17 Comments

Just a word to the wise

Ms Brown I still see that you are tweeting about the McCanns and that you are now blabbering on about statistics. Well just so that you don’t keep making a complete and utter tit of your yourself I found the tweet where the Attorney General Jose Magalhaes e Menezes took the stand and testified under oath.

Now so that you know, as you seen to have come late into the case and jumped in with both feet and landed firmly on your ass.  This hearing was in January 2010 where Goncalo Amaral was appealing about his book being banned and it has nothing to do with the actual libel trial which is due to be heard in February 2012

You first of all tweeted this tweet:

I don’t think there is any mention of stats being mentioned at all by the McCanns about Madeleine being alive.  They have said consistently from day one there is no proof she is dead and therefore she is still a findable living child as far as they are concerned.

The stats however were mentioned, as I said above, when Jondi Paolo tweeted this from the Lisbon court

As as you are a late starter, before you go jetting off to Portugal perhaps you would like to read what Ricardo Paiva said under oath.   And no I can’t find any other tweet where Jondi Paolo said he tweeted that in error and I can’t find anything on Sky News site retracting that tweet.

So when it comes to who do I believe over the stats issue, you dip out again as I think the Attorney General has seen, read, heard and comprehended far more than you ever will with regards to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

And on another note, I see someone caved in yet again.  Now where was his gumption, his bottle and courage to stand up and fight and show this cast-iron evidence proving his allegations were true and not libellous.  Oh well at least the Find Madeleine Fund is better off… teach you Bennett, I bet that leaves hell of a bitter taste in your mouth, your money going to the Find Madeleine Fund… good.

Mind you I do have to laugh, one minute he is crowing that the Forum he is on is the number one Public Forum discussing the Madeleine Case and next in front of Judge it is:

d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request

Well it might have been originally posted on a Small Internet Forum (as you now claim and not as previously stated – screenshot and link) but it has spread to well-known forums and blogs.  I don’t think Sky blogs can be classed as small or insignificant, do you?

Bon Voyage, as I take it you both will be leaving the internet scene after these latest fiascos to be added to the various others you both have made.

Advertisements

17 comments on “Just a word to the wise

  1. Madeleine, your parents love you so much. You’re a smart kid, find a way to let someone know where you are. 

  2. What I’ve found with people like Brown is that if they say it’s true, it’s true. Even if someone can prove they are wrong. Brown doesn’t give one iota about the truth. That’s why when she starts spouting off about the “truth”, I roll my eyes. Brown and the truth are no where near each other. The woman is a known liar and to top it off, she’s no better than a psychic. She uses vague terms and stereotypes to do her profiling. 

  3. Morning, Oh I love this, what has been tweeted… Looks like the FBI are not impressed about self-taught experts.

    http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder

  4. Hi Bren

    I still think JondiPaulo made a mistake in that tweet, although I don’t recall a correction. 

    The BBC seems to say the opposite.

    “Another witness, Ricardo Paiva, the Portuguese detective who acted as a liaison officer for the McCanns, said he did not feel the inquiry had been damaged by police considering the theory Madeleine may have died.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8454431.stm

  5. Morning Carana, yes it does, but the Daily Mail reports exactly what Jondi Paolo tweeted.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1242716/Madeleine-McCann-dead-abduction-faked-say-Portuguese-police.html#ixzz0eE2MVv4m

    A second officer, Ricardo Paiva, said Portuguese police were suspicious of the couple’s ‘merchandising’ operation in the months after Maddie disappeared. The Madeleine Fund they set up sold wristbands and T-shirts publicising the case and used the money to support the search. 

    Mr Paiva said they should have faced prosecution for leaving their children alone, saying: ‘People have been arrested for far less – even in the UK.’

    He admitted that Mr Amaral’s conviction about the McCanns’ involvement had stopped police from investigating other theories.

  6. Trying to follow the logic and I’m having a bit of trouble with so-called statistics.

    To change the scenario:

    X is a plumber, with 4 children, 3 dogs, 2 cats, 6 ft tall with blond hair and black eyes, no suspicious history, no major debts. 

    X disappears in a foreign country. 

    “Statistics” from a particular country show that very few missing people corresponding to that description have ever appeared on a particular country’s database and even fewer have been found alive more than 3 days after the alleged disappearance.

    Therefore, X is dead. Don’t bother searching.

  7. Carana, I can never follow that woman’s logic.  Statistics points to the law of averages, in most cases, or if x and y happen then z could happen.  They are not facts.  She seems to me to twist words and facts to suit her agenda.  

    There have been many cases where children have been found many years after disappearing and they have been found alive.  Did the parents give up hope? No.

    I read a comment today somewhere where it stated something like “There is no reason for carjackers to take a child.”  Think it was discussing the disappearance of Bianca Jones. You only have to search a search of car stolen with baby inside to see how many there are

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/denver-nanny-carjacked-wi_n_1094688.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-99848/I-heard-children-scream-carjackers-took-them.html

    http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/vallejo-carjackers-abandon-stolen-car-and-child/nD64Y/

    Of course there is no reason, except they want to take the car as quick as they can and don’t want to get caught.  So why do they make these statements?  Especially when they can easily be disproved.  So the father could have been speaking the truth he was carjacked, but let’s hope that they find the little girl soon.

  8. Hi Bren

    I wonder just how far one can extrapolate statistics from one country to another, let alone profiles of potential criminals.

    Just an example from a US study of child abduction killers:

    “Oddly enough, 34 percent of these male killers who average 27 years old, are
    still living with their parents, which in a broader sense, could qualify them as loners…”

    p. 13

    http://findthekids.org/pdf/casemanag.pdf

    This may seem odd In a society in which offspring tend (or are encouraged) to leave home at a relatively early age, but that is not true everywhere. In other cultures, quite substantial percentages of young people between 18 and 34 years continue to live with their parents and this is not equated with being a “loner”. 

    In Portugal, around 63-64% of Portuguese young men (18-34 years) continue to live with their parents, according to the 2008 European demographic statistical analysis below. Italy and Spain also have roughly similar proportions. I haven’t searched for similar demographic statistics on other continents, but the interplay of social, cultural and economic factors would appear to be quite simply different, not odd. 

    Fig. 2, p. 2.

    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-10-050/EN/KS-SF-10-050-EN.PDF

    NonParental abductions may indeed be rare in Portugal, thankfully, and so a study of such statistics may not exist. However, I would be interested in finding a study of southern European countries correlating criminal behaviour to criteria pertinent in their countries.

  9. José Cunha de Magalhães e Menezes is a magistrate, a prosecutor not a general attorney. He is the prosecutor for the district of Portimão (Circulo Judicial de Portimão) since 1996 http://www.pgr.pt/Noticias/comunicados_imprensa/2007/nota11.html. The Portuguese attorney general’s ( Procurador-geral da República) name is  Fernando José Matos Pinto Monteiro since 2006 http://www.pgr.pt/grupo_historia/procuradores/pinto_monteiro.html The general deputy district attorney for the Court of Évora is Luís Armando Bilro Verão http://www.tre.pt/tribunal/minipublico.html. Get your facts right.

    • Oh my sincere apologies, well whatever he is, it doesn’t alter the archiving dispatch and his conclusions does it?

      There is NO evidence to say that the McCanns committed any crimes or involved in happened  with regards to the disappearance of their daughter.

      • You seem to want to dismiss the conclusions made by the NPIA’S Lee Rainbow: “Madeleine’s father was the last one to see her alive. The family is a
        lead that should be followed. Contradictions in Gerald McCann’s
        statements might lead us to suspect a homicide”. Prosecutor José Magalhães e Menezes said in Court that Madeleine’s chances to be dead or alive were 50%/50%. Several of the police forces and experts who worked on the case (not the McCanns rent-a-cops nor their dodgy detectives) also agree that Homicide or an accidental murder with a subsequent cadaver occultation are the strongest hypothesis.

        And from the archiving dispatch that you quote, you cannot simply infer the McCann’s absolute innocence or that they were “cleared”:

        About the Interest of the Reconstitution

        Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos’ and
        witnesses’ statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction
        or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the
        “reconstitution of the fact”, a diligence that is consecrated in article
        150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the
        very location of the facts, the following very important details, among
        others:

        1 – The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner,
        Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person
        walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed
        suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that
        neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged
        abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the
        area;

        2 – The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine
        slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It
        seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement
        of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned,
        which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;

        3 – The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking
        on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it
        is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the
        arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite
        conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the
        posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window
        with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only
        pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position
        (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

        4 – What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7
        p.m. – the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her
        apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or
        siblings – and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate
        Healy – at around 10 p.m.;

        5 – The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of
        evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of
        contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as
        possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers,
        and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist
        concerning the innocence of the missing [child’s] parents.

        In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the
        norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the
        witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively
        appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that
        since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

        Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to
        render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the
        many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of
        their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which
        rendered the diligence inviable.

        We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who
        lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were
        constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the
        investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain
        unclarified.”

        in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS – Volume XVII – pages 4636-4638 (Public Prosecutor’s Archiving Dispatch)

  10. And you seem to be forgetting what Lee Rainbow actually said:

    “The potential involvement of the family in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot be discarded, and it can be considered that, when pondering the basis for research, this hypothesis deserves as much attention as the criminal with sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised.
     
    “It should be stressed that there is no evidence to directly support an involvement of the family, yet given the absence of decisive evidence to prove the contrary, such a scenario has to be explored.” At court last week, Mr Amaral’s lawyer, Antonio Cabrita, read out a section of 37-year-old Mr Rainbow’s report which said: “The family is a lead that should be followed.”

    You speak about the draft and the window being open etc. so please could you enlighten me exactly how the PJ were going to enforce the exact same weather conditions as there was on the night of the 3rd May 2007.

    I can fully understand the reluctance of the Tapas members on returning to Portugal especially after they had witnessed what Kate and Gerry McCann had to endure.  

    Perhaps you would care to explain why Goncalo Amaral and the PJ Team REFUSED to do a reconstruction in May 2007 when it would have been most beneficial to finding Madeleine?

    I have checked the files, and I can’t find the full report from Lee Rainbow, would you care to show me exactly where it is, and perhaps explain how Amarals lawyer got hold of a copy? Because when he was representing Goncalo Amaral in Lisbon in January 2010 as far as I remember Goncalo Amaral was a civilian and therefore would have been only entitled to having the same case files as that are available to you and me.

  11. Interesting, over 2 weeks since you asked him the above questions, Bren, and silence seems to be the stern reply.  Actually, I have noticed that when ‘faced off’ over their claims etc people like that poster usually fail to respond.  I should, I suppose, allow for the Festive Season to be over, but since many tweeters were posting up nastiness even on Christmas Day perhaps I should decide not to  allow for time spent drunk or fighting in pubs?

  12. Graham, I switched my phone on, on Christmas Day to make a quick call to a friend and it started to load up the tweets and all I saw was abuse again.. Can’t these people give it a rest for one day?  Or did Santa deliver them a whole brand spanking new pitch-fork and they had to try it out?

    As for answering the questions, I don’t think we will ever get those answers, I suspect it would be too incriminating for someone if they did answer.

    • Well, I am very glad to say I don’t tweet, or facebook or anything like that.  So sad, I mean isn’t Christmas Day supposed to be a time for ‘peace and Goodwill to All Men’ or is that April 1st?   I hope you had a good Christmas and would like to wish you, slightly ahead of time, a Very Happy New Year.

      • Yes we had a lovely Christmas, and A Happy New Year to you and yours, Graham.  

        ‘Time for Goodwill to all men’? Some of them wouldn’t know Goodwill if it jumped up and slapped them in the face. 

        That is the problem with phones nowadays, you get twitter loaded automatically, well I do because I don’t know how to stop it loading twitter (lol – you need instructions to read the instructions on this phone, yet alone operate it).I just made my call and did about two tweets since Christmas, one wishing someone a Merry Christmas and another retweet of a Keir Simmons tweet who tweeted about Sue Carroll’s death.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: