Maddy Age-Progression Lab - Upgraded

Spoof by our scorching, inimitable KA OSSIS!
-"upgraded" by your Friend Mega ;0) -

Note that "Maddy" would now be nearly NINE years old, but, technically, OK, "she"would be eight. It's approaching her "birthday". Of course "it"'s approaching her "anniversary" too.
So NO stone un-turned, we all get it, yeah I will NOT leave ONE stone unturned..., I might as well get to Egypt and ask everyone there why so many stones were turned, now all tombs and sarcophages have been raided and appear completely EMPTY. Have they seen Maddy too? Oh well, perhaps the same isn't happening regarding the MADDY's FUND after all, is it EMPTY? Or does it only appear to be so?

Curiously if my own fund gets emptied then I fill it up by work, hard one, but in the case of Mrs Kate HEALY I see that she still holds, proudly, the key for the Rothley "Manor", NOT having to job-search nor having to re-train as a Doctor. Busy times, busy ways. Updating a "bewk" must be "hell", oh dear.

Anyway any other time - and this one is NO exception- that approaches "Maddy's Anniversary" (3rd May) or "Birthday" next, (12th May), sees a myriad of Sightings and an equally abundant flurry of press-articles.

Curiously, very curiously in fact, when it's about an opponent WINNING A TRAL IN COURT, like Mr G. AMARAL recently regarding his Book, A Verdade Di Mentira, (Truth about the LIES), the TRUTH of the FACTS is COMPLETELY BLANKED, BLACKED OUT, by ALL "media".

Anyway here is an "image" that is supposed to represent "our Maddy" right NOW, at nearly NINE years old:

Mmh, Olivia Newton John at 55? (after visible cosmetic surgery)  OMG what has happened on the ears lobe?!- - - Why do they always have to look American??

IS THAT WHAT AN EIGHT YEAR OLD IS SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING LIKE? Both grandmothers must be so proud: Oh look! She looks like ME!

Source: Express Co Uk

Reminder:

It says in French: LOOK INTO MY EYES, etc. So once again, with no more concern than hot chinese lanterns massively threw into the air or else dangerous colony of balloons, we all saw a pair of parents who left their kids, THREE under THREE years old, ALONE, UNATTENDED in a holiday flat, claiming very strangely that , due to a "forced entry" with so-called "smashed windows" and "damaged shutter" (LIES!!!!), their nearly 4 years old "Madeleine" was "abducted", on top of it were also URGING EVERYBODY TO LOOK INTO EVERYBODY ELSE'S CHILD'S EYES!

 

WHO DO THEY THINK THEY ARE?!!

Excuse me Mr Cameron, but these uncaring, neglecting people you grant private interviews to in your PM office, using tax payers money, use and abuse your paid time, and ours, big style. Why don't you BOOT them in the BUTT and launch the Social Services on them?! This should calm them down for a little while. You would also do your DUTY.

Mr Cameron, you should also set the POLICE on them, for public lie and misuse of media, and abuse of public trust in their vast appeals for donations. Yes, use and abuse of public trust, because this has happened in England too, and in the rest of Great Britain, not just in Portugal. The people here have been lied to and even hidden facts!

Mr Cameron, you should also look at what happens to other cases where lies and fraud are suspected - if not totally evident like in the case of their "forced entry" which was not even a theory, but mere, gross fabrication. The McCanns still knock at your door and ask for special treatment, so why don't you take the usual measures and set a good old fashion TRIAL to question these two globe trotters, and allow the true LIGHT be shed on the biggest enigma of the year 2007?
I'm sure if you reacted the way you really should, Mr Cameron, they would stop FOR GOOD coming knocking at your door and waste your precious time. I think you should mind  the Homeless, the energy bills, the lack of electric re-fuel point for Electric Cars, the lack of flexibility for people who start a business, Education and, of course, the NHS. Or are the Mcanns STILL more important that all this in your eyes?! If so I'd really need to know WHY!

Thank you for reading.

PM promises to look into Katrice Lee case

"PM promises to look into Katrice Lee case

Published on Wednesday 18 April 2012 15:59

THE father of a British girl who went missing in Germany 30 years ago wants the Prime Minister to meet with her family as he did with the parents of Madeline McCann.

David Cameron promised to look into the case of Hartlepool youngster Katrice Lee, who disappeared from a British Army base in Germany in 1981, during Prime Minister’s Questions today.
It comes as Spanish police received a report of a possible sighting in the Costa Del Sol of missing youngster Madeline McCann, who went missing in Portugal in 2007.
Katrice’s family have battled for the Military Police to release files relating to the two-year-old’s disappearance for the past three decades.
Now her dad Richard Lee, from the Stockton Road area of Hartlepool, says Mr Cameron should meet with Katrice’s mum, just as he did with the parents of Madeline McCann.
Mr Lee, 62, said: “What I would like to see that Prime Minister do is at least give Katrice’s mother an interview.

“If Maddy McCann’s parents can go and see the Prime Minister then Katrice’s mother should be able to as well.

“There seems to be a two-tier system with missing children, those who have and those who have not.
“And I don’t say this to be nasty or bitter, but the McCanns have spent millions of pounds on their campaign.
“They’ve had better treatment and better media coverage.
“We haven’t been at this for four years, we’ve been at this for three decades, and I think the way that this family has been treated is despicable.”

Caroline Dinenage, who is the local MP for Katrice’s mother, Sharon, of Gosport, Hampshire, raised the issued in the House of Commons yesterday.
Mr Cameron met the McCanns while he was campaigning as the leader of the opposition.
When the McCanns sent him an open letter after he became Prime Minister he replied saying that the Metropolitan Police would be re-investigating the disappearance."

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/pm-promises-to-look-into-katrice-lee-case-1-4459457

Murat Associates With McCanns!

See the signatories in the end of this letter to Cameron!:

(Hooray! Here we have a Historic Letter: The VERY First One with 2 ex main Suspects in a Child Case signatures to it! What a luv'ly combination. "No Comment!")

Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill, 26 March 2012

Dear David Cameron: Full text of the open letter on legal aid bill The Guardian 'Parliament on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases' Monday 26 March 2012 Dear Prime Minister The legal aid sentencing and punishment of offenders bill will have its third and final reading on Tuesday in the House of Lords. Parliament is therefore on the cusp of passing a law that will grossly restrict access to justice for ordinary people in privacy and libel cases, without even any saving to the public purse. We strongly object to the passing of this unjust measure and urge you to amend it before it is too late. Of course we are the first to recognise that legal costs in many cases are too high and also that some reforms are justified, but the bill includes changes to conditional fee ("no-win, no-fee") agreements and to after-the-event ("no-win, no-premium") insurance schemes which will effectively make them non-viable in libel and privacy cases, where financial damages to a successful claimant are far too small to cover these costs as the bill currently proposes they should. So only the rich could take on a big newspaper group. A successful libel defendant obviously does not get any damages so these reforms will prevent all but the rich from being able to defend their right to free speech against wealthy or corporate libel claimants. Although the aim of reducing costs is very laudable, the position of lower and middle income claimants and defendants in these types of cases has simply been ignored. Even if a lawyer will take a high-profile case without a "success fee" that compensates for the risk of losing some cases, or even does the case pro-bono, there is still the enormous risk to defendants and claimants that if they lose, they will have to pay the other side's costs. A person of ordinary means in that position basically has the choice of living with injustice or risk losing their home. Lord Justice Jackson recognised this problem when he proposed an alternative to insurance in his review but the government – without explanation – has not accepted his recommendations in these cases. In practice this means that in future ordinary defendants, like Peter Wilmshurst, Hardeep Singh and Heather Brooke will also be unable to get support for legal action taken against them, often by large institutions with deep pockets trying to silence them. That would be bad news for science and medicine, for free religious debate and for transparency in the public interest. And victims of the tabloid press like Christopher Jefferies, Bob and Sally Dowler, Kate and Gerry McCann and Robert Murat will not be able to take legal action against the tabloids for hacking into their phones, for false accusations and for gross misrepresentation. Newspaper corporations with big legal departments and their own insurance would scare people off by the prospect of facing a million pounds worth of costs if they lose. This is obviously both wrong and unfair to the ordinary citizen with a good case. The bill simply fails to consider people like us. Unless a change is made on Tuesday, the government will have succeeded only in uniting both claimants and defendants from modest backgrounds – together with their supporters – against the government and much of the good will generated by the setting up of the Leveson inquiry and promising a libel reform bill will be lost. We urge you to take action now to amend the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to specifically remove libel and privacy cases, or you will stand accused of being unfair to ordinary people and giving yet more power to large media corporations and corporate libel bullies. Christopher Jefferies Gerry and Kate McCann Peter Wilmshurst Robert Murat Hardeep Singh Nigel Short Zoe Margolis       http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html