An Old DELETED Article

Hi All Our Friends And BEST WISHES TO YOU!

Here is a Wee Gift, Courtesy of Kathie:

skip to main | skip to sidebar

Amaral CAN Speak!

Nothing but facts. Read for yourselves. Then decide whether Dr Amaral's book should have been banned.

Saturday, 20 March 2010

The Article That Team McCann Didn't Want You To Read

This article appeared, very briefly, in the UK Daily Express in September 2007. It was very quickly removed, and all traces of it erased from the DE Website. Forunately, a saved copy has since been discovered.

Just why is this article so "dangerous"?

’MCCANNS ARE LYING’
24th September
Madeleine McCann
Monday September 24,2007
By David Pilditch and Martin Evans in Praia da Luz

Portuguese police believe Gerry and Kate McCann are using friends to hide their role in killing Madeleine.The Daily Express can reveal that their seven holiday friends may now be named as suspects as police believe they are hiding the truth about Madeleine’s death.The dramatic move comes as it was reported that former chief suspect Robert Murat is to be told he will not face charges over the four-year-old’s disappearance. Ruling him out of the four-month investigation will leave Kate and Gerry McCann as the sole suspects.

Last night police sources said the decision could have a devastating impact on the McCanns’ defence. In an astonishing twist, British expat Murat could be used as a key prosecution witness against the McCanns. Almost the entire police case against Murat was built on evidence from the couple’s holiday friends.

Investigators believe the McCanns “cooked up a story” that Madeleine had been kidnapped to throw them off the trail and enlisted members of their party to provide them with an alibi. They also believe the group tried to turn the focus of the investigation towards Murat.

Yesterday it was revealed that police are questioning new witnesses who cast doubts over the evidence of members of the holiday group.The McCanns and their friends told how they took turns to check on their children every 30 minutes as they ate at a tapas restaurant on May 3, the night Madeleine vanished.

But one Portuguese newspaper reported that employees at the restaurant insisted that only Dr Russell O’Brien, 36, and hospital consultant Matthew Oldfield, 37, left the dinner table that evening. Another witness has come forward to refute the testimony of a third friend Jane Tanner, 36, who told police she saw a man carrying a child rushing from the Ocean Club complex at around 9.15pm on May 3.

Yesterday it was reported in Portugal that a new witness, an unnamed Irishman, told police he was in the same spot as Miss Tanner at the same time and saw no one. He is the second independent witness to dispute her story and police sources said they viewed Miss Tanner’s evidence as “unreliable” because of inconsistencies. Officers are concerned that she apparently changed her version of the sighting.She originally claimed she saw the suspect rushing towards the Baptista supermarket in Praia da Luz. She told police the child was wrapped in a blanket. A second independent witness reported seeing a similar man with a child in a blanket near the town’s church heading towards the beach. The route he took matches the alleged trail of death discovered by British sniffer dogs who detected the scent of a corpse. But Miss Tanner has now told detectives that the man was heading in a different direction – towards Murat’s home. Police regard her account as one of a series given by the McCanns and their friends to convince them that Madeleine had been kidnapped.

Officers believe former hospital anaesthetist Kate, 39, killed her daughter by accidentally giving her an overdose of sleeping pills. They are working on the theory that consultant cardiologist Gerry, also 39, helped to dispose of Madeleine’s body. Police are awaiting results of toxicology tests carried out on bodily fluids with an 88 per cent match to Madeleine’s DNA found in the boot of a hire car the couple rented 25 days after she went missing.

Dr O’Brien, along with Mr Oldfield’s wife Rachael, 36, and another friend Dr Fiona Payne, 34, said they saw Murat near the McCanns’ apartment on May 3 and their claim appeared to shatter Murat’s alibi.Detectives interrogated the McCanns at police headquarters in Portimao 17 days ago over the discrepancies. The couple were told separately later that day they were being named as suspects or arguidos.

Last night another member of the McCanns’ holiday party was reported to have stepped into the mystery. The move came after it was revealed that police in Portugal were focusing their investigation on a “lost seven hours” on the day Madeleine disappeared.Now Dr Payne’s husband – medical researcher David, 41 – has claimed he saw Madeleine being put to bed when he visited the McCann flat at 7pm. Before his new testimony, police sources admitted they could not confirm the whereabouts of Kate and Madeleine after 1.29pm that day. Kate’s movements were said to be unaccounted for until she sat down to have dinner with Gerry and their friends at around 8.40pm.

But the McCanns believe Mr Payne’s testimony will be crucial in proving their innocence. That would leave just an hour and a half in which they were supposed to have killed their daughter and disposed of her body. But last night a source in Portugal said police were viewing alibis provided by the McCanns’ friends with suspicion. They are convinced that some or all of them may have known what happened to Madeleine and may have helped to cover up her death. The source said police had not ruled out the possibility of naming them all as suspects – and they could face being charged as accessories.

The source said: “It has long been considered a number of people may have been involved in this unfortunate case.”In Portugal yesterday it was revealed that detectives have seized a British police manual from the McCanns.Officers believe the book could be used as a key piece of evidence in building a case against them.A Portuguese police source said: “It is certainly not the sort of reading material you would expect a couple to take on a relaxing family holiday".

Link:  http://gasparstatements.blogspot.com/2010/03/article-that-team-mccann-didnt-want-you.html

Transcription Of The Leveson Enquiry [McCanns' Input]

 First of ALL, MANY, MANY THANKS to the Kind Soul(s) who HAVE taken of their Own TIME to perform this REMARKABLE Work! What a Task, it did take You (as as many People it took) a LOT of Hours, and I can't believe that You did it in such a short time - so once again, my admiration goes on to YOU, dear Soul - and to your Aid(s), if it was the case. Intelligent People always work hard when they feel they need to. And I would love to shake Your Hand(s)!

Here is Your Transcription that I have copied from this outstanding Site, the www.mccannfiles.com
:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id385.html

23rd November 2011. Please click on "Read More" for the full transcript.

Transcript of afternoon session (pages 1-40), 23 November 2011 Transcript of afternoon session (pages 1-40) Leveson Inquiry November 23 2011

Mother Goose Flew To The Rescue - that was close, wasn't it?

Leveson Inquiry Part 1 of 3 - Kate and Gerry McCann - November 23rd 2011 (Unedited)

And, in THEIR SELECTED words from the VERY CAREFUL and OBEDIENT BBC, since these broadcast the Show today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15860071

Is it only legal that two main participants in an ONGOING investigation should be "giving evidence" regarding a topic, Ethics in the media, which they already have dealt with in the past, anyway?

I won't feed their habit and dependence (and I could even say addiction) to claim against, show up and sue whomever they do not agree with - preferably the people who do not believe their theory of abduction, and show grounds and even facts for it- so I won't waste my time in a full analysis of this laughable performance. However one point that did strike me was when he or she came out with the memory of, freshly coming back from Algarve, they had camera-men from some media houses BANGING AT THEIR WINDOWS, and this TERRIFIED the Twins... What is really terrifying for a Child of that age then is being left on their own in a foreign flat and waking up to see... emptiness, and what else they could have seen, felt, experienced... ALONE, UNATTENDED!

(One could always wonder why in a room that provides the security of their parents in a familiar environment, a knock at the windows would be 'terrifying'... or perhaps it was a case of dining in the back-garden once again? - One can also wonder which account of the truth is the true one in any story we are told.)

Another wow moment was to witness this close correlation between Leveson and McCann. Perks, corner looks, smirks all over... and finally this lovingly protective gesture that Leveson strongly demonstrated, tenderly and firmly, like a mother goose who would extend its wing to show the world that nobody will be allowed to go near its Babies! - see the very end part of the "Show". Nobody is allowed to ask ONE question! Twice it was attempted to be expressed but... I can't even write its content as Mother Goose has proven her abilities to shut anyone who could have a point in criticising younger ones of her own kind.

Ehhhh.... just another one to add to my collection on my Circus At The Comedy Central series. "Madeleine" starts getting used to it. It was THEIR holiday too!

Follow us here too: WORDPRESS

http://losingmarketingploy.wordpress.com/


http://losingmarketingploy.wordpress.com/



http://losingmarketingploy.wordpress.com/

-where no trouble about publishing or commenting occur, ever! See you there too! I blog in a world where conventions often overtake the sense of... commonsense...

Just Another MACHINATION By This Government

" http://mrmorsals.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-london-lose-plot-over-riots.html

Sunday, 30 October 2011

Did London lose the plot over the riots?

I am absolutely disgusted with the public of this country regarding the London riots, no I’m not suggesting that the public is a bunch of criminal scum as some of the papers might like to suggest, but that the reaction to what occurred is what disappoints and disgusts me.

A reaction to what in my opinion was a manufactured for public consumption, controlled, false flag event.
The public responded by agreeing with every piece of propaganda that was fed to them from morning to night and regurgitated so obediently the key statements that were so carefully chosen and delivered by selected popular pundits that those behind this must have been wetting themselves.

I’m not claiming that the event that was supposed to have initiated the riots, the unfortunate killing of a man in what was termed a “deprived neighbourhood” was staged, not at all, simply that the event was high jacked for some other purpose - Call it a gift, for those that needed a catalysing event to kick off their own project.

I saw again during those so called riots what is now becoming a familiar trademark at such events, and that was that as the film crews following the proceedings got up close and personal with the “rioters”, (individuals dressed in black with the now common Balaclava helmets)while the police stood by in what seemed a relaxed manor and within spitting distance of a very small number of perpetrators as they smashed windows and generally did as much random damage as they could, presumably playing up to the cameras, while these policemen who might not have actually been real policemen, made no attempt to intervene.

Does anybody question anything anymore? Bearing in mind that history is full of examples where a government found it politically useful to lie to the public and the fact that modern governments spend millions of pounds of our money on spin doctors and media campaigns to engineer public perception and opinion, there is apparently precious little concern that what we are being told by those who we are conditioned to trust may not actually be completely true and accurate.

Apart from the political mileage that was made thereafter in the press and popular media, let’s face it, anyone who thinks they are someone got to air their two pennies worth over the following weeks and now months, each busily furthering their own particular agenda, there is also the affects upon the lives of those involved to be considered and the damage to their futures, even though many of you may simply think they got what they deserved (typically three times longer sentencing than is normal – since when did politicians set the terms?).

Something else that disturbed me was a couple of text messages that were proudly read out on the early morning TV as I took a quick look before leaving home the day after. They were keen to show the negative ways in which text messaging and the social networks like twitter can be abused at such times by these criminal types, presumably calling for greater authoritarian control of these facilities when so desired. These messages (although may have been contrived for the sake of the news piece) did not seem to me to be likely to have come from any self respecting youngster, they read something like “you don’t know us but why don’t you and your gangs come over to such and such, we are going to riot and help ourselves” or something equally pathetic and was supposed to be a sort of call to arms to these youngsters.

Now the experts and politicians in their own words have said that all these youngsters were known to the police and had previous records of one sort or another so no doubt someone would have been keeping an eye on these little beggars and would have known how to contact them in a crises, maybe even know how to push their buttons just to make sure we get the desired result.

Now I’m not really suggesting that anyone with anything to lose would stoop to getting involved with something like this, it’s just my over active imagination getting the better of me, but you can’t help wondering can you, in the light of the recent phone hacking scandal – seems you just don’t know what to believe anymore.

I’m sure if you sit down in front of the TV with a cup of tea and a healthy slice of scepticism you could probably find more causes for concern and reasons to re-evaluate the news for your own peace of mind. Do you wonder whether you are in fact being informed or misinformed by the people you should be able to trust – do they really care about you or could they have the own agenda?

If there was ever a time in this world when all people should be sceptical and to look for verification before accepting what our leaders are telling us, it is now. The potential for politicians and money interests to want to mislead us, when you consider what they are playing for, in some cases, the control of the entire resources base of other nations, not to mention the benefit of debt slavery over their population is immense and to expect them to do otherwise is beyond naive.

There are now many people around the world trying desperately to wake us from our slumber and to educate us as to the ways of the controlling elite, fighting constantly to achieve some level of self determination for the masses, such that we may not be herded blindly into labour camps to be used and abused for someone else’s profit, and their efforts must not be in vain, but unless we can begin to see how the workings of this world have been deliberately hidden from us, where even the way that we think about the world has been engineered, and become determined for the sake of our children and their children, to become informed and united as a coherent force and to become active in resisting their control, with all speed, I fear we will soon be beyond the point of no return, and with the technological control grid they are building around us nearing completion our fate may be all but sealed.

To sum up the case:

To sum up, this case looks to me like an enormous machination that was born in England/Scotland and got "set in place" and "acted" in Portugal, where the (real?) girl Madeleine McCann, then aged only 3, nearly 4 years 'old', got 'missing' from. As you perhaps know, a gigantic organisation was then soon set in place by the infant's parents and... "friends" and family... Evidence showed up with very strong leads, elements and clues and FACTS (like forensic results... as no one had died on these very premises before, then WHO could the cadaver odour -detected by trained police dogs!- and the human BLOOD come from? No one else. really... Also the father said early lies (please see my blogs to read this for yourselves) and the £££$$$ "comedy show" went on and on... until THESE DAYS. It's STILL on, they STILL take donations, they're STILL protected by our UK government and some wealthy friends of theirs - like Brian Kennedy... In the VIP list , Mr "VIRGIN" Richard Branson and Mrs "Harry Potter" (Rowland) the author of books for Children and Teenagers... but that is JUST one sample of WHO has come to these "victims of a heinous crime" 's rescue.




Most of all, if the Child Madeleine (made a W.O.C. by a judge called "HOGG" in England, WOC meaning a Ward of Court, which only applies to LIVE people...) ever even EXISTED as THEIR daughter - as it still rests to prove...-, the whole case is still an true enigma in itself. Why so much protection? Why the calls for XENOPHOBIA towards PORTUGAL? Why now an astronomic amount of PUBLIC MONEY attributed to the "MET" (Scotland Yard - well, hang on, no! the "NEW" one!) = £3.5 MILLION!!! just to "review" the case?



Don't we ALL know that even in such a 'glamourous' country such as Great-Britain, tonight, there are a LOT of HOMELESS PEOPLE?! Maddy - and sorry to say- is very likely DEAD (well SOMEONE has died, or these forensics would not tell what they do!) and it only takes a good reading of the files to realise that all that it needs is a good TRIAL, not (as the NEW SY claims) 30 officers to look for ... what? new clues? a body that is buried? new witnessing after over 4 years???



So clearly this case is about finding the truth and realising that it's all about... MONEY. And is that right? Is 3.5 MILLIONS POUNDS STERLING a good and wise spending, these days in the UK -where everyone is struggling and saving on everything, including heating and food?! where the GOVERNMENT ITSELF encourages the People to SAVE on energy and to recycle, and chucks the Single Parents onto desperating job-searches, and JobCentre's multi appointments whereas there is NO job?! Not to mention the HUGE budget spent on searches, expenses and DEPLOYMENTS in the UK MILITARY sector! To basically KILL Innocent People! Yes... Yes wake up and do NOT ignore - next time you're UNalienated from your jobs and the motorway, at the week-end, come give a small comment to support/ SAY that you are HERE, still "ALL THERE", thinking not being robotised!



-when it would be just as simple to organise a trial and ask the parents of Madeleine McCann and their *FRIENDS* a few well-directed QUESTIONS that they CANNOT dodge, this time! Surely this wouldn't cost £3.5 million for some "THIRTY" SY / MET officers that are only "sometimes on the case" as a FOI quest has revealed recently! Is this (expensive) comedy show at the Central Circus going to continue for years and decennies, when WE KNOW that the PARENTS OF MADELEINE MCCANN HAVE LIED?!.

Help Needed from Morroco / MAROC, SVP, Please. Lookalikes.

Comparing with:

According to the search on http://madeleineinmorocco.blogspot.com/, Bushra's date of birth is very difficult to find, but I find: 2004. 2004 is written as a date on her certificate (which is NOT to be confused with her other family members' certificates, all included on the SAME Family Book of certificates. See below for details in photos + article snap ( from Daily Life . com ) and link to check it out.
How did I get to this result? I also looked for all other readable dates on this document and this one is clear: 1425. And before crying Wolf we should always search on the CULTURE that immerses the subject(s). 1425 is of course very likely to be the ISLAMIC date! And logically, OF BIRTH. And look what happens when we convert 1425 into the Western calendar: it's 2004.

So, Bouchra Ben Aisa / Bushra Benissa was BORN IN 2004, that's on the year after the famous missing child "Madeleine McCann" is supposed to have been born. I should search more but someone recently reminded me what the PRESS said at the time (and according to the blog linked above, probably not in a reliable manner): Bouchra would have been older than Maddy, which I seem to prove WRONG. However if Bouchra IS/WAS the model girl used by NSPCC this year 2011, in October or so, likely it would have been an older photo of her. But, I speculate, perhaps it's NOT Bouchra at all. However, given ALL the bizarre alerts of "sightings" (or Sigh... Tings!) that we, as the following public, have come through so far ("L0OK for Maddy" etc...) should I not find it strange, once again, that out of ALL the little girls in the world od about the age of 'Maddy', this little Bouchra was selected by a Spanish tourist.... who immediately photographed her... No. Enough! And now this more than CURIOUS NSPCC advert... NO. ENOUGH.
Too many "COINCIDENCES" in the CENTRAL CIRCUS of Children and photographs
may lead to DISCREDIT these organisations that help the McCanns and other families, (or themselves? Somehow I DISTRUST many charities and I wouldn't mind that their ACCOUNTS would be thoroughly checked. And of course, that the same would apply to the "LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED" FUND.) -DISCREDIT or even SUSPECT.

-and back to this topic, why was the press wrong? Or when is it accurate, does it ever happen that it can be accurate? Did ANY reporter cared to look at this certificate? Clearly not... I would have looked, to see if this appears to be a genuine document... and to see how old the child was... so where did they get their info from? The McCanns or Clarence Mitchell? If so, there's a mayhem! To be continued in case I could find out more... Links and info welcome!
_____________


Here are the details of my search from last night, before I realised I had an element of proof about my initial guess that Bouchra's date of birth (dob) could be 2004, followed by a few thoughts:


What the blogpost says: "But when you zoom this second image you can below "Ben Aisa Bouchra" (you can't see this name in this image but you can see it in first image) is date 23.11.1943 (or 1948)

And on the right page (where reads Ben Aisa and some other name) is date 3.5.1965 (or 1968)" - so that will be another entry, I'm searching but for now just guessing that the parent's entries will be on that page -hence "some other name" that I can see too as not being Bouchra.
Mmmh... Are there Readers who either live in Morocco / are from Morocco/ are familiar with the country and the way Birth Certificates are made, and could try to read what it says on this present one? Could it be a Family Book of birth certificates, hence the date of birth 1965 or 1968 who could be the one of Bouchra's Mum or Dad?

It seems that a date like 2004 is on Bouchra's details, her actual year of birth? Also, if this goes from the Muslim calendar, no date would match the European / occidental / Western calendar.

On the photo-crop just above, it seems it reads 33. 88 1343... which is no date for occidental calendar.

Here's some info:

" http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-the-western-islamic-and-jewish-calendars.htm

The Gregorian calendar is generally used synonymously with the Christian and Western calendar. The Gregorian version, however, was actually named after Pope Gregory XIII. It has a year comprised of 12 months and 365 days, 366 in a leap year, which occurs by adding a day in February every four years. While the Gregorian calendar is based on the Julian calendar — the calendar was introduced around 45 BCE by Julius Caesar after consulting an astronomer — the Gregorian calendar is also based on the year of Christ’s birth.
The Gregorian calendar sought to improve on its predecessors. The purpose was to have a more regular format than the lunar calendars and Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar took the place of the Julian calendar around the end of the 16th Century.
The Islamic calendar is based on the emigration of the Prophet Muhammad and his fellow Muslims, the Companions or Sahabah, from Mecca to Medina. The emigration is said to have been commanded by God after many years of Muslim persecution. The emigration took place in 622 AD or CE according to the Western Calendar or 4382 AM (Anno Mundi, or in the year of the world) according to the Jewish calendar. Hirah is Arabic for emigration and so, the Islamic calendar is also called the Hijri calendar. Years prior to the emigration are labeled as BH, Before Hijra, while years after the emigration are labeled as AH, Anno Hijra or In the year of Hijra. The calendar is based on the lunar year, has about 354 days and 12 months, each with either 29 or 30 days. The names of the months are Muharram, Safar, Rabiul-Awwal, Rabi-uthani, Jumada al-awwal, Jumada al-thani, Rajab, Sha’ban, Ramadan, Shawwal, Dhil-Q’ada, and Dhil-Hijja.
The Jewish calendar is a lunisolar calendar and is based on creation which is said to have occurred — around 3760 BCE according to the Western Calendar. The Jewish calendar, or the Hebrew calendar, has anywhere from 353 to 385 days, and 12 months, 13 in a leap year. Months have 29 or 30 days: Nissan, Iyar, Sivan, Tammuz, Av, Elul, Tishri, Cheshvan, Kislev, Tevet, Shevat, and Adar. In a leap year Adar I is inserted after Shevat, and the existing month of Adar is called Adar II — the thirteenth month. While the Western and Islamic calendars have a new year beginning with the first month, the new year according to the Jewish calendar begins in the seventh, not first, month of the year.
Another way these types of calendars differ is when the new day begins. In the Julian, Gregorian, Western and Christian calendars, the day begins at midnight. The Islamic and Jewish calendars, however, begin at sundown.
There are many other types of calendars; the Western calendar is perhaps the most popular, however. Another popular type of calendar — the Chinese calendar — is still used today for Chinese holidays and for astrological purposes. It is a lunisolar calendar with 12 months in a regular year and 13 months every second or third year. Days in the Chinese calendar begin at 11 PM, not midnight. While there is some dispute over when the Chinese calendar began, most believe it began somewhere around 2600 to 2500 BCE according to the Western Calendar.
Calendar conversion tools can be found online."

So I search. According to http://www.oriold.uzh.ch/static/hegira.html, 1343 Muslim year is 1924 Western year. No luck. So if it was as the Blooger found, 1965 on the certificate: it matches to a staggering year 2527!! -then it's pointless to try and convert 1968, lol.

Here's an attempt of cropping, zooming and playing on contast, exposure and effects:

If the date shown is 1943 in Muslim calendar, it's equivalent to 2506 on the Western one. VOID.

Now in the Western calendar it is 2011, in the Muslim one it is 1432.

Could this read 1925? or 1985? Respectively it gives in the Western conversion: 2489! and 2547!! SCOOP!!! Bushrah isn't born yet and she is very Sci-Fi, belonging to the future!

Right so either this is SOMEONE ELSE's Certificate, held in the Western calendar way, or it 's
not a date of birth, but a reference. Unless, hang on, it says a symbol followed by 985, something like this. Let's try it: Conversion says: 1577, Middle Ages! Nope, it won't be anything of the sort, either.

Enhanced cropped photo.

Let's go back to where I spotted something like 2004...:

Enhanced photo. Do you see the date or reference: "1388"? This is the islamic date for 1968 in western calendar. It matches the date that is on the next page, coincidently or not. Hence is this the Father/Mother's 'dob'? We are in sheer need of Moroccan helpers!

Anyway... Until we can get Moroccan People who know about how this birth certificates can be read, I'm thinking back to what stroke me earlier today: this sheer ressemblance between this girl above and the new Child Actress who stars in the NSPCC ad.

Same noise, same eyes and same everything...

Not saying it's got to be the little Bouchra Ben Aisa, however I'm not the only one who tilted at the very strange choice of image, something that inevitably will remind the public of Maddy, Bouchra and... in some extent, children who are used or mistaken one way or another. Sightings and Lookalikes Comedy show at the Central... All in all, NSPCC is about ABUSED and NEGLECTED Children, so was this choice completely innocent? Child actor who is Bouchra/ or at least is this ad-girl's lookalike and Bouchra having been mistaken for Madeleine, or used as a commercial prop somehow... back in 2007, precisely, it triggers a few thoughts, doesn't it?

By the way, the 3rd May 2007 in the Western calendar was the 14th of the 4th month of 1428 in the Islamic calendar. Thank you for reading and visiting The Lost Marketing Ploy blog.

Made and Sent By Our Friend Larry

-Many Thanks!-

An Interesting Theory

"It was to be the last night of the vacation and both parents were anxious to get to the supper

they had planed with all their party buds and the boys were tired from playing all day and they

had no problem getting them ready and put to bed.

Maddy was a problem because she knew it was the last night and did not want to waste any part of

it sleeping and really wanted to join her parents at dinner with her parent's friends and objected

to being left out of all the fun. She loved grownups and wanted to go too.

As the time for the parents to leave she got very unruly and demanded she should go with

them and it grew to be a war of wits between a 3 and a half year old Maddy and two parents who

wanted to celebrate one more time away from the children with friends.

One or the other parent, Both Doctors, suggested they give Maddy a sleeping pill or a setetave and

the case was made. Maddy would not be going to the dinner party.

While Kate was having a quick shower and did her face, Gerry got out his Medical bag and selected

a suitable drug for little Maddy and gave it to her. She had had this done to her before so she made no fuss

and accepted the needle as before.

The needle did not take the desired effect right away and Maddy started up again about wanting to join the party

and Gerey put his Medical bag away and left Maddy to continue to stew and protest and went and took

a shower as Kate finished putting on here face and....

When Kate was ready she came out and found Maddy searching her clothes for a dress to go to the party

and had to tell Maddy one last time she was not going with them and she had to go to sleep now as they were

already late and she got out her own Medical kit and proceeded to give Maddy a sedative and got her ready for

bed and put her there.

Maddy, at that point gave up the protest because the first sedative was starting to kick in and when Gerry came

out of the bathroom he dressed to party and Maddy was quiet now and they did their final checks and kisses and left

for the Party.

To be continued.. in part two. cause there is more to the story, much more." - Credits to our Friend Larry. -

See the page "How does this make you feel? - A Theory By Larry" here on this blog in a near future for the part two. http://thelostmarketingploy.blogspot.com/p/how-does-this-page-make-you-feel.html

Court in February 2012 - the COMEDY SHOW continues!

Info from Little Morsals blog: http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/10/joana-morais-mccann-libel-trial.html

"Tuesday, 11 October 2011

Joana Morais: McCann libel trial hearings to start in February 2012

Original Source: Joana Morais
Article reproduced here with the kind permission of Joana.

The civil complaint filed by the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral, over his book "Maddie - A Verdade da Mentira" (The Truth of the Lie) will start to be tried in February 2012.

The first two hearings have been scheduled for the 9th and 10th of February, 2012, at 9.30 a.m., at the Civil Court of Lisbon.

The defence fund that supports Mr Amaral by helping to finance the legal expenses related to this trial, is still in operation. Donations are very welcome. Please refer to Projecto Justiça Gonçalo Amaral for contributions. Thank you.

Kate's Corpses Argument DEBUNKED.

Remember what Kate Healy apparently said to the Press to refute the cadaver odour which was detected by police sniffer dogs on HER OWN CLOTHES in the summer 2007?

According to The Sun, Kate Healy stated that due to her work, she had been in contact with several dead bodies as a locum doctor, hence the smell of death all around these places - and her OWN clothes. [see link, from The Sun:

"The dogs also sniffed items of clothing — and the film shows Eddie again picking up a scent on some of Kate's.
The family GP [= Kate] has insisted she came into contact with at least SIX dead bodies before going on holiday with her husband and three children."


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/maddie/1651651/Kate-and-Gerry-McCann-wrongly-named-as-suspects-over-Maddie-disappearance-by-Portuguese-police-after-sniffer-dog-evidence.html#ixzz1j066kD8A


However, now I am wondering how could she come up with such pretense while being highly trained in biology and medecine, had she said this herself? Surely she should have checked a thing or two before she made her assertion. How RIDICULOUS this sounds, for anyone who searches a little bit in Forensics Science, and finds that she would have had to stay in contact with these CORPSES for 90 MINUTES for the odour to impregnate her clothes so strongly that it could be detected by a trained EVRD (CADAVER) dog!!!!!

( Beside, it seems that in her book there is no mention of this,  no more than of the odour on her clothes -fact that is yet a crucial element in the case. It gets me to wonder, why mention this to The Sun, but not in the book "madeleine"[sic], and why not even a paragraph on this cadaver odour? Kate gave me the impression that she was pretty much relieved after Gerry, her husband, pondered like a hard, final, conclusive decision that all the dogs' findings were 'worth nothing' as it's "no exact science". She as well as him NEVER questioned these facts in the way that it could be linked to their daughter's fate, why was this? Anger and immediate 'pondering' rushed to replace, as it seems to me, any question in their mind. It CAN'T be cadaver odour, the dogs LIE, they're garbage and beside, LOL, they had never been in Portugal before! I truly laughed at reading this part.
Here is Yan's demonstration:

"Some thoughts also on the tests done which indicate that it takes 90mins for contamination to occur.
The tests are based on exposure times alone, ie the length of time a piece of material was exposed to a body / cadaver.
The cloth exposed for a 90 min period resulted in the most detection.
The suggestion is when a body is decomposing it take 90 minutes before contaminating anything.

In fact this test totally contradicts the knowledge that contamination is instant. What it does in effect is suggest that something has to have been in contact with a body / cadaver for 90 mins before becoming contaminated enough for the dogs to accurately detect anything.
ie - If you look at the suggestion that KM as part of her work came into contact with dead bodies, this would mean she would have had to have spent 90 mins in very close proximity to one before becoming contaminated. "

Contact Us

Feel free to comment and bring your own photos / links - contact: tlpb@rocketmail.com

or just post onto here! Mail us via the above with your e-address, we will do the rest. Dziękuję!
Muchos Gracias, Grazie, "Arrigato" and, Kudos!

On behalf of The Lost Marketing Ploy Team, CHEERS,
MegaFundLine.

Thank You Kathie - "On Lifeless Child On Beach Rocks"...

Our dear Friend Kathie has been visiting Portugal (including Praia Da Luz, The Beach Of Light) this year at the end of May 2011 / or, in early June - Kathie please feel free to respond and comment -and join as a blog Writer- your descriptions were so interesting, I think Others would benefit from reading them, so feel free to repost them (I have kept your mail and can edit it to publish it while removing your private data, so if you can't post it yourself I would kindly do it for you - contact me whenever you like! x)

Now, Reader. Do you remember the extract where Kate "McCann" describes natural rocks on the beach -rocks of an oblong, flattish shape, with crevices... Kate, the author, describes how she "saw" Madeleine, her Daughter, looking quite 'lifeless' on one of these rocks, with words of this effect. I will bring you the exact excerpt soon - or feel free to post in the comments below. A vision?

This extract of Kate's book has striken me. Forgive me if I offend anyone, but had lost a Child, I would never write such a paragraph in any book that I make where I would evoke my Dear Child - but this is only my opinion, I really think I would prefer to remember My Child as in happier memories or, even, in speculative wishes? Say I would have lost a Child of mine and I suspect, strongly, that she has been physically abused, then... killed... or even abducted... missing for sure, and, would I ever find the courage to produce a book about the situation, never, in any circumstance, would I nurture even one thought to let my mind publicly float and ramble about possibilities of sexual abuse (like Kate wrote on her page 129, vividly and to the point and, how I personally view it, disgustingly.), nor on the possibility of finding her DEAD on a beach rock... And, sorry to say but these two instances make my mind travel to killers/ criminals/ psychopaths who proudly fabricate or render a scenario, scenario that is either imagined or recalled from facts, / or from both fiction and facts, in which they 'buzz' (rejoice) from either bringing a terror feeling to their readers/ audience, or giving their sampled "tuppence worth" of "an account of the truth".

Here are two photos from Kathie that illustrate this point of mine very well, many Thanks again:

Phone Hacking... If I may highlight a point.... Isn't MADELEINE the VICTIM?

Source: Mail Online http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html

"

McCanns and JK Rowling among host of names to give evidence at phone hacking inquiry

By Steve Doughty

Last updated at 12:08 AM on 15th September 2011

• Comments (3)
• Add to My Stories
• Share

The judge leading the inquiry into phone-hacking and the press yesterday named 46 individuals who will be invited to take centre stage.

They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann and murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

The list also includes Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, former motor racing boss Max Mosley, former Lib Dem MP Mark Oaten, jockey Kieran Fallon, and Paul and Sheryl Gascoigne.

Looking for answers: Kate and Gerry McCann will be part of the group of alleged phone hacking victims represented by a barrister in the first stage of the inquiry

Lord Justice Leveson awarded them ‘core representative’ status, which means they can have a lawyer to speak for them at the tribunal hearings.
However, the judge said yesterday that he will press them to share just one lawyer between them and that he will name a single barrister to speak for them if they cannot agree.

More...

• James Murdoch to face fresh grilling by MPs following new evidence from News International executives
• George Osborne 'owed' Andy Coulson after NotW editor 'downplayed' sex and drugs scandal coverage, claims lawyer acting for escort girl
• Criminals must fear the police again, vows new Met chief as he scoops £276,000 post

Lord Justice Leveson also indicated that he would be reluctant to allow lawyers for the 46 – who say they are victims of hacking or press malpractice – to cross-examine other witnesses.
The judge said News International should be a ‘core participant’ at the inquiry because one of its titles had been at the centre of the phone hacking scandal and it had a ‘significant interest’ in the outcome.
Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday, have also been given the right to play a full part, alongside Northern and Shell, publishers of the Daily Express and the Daily Star, and Guardian News and Media.

J K Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter books, and actor Hugh Grant are also in the group of alleged hacking victims

Left out: Former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks, pictured in July with Rupert Murdoch, will not be giving evidence at the inquiry

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037410/Leveson-phone-hacking-inquiry-McCanns-JK-Rowling-evidence.html#ixzz1YdIXVucd "


DAILY MAIL (ONLINE), my thoughts for your attention:

"They include crime victims such as the parents of missing Madeleine McCann "  Well is the British press now allowed to judge on an ongoing investigation??! The answer is NO. The truth is that once again, any article from the Daily Mail relating to the MCCANN CASE is deliberately BIASED and PREJUDICED.

I for one would be VERY curious as to what the hacking reveals and wonder why this wasn't officially done by the POLICE in the first place. People who lie and cash on their daughter's "disappearance", "missing" state need to be monitored, this has already been done for people involved in other cases so why weren't these investigated on with the same means as other SUSPECTS?

Yes I know, they are EX- MAIN SUSPECTS now BUT, sorry, HEY! This is an ONGOING investigation, when the public asks questions to the police with a Freedom Of Information act this is the answer we get, so what gives any "right" to the Daily Mail / MAIL ONLINE to state that the McCanns are the "VICTIMS" of a crime?

Was HUNTLEY the VICTIM of his crimes you think? What did you print when his investigation was ongoing, you "professional" journalists? And if he was hacked, taped by the police, would anyone had gone crazy about it?

So DAILY MAIL, will you EVER stop trying to INFLUENCE, CONDITION your readers? Why do you do this, because people like me did protest in 2007 claiming you did NOT have any right to print that "Maddy was abducted", so is it in frustration, or greed, or WHAT, that you're still trying what you ever can to push THEIR side of the "story"?! I wish someone would sue you and take your LICENCE OFF for this sentence. And that you explain to me WHY you state that THEY are VICTIMS of a crime, when you don't even know whether they were not actively involved in it! It's MADELEINE who is THE VICTIM, not them who left her ALONE at THREE YEARS OLD, HOME ALONE "because ot was safe". What is this? The Maddy Circus at Comedy Central??!!! It was SO SAFE that she hasn't been seen since the 3rd May 2007 - or perhaps even before - depending even if her identity is correct...... According to THEIR story - which you don't doubt for a second I could believe- it was 'perfectly safe to leave three children under four years old alone in a holiday flat abroad' 'while we dined and drank not far away'... Give your heads a hard SHAKE, the lot of you. The money is flowing, but not the truth, get as much compensation as you can for tomorrow you will still get up wondering if the Maddy Circus at Comedy Central is the right thing to carry on milking on.

Why should I believe YOU and the MCCANNS? Why don't you produce a new article to recapitulate what has been highly inconsistent in the "story"? This would bring you more income, and wouldn't be seen as a comedy number, comedy which people get tired of, BORED with. Mind you, with such dull slush, is it really surprising?
-And Oh, do you know why I don't believe the McCanns? Because they LIED in the first place.

How did they lie?

1. They called their family and friends to claim that the shutters and the window had been DAMAGED. It WASN'T.
2. They said that once the shutters are down and LOCKED as they had set them, anyone could lift them up from the outside (Gerry even boasting he tried them himself on that 3rd May night, despite his 'state of nerves / grief '...). This is a SHEER LIE. No one can normally lift this sort of shutters up from the outside as the locking security system perfectly works.
3. Gerry claimed he came in using his key which means using the MAIN door but a while after, he said he entered via the PATIO, through the French windows. What is the truth, Gerry?
4. Kate Healy -his wife- claimed she discovered that her daughter was missing at around 10 pm, whereas on 2 occasions - occasions that are separated in time by FOUR YEARS!- she slipped up to reveal that the time of the EVENT was in fact 9 pm! (see previous blog posts, one being about the Late Late Show, RTE, Ireland).

But don't ask me WHY they lied... Or why YOU don't want to write articles in a neutral and interesting manner... Doesn't the TRUTH interest you?

Hello! - and Pat Brown's E-Book got BANNED...

Hi to All. First of all, thank you SO much for keeping on reading our blog, and a special thank you to All who have come comment in a decent manner.
Everyone is welcome to give their views, and you know... polite comments are always more appreciated, whatever the content. Sometimes a "swear-word" can come as surprising or even... stimulating, depending on the writer's spirit - sometimes it may give the reader a good laugh. However, I did have to suppress quite a few comments in the past - we all guess why. Smart is the key. I'm not always "smart", or "smooth" myself, I do admit, because I don't "TRY TO BE SMART". I'm a humble person, and I thank ALL of you who do come to post in a decent way here, by "decent" I mean not attempting to form personal attacks onto any other poster.

Secondly, I need to say something. For a good while, say one month and even longer, Ka Ossis and I, the two official writers of this blog, haven't been able, in the standard Blogger way, to come comment or reply to other people. We do not know why. We have been conversing, outside the Internet, about it, together. Ka Ossis and I, megafundline, have NOT been able to type one comment in WEEKS, normally, on OUR OWN BLOG, about anything, on ANY TOPIC. A ... glitch? Well, coming from Google, it would have to be a BIG "glitch" then! Well, if mighty Google reads this, welcome to your own poverty. Money isn't all, so you should KNOW anyway. Sort your intellectual poverty out, it might HELP you.

So, SORRY BUT BECAUSE OF GOOGLE, KA OSSIS AND I, MEGAFUNDLINE are NOT able to post Comments any longer, unless we use alternative ways of posting... like for my case, having to type " Megafund... Line" or so.
Of course this is all wrong BUT there is a plan B. ;) I will post the NEW blog link shortly. In the meantime, you re welcome to carry on reading and commenting. WE still can moderate the blog, this doesn't change anything.

Anyway, here is my NEXT BlogPost:

"Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned?, 30 July 2011

[image]


Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned? The Daily Profiler




[image] reference: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html



"By Pat Brown


"Saturday, July 30, 2011



"Five weeks after my book, Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann went up on Amazon, it vanished. I didn't receive word from Amazon that they were going to take it off the market nor did I receive word that they had taken it off the market. I learned of its disappearance from someone who went to buy it. I sent Amazon an email and receivde a vague response from someone without a last name (isn't that always the way they do it these days?) who told me the book had been removed from sale for "legal conflicts." I asked for clarification of said legal conflicts and I received this email:



"Dear Pat,


We have received a notice of defamation from Carter-Ruck Solicitors that says the content of Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann (UPDATED) B0055WYVCQ, contains defamatory statements regarding their clients, Gerry and Kat McCann.

 Because we have no method of determining whether the content supplied to us is defamatory, we have removed the title from sale and will not reinstate it unless we receive confirmation from both parties that this matter has been resolved.


Carter-Ruck can be reached at:



6 St Andrew Street


London EC4A 3AE

T 020 7353 5005


Best regards,


Robert F.



http://www.amazon.com/ "


Oh, I see, Robert with-no-last-name. Amazon was threatened by the McCanns' legal team and Amazon preferred to drop my book rather than face a lawsuit for selling possibly libelous material. Now, I know a lot of people have become very angry about this, that anyone can just send a threat to Amazon about another person's book and without a shred of proof, the bookseller pulls if off the market. It does seem rather unfair; the McCanns do not have any paperwork proving my work is libelous nor are there any court actions against me and, simply at their word, my book is axed.






But, there is the rub, actually. Amazon is a business and they do not by law have to sell anything they don't want to sell for whatever reason (garbage, pornography, libelous material, etc.). Of course, their customers can show their wrath over their choice to not include a book in their store by taking their business elsewhere (which some have done due to the removal of my book) or by giving them a lot of heat in the media.








To be fair to Amazon, I will say, there is a new problem with self-published books. There is no protective layer between the author and the bookseller as there has traditionally been with an actual mainstream publisher. When I sold The Profiler: My Life Hunting Serial Killers and Psychopaths to Hyperion Voice, their lawyers went over every detail with a fine tooth comb and I had to send in all of my files to back each and every case in the book, in spite of the fact I used pseudonyms for everyone. By the time Amazon stocked the book in their online store, they knew the publisher had done its job and if anyone would then be sued it would be Hyperion and me. But, with my self-published book, they have no idea if what the McCanns say is true or not and, if it turns out the McCanns are correct, they might end up in a court themselves. As business people going up against one of the biggest libel attorney practices in the world, Carter-Ruck, they simply thought cutting me loose and getting a bit of bad press and angry emails was the lesser of two evils.






"My book is now at Barnes and Noble and Smashwords (50% of royalties earned to go to the Madeleine Search Fund for Praia da Luz, Huelva, and Rothley) among a few other online venues. It will be interesting to see if these outfits also cave to any threat by the McCanns and their solicitors. In the end, the issue remains between the McCanns and Pat Brown and a court of law should either party wish to go there as to whether the Profile of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann is libelous or their claims that my book is libelous are libelous!






"My opinion? My book includes the facts of the case from the police files and the words from Kate's book, Madeleine, and the words of the McCanns from their radio and television interviews. From these facts, I lead readers through the various possibilities of what these facts might tell us and what hypotheses we might develop. In the end, I offer the most plausible theory I have derived from the known public facts. Clearly, it is not a theory the McCanns like and a theory they do not want people to read. I find it rather fascinating that they went to Amazon and had the book removed; this behavior in itself is very suspicious to many people. They believe the McCanns do not want my theory to be considered, that there is something in it that makes them very nervous, and there is more to their getting my book banned at Amazon than not liking stuff someone said about them because it wasn't complimentary. If I am just a nutter and my theory is rubbish, they should have rolled their eyes and laughed it off.






Now, I am sure we will see comments here that will say, "Aw, come on, Pat, the reason the McCanns don't want your crap book out there is because it is libelous, you accused them of murder or of covering up a crime, and you based your 'theory' on tabloid information." I will counter by saying no where in the book do I accuse the McCanns of a crime - other than leaving their three tiny children unattended and defenseless - and my theory is not based on the tabloids. Since my theory is an opinion to which I am entitled and because my opinion is based on facts (I am not making some outlandish off-the-wall accusations I took from psychics or Internet gossip) and because the McCanns are very public figures, I see nothing in this book that is libelous and, therefore, I have no problem sharing my profiling theory with the world.






If the McCanns are innocent of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction , the McCanns should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child, a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it.






Even better, the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. Kate could answer the questions she refused to answer as an Arguido, they could do the reconstruction, and they could take polygraphs. If they pass the polygraphs, the answers make sense, and the reconstruction clears up what actually happened on May 3, they could stop all the speculation about themselves. But, as long as they refuse to cooperate with the Policia Judiciaria in Portugal, they have no one but themselves to blame for alternative theories to the abduction theory they would like us all to accept.






More to come on this matter! Tune in Sunday, July 31, at 8 pm est on Websleuths Radio, Wednesday, August 3 at 12 midnight est on The Jim Bohanon Show, and August 4 at 9 pm est on The Levi Page Show.






Criminal Profiler Pat Brown "


~~~
-Feel free to comment-