Madeleine McCann: Bugalugs Reconsidered

reply to post by Millions

Earlier I suggested that you check out the thread Madeleine McCann: Vector Addition on the subject of UK government involvement in the case, but another thread, Madeleine McCann: Scotland Yard Opens "Formal Investigation", has quite a bit of detail on this on the following page,

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I have been intrigued by this case from day one. Initially the press were very critical of the press often accusing the parents of neglect. I was a member on a press online forum (the daily mail i think) that was very critical then overnight the forum was axed without any explanation and gradually the press became more and more pro Mc cann to the point now it is seen as almost immoral to criticize the parents.

From a personal point i can say that Gerry is a most unpleasant man.shortly before the disappearance he treated my father at Leicester Glenfield hospital where he was critically ill i aproached him and asked what my dad`s chances were he cruelly dismissed me with "no chance" (thankfully he is still with us today)

I have always thought this has something to do with the shadowy Common Purpose organisation that the Mc canns an my leading politicians (including the then prime minister) were members of. At the time the Wikipedia article on Common Purpose contained many criticisms and conspiracy theories, it now says its just a benign charity

reply to post by dashdespatch

You are the second person to mention "Common Purpose" in connection with this case, that I have come across.

There is definitely an important political dimension to this case.

In discussing the case I tend to confine myself to the ingredients of proof of innocence or guilt, but there is no doubt that there is a sort of "meta story" that exists in the background, untold.

On the mccannfiles.com website, the UK press phone hacking scandal that swept over Murdoch tabloids, was followed closely. Kate and Jerry McCann gave testimony at the inquiry along with other "celebrities" from the entertainment industry, who were alleged to have had their privacy invaded by phone hacking reporters.

The press came out of it looking very bad and celebrities seem to have been acknowledged to have suffered genuine infringements on their privacy amounting to violations of the law.

I didn't really follow the inquiry because I didn't have the energy to do so and because it seemed tangential to my main interest, which was the Madeleine McCann case proper.

However, this thread is about phone calls made from Portugal to political figures in the UK the night Madeleine disappeared. Have these phone calls been thoroughly investigated? The police have looked at thousands of calls in connection to their pursuit of a gang of burglars operating in the vicinity of Praia da Luz that night, but have they looked at calls in the UK?

It is interesting that Kate and Jerry appeared as prominent members of a group of people using the government to battle the press over phone hacking. This topic of surveillance of the telephone use of celebrities has got to be touchy in the UK. Is there a "chill" on investigating this part of the Madeleine story on British soil?

Wouldn't some of the tabloid press be delighted, if by turning over a rock at home among the telephone records of calls made to and from the UK and Portugal on May 3, 2007, they turned up information pertinent to an investigation related to one of the parties who shellacked them over phone hacking? An opportunity to get back some of their own self esteem?

Interesting that someone should mention the phone traffic from Portugal that night as there seems to be a suggestion that the child's disappearance was an unfortunate coincidence that overlapped into other areas and that, the drawing of threads together was never going to be allowed.

In short and this is so convoluted it's not easy to totally grasp even now. The Mccanns were staying in roughly the same area that a known suspected major player in paedophile activities in Britain had fled to and contemporary to the Mccanns trip to Portugal a friend of said suspected paedophile, had chosen to visit as well. The resident suspected paedophile had left Britain in the wake some investigations that had taken place and been covered up. They had moved to Portugal after they them self or someone had suggested it would be "Better for their health" were they to do so. It is suspected that, this person was being observed not only by Portuguese police rather also the British security forces were keeping their eye on them. It is said that the suspected paedophile was British security "asset" rather than, under actual investigation. It is also believed that, said suspected paedophile was also a subject of interest for the Murdoch mob and that they were attempting to hack his phone in order to try and glean information about certain powerful people believed to have been involved in other illegal activities involving various sexual proclivities.

It would seem that, the suspected Paedophile was making regular calls to someone connected to the British embassy in Portugal and therefore it became of interest to Murdoch and co as to this person's interests. Were they merely a friend, innocent of all knowledge of the suspected paedophiles' activities or were they, in effect, their "control"? Murdoch's cronies then bugged the phone line to the British embassy and it was here they were alerted about the Mccann's story and it is suggested they also were party to a conversation about the British embassy official's "unofficial view" of what happened that night at the Mccann's apartment. On hearing this, Murdoch's mob immediately decided to hack the Mccann's phones and record every single call they made on those phones for some months.

Only they now had one huge problem, as it happened abroad and as the Mccann's friends were saying nothing, to print any of what they thought they knew, would serve to show quite conclusively they must have been hacking the Mccann's phones.

Now, this is where it really starts to become very very murky indeed. Some believe that, at this point in the proceedings that, British security stepped in and in order to protect their suspected paedophile "asset" said that, they wanted no mention of paedophiles and Maddie made in the press. Hence. the whole palaver about child kidnap gangs and still being alive and brought up as someone else's child etc. In other words, mentioning paedophilia would mean their "asset" would be fingered and probably chased by the press with almost immediate effect.

What nobody knows is, what exactly the contents of the original hacked phone calls from the British embassy about the Mccann's case was. Furthermore, it didn't help one iota when the story about Gerry and his friend's seemingly very inappropriate language with regards to young children, was made public.

At this point it is worth remembering something that had appeared on-line contemporary to Maddie's vanishing act. it was the same time frame that stories began to circulate that, Britain's involvement in the second Gulf War was , in part, prompted by the CIA telling Blair straight to his face that. "Should Britain not become involved, it would be very unfortunate if stories about the various sexual proclivities of politicians of all parties and some other establishment figures should find their way into the press".

So, we have child disappear in seemingly mysterious circumstances nearby to where one of Britain's security assets, who was suspected of being a "predatory paedophile" was living. By the time it became apparent that, the Mccann's testimony threw up way more questions than they answered and that the finger of accusation was most definitely turning towards them it was too late. In their haste to protect their security asset from exposure they had, in effect let the Mccann's off the hook and they were unable to back track without having to answer some very embarrassing questions about why they were seemingly, so clueless , in the immediate aftermath of Maddie's disappearance.

it has also been mooted in some of the more "out there" parts of the blogosphere that, the Mcann's holiday to Portugal was not the innocent family holiday it has been made out to be and that, off camera, at least one forensic psychologist has privately ventured the opinion that. On the evidence that has found its' way into the public realm in the ensuing months and years that, at least one person in the Mccann's party was/is prone to indulging in "inappropriate sexual activities".

To try and sum up then... Maddie, as was the initial investigation, was the victim of a totally coincidental set of circumstances that contrived to allow the Mccann's "off the hook" as it were and that. Once the ball had started rolling there was no real going back without exposing the fact that, the initial investigation into a child's disappearance had been hamstrung and wrecked, for purely politically expedient reasons. By the time they realised that... "Oh crap, she probably wasn't kidnapped for nefarious purposes rather, the victim of some domestic "accident"....and that, their security asset was never likely to be exposed by a proper investigation into Maddie's disappearance it was too late. The Mccann's had wormed their way into the media's affections on their own terms and were, to all intents and purposes, unassailable, without severe political repercussions and fall out.

Meanwhile, Murdoch used his knowledge of hacked calls from all the parties concerned to help ensure that, the Levenson enquiry and any subsequent trials for criminal offences, would not fall at his door personally rather, land on his subordinates' heads.

My apologies for the totally labyrinthine nature of this post however, the "security asset" and their presence in the area at the time of Maddie's disappearance has been posted on-line by several well known bloggers whose primary interest is in spheres not really allied to that of the Mccann investigation. Furthermore, records do show that that person was in Portugal at the time and since then that, around the time of Maddie's disappearance another person visited them whose own reputation was , decidedly murky, shall we say?

By no means am I saying this is a definitive answer however, it does account for a hell of a lot of what seemed to go "wrong" on so many levels and let's be honest, it's a darn sight more credible than some of the utter piffle the Mccanns have totted out down the years.

I have followed this story and investigation since day one!! A very interesting case of cross country disputes and police accusing police etc.

However, in MY opinion I do not trust a word of that horrible woman Kate Mccann every poorly acted sentence was false. And Gerry is not a nice man by all accounts.

I firmly believe with the evidence WE have been presented the parents are behind it either intentionally or accidentally.

a reply to: FireMoon

What you say is quite intriguing. I'd like to read more about it in the blogs you mention. Can you supply links to your sources on this angle of the story?

Broadly speaking though, I agree that this story has concentric layers. People on the different rings of the story seem to interpret evidence and actions from a completely different set of axioms from one another and are, accordingly, mutually unintelligible to one another. That is why, depending on one's perspective, so much of the story doesn't make sense.

Anyway, thanks for the interesting response.

Why cant people get it!

She dead!

Either:
1) Her mom accidentally killed her and they covered it up and using the whole search thing as a cover

2) She was kidnapped, raped silly killed and dumped in a River/Sea/ Shallow grave and is so decomposed now you will never find her.

Instead of wasting valuable resources on her, use them on a recently missing kid that does have a chance!

Flip I bet if she had been a poor black kid it never would have even made the news!

originally posted by: crazyewok
Why cant people get it!
Instead of wasting valuable resources on her, use them on a recently missing kid that does have a chance!

Very good idea, but it's not being done. Normally, this case would have been put in a "cold case" file to await some lucky random development or some unexpected break in the case like a witness deciding to spill a bean or two.

The reasons why the case is being kept open are as intriguing as the original circumstances of the case. Very strange but that's the way it is.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Sadly, several of the most interesting bloggers that have touched on this subject have all been subject to a series of attacks on their websites over the past year and their archives have all either vanished or, have been squirrelled away to a safe place. I believe that, one of the two suspected of being present in the area at the time has now killed them self after being well and truly busted in Thailand.

This story from the Mirror is essentially, long after the fact, what was known contemporaneously to Maddie's disappearance. It's been "sexed up" for whatever reason there was, as far as I know, just one known paedophile living close by to the Mccanns

www.mirror.co.uk...

I'm not a huge fan of Chris Spivey's site however, a search on his blog might well turn up something more concrete, he certainly did name the "known paedophile" quite some time ago. Again though, Spivey's site is subject to regular hacking so his archive might well be incomplete. David/Dave Reid is the name of the bloke who was living nearby, just out of interest, trying to dig up some links for you has crashed my browser twice, good job I'm not paranoid...

a reply to: ipsedixit

The dateline of this story is 12:01AM BST 04 May 2007. In Portugal the time would have been the same 12:01 AM, because that country is in the same timezone as the UK.

I know this is an old thread, but I just wanted to point out that this 12:01AM time stamp is very likely a red herring.

News agency stories that aren't added to the website immediately, or are edited later and reposted, are often "backdated" to the default time stamp on the CMS, which is generally 12:01AM on the day in question. I'm pretty sure this is the case here.

Just to back up what I am saying here: do a Google search for "12:01AM" site:telegraph.co.uk and you get 280,000 results.

Try any other random time (other than exactly midnight) and you get far, far fewer results:

12:00AM: 548,000 results
12:01AM: 280,000 results
12:02AM: 31,000 results
1:03AM: 287 results
4:43AM: 30 results
12:01PM: 8,750 results
6:12PM: 3,000 results
11:59PM: 2,120 results

Obviously lots of pre-prepared articles are scheduled to "go live" at exactly midnight, which skews the figures here, but there are lots of 12:01AM articles too, which is often the time stamp for agency press releases. I cannot say for certain, but I am pretty sure (based on my experience with newspapers and media agencies) that this 12:01AM time stamp is just a default.


In short, that article was likely NOT posted at 12:01AM on May 4, so it shouldn't be used as evidence in any theory unless it can be independently corroborated.

Superb thread