework that the country operates under.

      The above, may or may not, explain things and the 'accident' conclusion -- with no blame attributed directly.

      Delete
  18. Thanks for writing an interesting blog on the case. Although I strongly disagreed with you airing the swinging narrative, which in my view over complicated the basic facts of the case, and made it easier for the McCanns to ridicule their critics, I believe that you are actually correct in much of your analysis about the key event of the entire mystery: the accident.

    I'd like to thank you for the positive attitude you have taken to the current investigation, because in essence, to do otherwise is to invalidate the work of lots of hard working men and women who have, no doubt, had to painstakingly close off 1000 avenues of potential defence that were patently nonsense. Unlike others, you have not demeaned the men and women on both sides of the continent who have had to put in that work.

    Let's hope that NYS and the Portuguese justice system can bring this case to a resolution. If not, what will remain is a JoBenet Ramsay state of affairs: a set of indisputable facts that point to guilt in one direction only.

    All the best for the future! G.

    ReplyDelete

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