The Mystery of Ben Needham

This bit for example:

“My team and I know that machinery, including a large digger, was used to clear an area of land on 24 July 1991, behind the farmhouse that was being renovated by the Needham’s. It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing.

Not implying it was the Digger. No mention of Dino. Accident near to the farmhouse.. etc etc.

So maybe the whole Dino thing was a deliberate red herring. Which would appear correct if they've apologised according to the Telegraph article....

Andrew wrote:

froggy wrote:“My team and I know that machinery, including a large digger, was used to clear an area of land on 24 July 1991, behind the farmhouse that was being renovated by the Needham’s. It is my professional belief that Ben Needham died as a result of an accident near to the farmhouse in Iraklis where he was last seen playing."

The wording is interesting because it doesn't indicate what sort of accident, nor does it state outright that the digger was involved. Readers are led,  by implication, to the idea that the digger operator was to blame, even though they don't actually say that.
A convenient ending for the police.

I wonder how many will actually believe that?

I've just read that released statement again, several times. (on page 41).

The wording is very interesting indeed and very carefully written I think.

A phrase that is often used on here is 'read between the lines'.

I'm just wondering whether we do need to read between the lines here. Or am I talking / thinking mumbo jumbo as I've had 4 coffees today.

I think there are many parallels with the McCann case here.

I think this are several people that know what happened to Ben. It may be it was a tragic accident - mostly likely, imo. But on the other hand it may not have been an avoidable accident.

I think that the few people that know what happened to Ben have put a 'spin' on the incident to wider friends/family and presented it as a tragic accident involving a third-party (ie: non family member) in other words the digger driver who is now, conveniently, dead.

I suspect that the villa owner who the male family members were working for might have some idea of what happened. Or at least he might have been hoodwinked by those who did know what happened into allowing his digger to be used in a convenient place at a convenient time.

It's interesting how the press have run with the 'missing' story for so long when there are so many flaws in the narrative.

And the role of the police is interesting. I think the Greece police didn't believe the story from the beginning (sounds familiar?) But what about the British police? They will have done their own research and I suspect know what happened. Were the family ever investigated by the British police?

I don't think the family story has a leg to stand on but why has the charade gone on so long?

On the other hand, putting my cynical journalist hat on, a story about a mysteriously missing photogenic blond toddler can run for a lot longer in the media than a story about a little boy who died in an accident, whether by accident or not.

IMO only as always.

chirpyinsect wrote:Mimi said

This bit is interesting Bampots - so difficult to say whether it`s a memory from that day or a memory implanted by the police questioning.  It`s also interesting, when the therapist asks him to picture Ben the last time he saw him and he says Ben has greeny blue shorts on, but in reality Ben`s shorts would not have been on because they were hanging on the tree to dry.

Christine said she didn't go inside before she hung Ben's shorts up so unless Stephen came out before his shorts were removed he won't have been able to picture him in the shorts as you rightly say.
But I suppose he could have seen him wearing them as C arrived or the idea is an implanted memory. He has probably been told many times what B was wearing.
What would be good to know is whether Stephen came back to the farmhouse or if Eddie found him at the flat. Both can't be correct.
If Stephen went off about 2.30 why did Eddie allow it? He was supposed to be working except that some materials hadn't turned up. Didn't E say somewhere that they would wait another hour then pack in for the day?
After they looked for Ben and decided he was with S, Eddie carried on working until about 5pm ish then went to the caravan.[/quote]

---------

This has parallels with the McCann case too.

The pajama top that Kate hung out to dry..

In those temperatures I think Ben would have been quite happy to sit in wet shorts just as you would sit in a wet costume on holiday in a very hot country after going swimming. One of the main reasons for getting wet is cooling off! Why would Kerry (this should read Christine) have need to hang the shorts out to dry? It was the middle of a very hot day in a hot, dry country? I've been in Greece in the summer and you are desperate to be near and preferably in water or a swimming pool.

This is the clincher:

"After they looked for Ben and decided he was with S, Eddie carried on working until about 5pm ish"

You look for someone or something to find them. In her book Kerry injects a sense of urgency into the looking. Therefore the looking would carry on until they they had found him or had an idea of what had happened. You wouldn't urgently look for a period of time, then stop looking because you have suddenly decided a certain thing had happened which you were not sure had happened.

Rather like Kate McCann's account of finding Madeleine missing, this account defies all logic.

In any event, if the family suspected that Ben had gone off on the moped of his 17-year-old relative, every alarm bell should start ringing about the likelihood of a road accident.

seahorse wrote:[quot

Under caution. I'm not up on what that means. Can anyone tell?

It's a formal interview rather than a discussion, where they caution you at the start 'whatever you say may be used against you as evidence, you have the right to remain silent .....

Can'the remember the exact words but they must have been considering charging him with something.

Somewhere it's mentioned that Ben was playing with water. How deep was the container which held the water he was playing with? And was it the kind of container that he could climb into or fall into? We know that very young children can drown in a few inches of water. Is it possible the "accident" is that he drowned when he wasn't being watched, and wasn't discovered until it was too late to revive him? And then steps were taken to conceal the death and his body? It just seems that the reference to wet shorts and to his playing with water have been glossed over... when in fact it might be very important to look at this by itself.

canada12 wrote:Somewhere it's mentioned that Ben was playing with water. How deep was the container which held the water he was playing with? And was it the kind of container that he could climb into or fall into? We know that very young children can drown in a few inches of water. Is it possible the "accident" is that he drowned when he wasn't being watched, and wasn't discovered until it was too late to revive him? And then steps were taken to conceal the death and his body? It just seems that the reference to wet shorts and to his playing with water have been glossed over... when in fact it might be very important to look at this by itself.

That's a very interesting and thought-provoking point, Canada.

Something that I've not personally considered before.

Andrew wrote:

canada12 wrote:Somewhere it's mentioned that Ben was playing with water. How deep was the container which held the water he was playing with? And was it the kind of container that he could climb into or fall into? We know that very young children can drown in a few inches of water. Is it possible the "accident" is that he drowned when he wasn't being watched, and wasn't discovered until it was too late to revive him? And then steps were taken to conceal the death and his body? It just seems that the reference to wet shorts and to his playing with water have been glossed over... when in fact it might be very important to look at this by itself.

That's a very interesting and thought-provoking point, Canada.

Something that I've not personally considered before.

I think it falls within the scope of the investigation if it's something that could have happened.... and something that hasn't been mentioned at all - because it would mean that someone in the family knows exactly what happened to Ben.

froggy wrote:

Mimi wrote:

Bampots wrote:Agree with what you say Mimi....although Bens Grandma does say that they were missing when they looked later iirc.

They would be missing wouldn`t they because `someone` had taken them off the tree and put them on Ben before taking him away.  No point in taking him anywhere with a naked bottom half.

That could have been a bit of staging to suggest abduction.

OK froggy - but I`m coming from the angle that it was abduction (or the uncle put the green shorts on Ben before he let Ben sit on his Honda).  I think the grandparents are legit.

@ poster - ""After they looked for Ben and decided he was with S, Eddie carried on working until about 5pm ish"

You look for someone or something to find them. In her book Kerry injects a sense of urgency into the looking. Therefore the looking would carry on until they they had found him or had an idea of what had happened. You wouldn't urgently look for a period of time, then stop looking because you have suddenly decided a certain thing had happened which you were not sure had happened. "

Yes, even if you thought Stephen had taken him for a ride, one would think it would only be for a few minutes down the lane and back, not for the whole afternoon - goodness, I`d be worried sick. What was Christine doing for the rest of the afternoon while Eddie carried on working? Did they have no means of communication?

Have a bit of insomnia so been reading parts of Ben and have some thoughts.....

Stephen taking Ben seems less plausible to me because of what his stated movements were after he left the farmhouse per Kerry's book(IIRC)

Stephen leaves the farmhouse to have a beer and get a shower (not clear if the beer was to be had at a pub, at the caravan or at the Palm Beach)
He made what I assume was a pre agreed errand of filling up a Jerry can with fuel and leaving it at the caravan as when Christine went back she says it was there.
Stephen then goes to Palm Beach for a swim (Kerry and co-worker see him).
Stephen then goes to Kerry's flat for a shower.
Eddie turns up at Kerry's flat where he finds Stephen.

The big question given the above is would Stephen do all that having had an accident with Ben on the bike without showing any signs? Doing what with him? No witnesses? Also why did Christine stay put at the caravan when Ben and Stephen weren't there? She went back there after an hour because she was worried so she thought it logical to do nothing for ~1 1/2 hours more?

A big issue with all this though is the time from Ben going missing at 14:30 and Kerry being informed at ~22:00. Eddie, Christine, Stephen and Danny seemed to go between Kerry's flat, the caravan, police station and the farmhouse without anyone thinking of going into the Palm Beach to inform Kerry even though Palm Beach is between all these locations. The book says Christine, Stephen and two officers left the station at 18:30 to go to the farmhouse (passing Palm Beach presumably) yet nobody thinks to inform Kerry? Christine says it was to protect Kerry because she didn't want to tell her he was missing and then he turn up. Yet it had already been 4 hours by the time they left the police station. The police and the rest then spend another 3 1/2 hours at the farmhouse before finally going to Kerry. Just an aside...Kerry did a long shift that day from ~8:00 and still there at 22:00.

The standout thing though given the "conclusion" in this case, at least by media and seemingly accepted by most of the general public, is that there isn't a single mention of Dino, his workmates or diggers. They just don't feature in the 14:30 and 22:00 timeline of events. So how could any of the things he is supposed to have done happened?

I need to sleep I think.

TTWO said
The big question given the above is would Stephen do all that having had an accident with Ben on the bike without showing any signs? Doing what with him? No witnesses? Also why did Christine stay put at the caravan when Ben and Stephen weren't there? She went back there after an hour because she was worried so she thought it logical to do nothing for ~1 1/2 hours more?

Assuming he acted alone then you are correct. It's doubtful that a young lad who had perhaps just caused his nephew's death would be capable of acting normally. However, we only have the say so of certain people that events happened in a certain way. IF S was responsible it is possible that he told someone who decided that an abduction scenario was better than the truth emerging. Perhaps it was feared S might lose his liberty even though it was an accident.
I am trying not to assume too much and I don't think there is enough evidence to say anyone in particular is responsible but 2 things do seem improbable to me. I don't think there was an abduction and I don't think Dino did it.

TTWO said.......

Stephen taking Ben seems less plausible to me because of what his stated movements were after he left the farmhouse per Kerry's book(IIRC).....

It does seem strange that everyone dances around Kerry without mentioning it to her ....although if they all had a knowledge they may not have wanted  to tell her until the very last minute...when they had to tell?
Also what time did the swim take place? He could have had a need to immerse himself in water?

Another inconsistency or a huge coincidence:



Birthmark like his uncle, in same place?

But also like his dad, who still has his today?

From Ian Crosby (a private detective who assisted the Needhams and set up a website for them in 2003):

"Don't forget that Ben (What ever his name is now and it is unlikely to be Ben) had a birth mark about two inches above his right knee which is still likely to be there as his Father still has his - also Ben as a toddler had a strawberry coloured birth mark at the back of his neck which might or might not be still evident."

Uri Geller helping out. This was in 2003, perhaps at Christine and Eddie's house because of the Elvis statue. Their son Danny is an Elvis impersonator and lived with them at the time.

   

I am delighted to have Uri Geller support this very important search, I feel his contribution will be invaluable in alerting the public worldwide in our search for answers and resolve the case for the sake and sanity of the Needham family- who have spent the last twelve years not knowing where Ben has been living.

Looking at this web site from Bens point of view now nearly 14 years old I feel it would be of great importance to seek the support from a female internationaly known pop star, I am at the moment trying to recruit Britney Spears the attention that she draws could bring Ben himself to look at this site and begin to question for himself if something is not quite right about his upbringing.

In early October 2003 I shall be visiting Kos Island Greece for the first time, accompanying me will be Bens uncle Danny who knows the area well - it will be my first trip to the island but for the needham family they have been there many times before. This could be a very important opportunity for us to remind people living on Kos that far from forgetting about Ben and what happened we are now at the stage of recruiting celebrities and we have no intention of giving up on this search. We feel that SOMEONE ON KOS KNOWS exactly what happened and that they should be attracted by the substantial reward still on offer for the right information.

Ian Crosby
Special Investigator to the Ben Needham case.
22nd September 2003

That's a very grand house for 2 people who were selling bits and bobs on a market stall in one of the documentaries. They were glad of every couple of quid. Are we sure it's their house?

I'd put a bet on that being Uri Geller's house.

That was news to me about Danny!

http://dannyelvisneedham.weebly.com/about.html

chirpyinsect wrote:That's a very grand house for 2 people who were selling bits and bobs on a market stall in one of the documentaries. They were glad of every couple of quid.  Are we sure it's their house?

No, not sure.

Maybe Uri Geller is a fan of Elvis?

I haven't yet found a photo of Ian Crosby but that is presumably him with Uri Geller so it must be at the latter's house.

http://www.thestar.co.uk/whats-on/out-and-about/uri-geller-to-help-in-hunt-for-missing-ben-1-316851

Don't laugh please at Uri describing himself as an honest man!

I thought that Freedom ......and the couch has an almost middle eastern feel to the design.....i think its Uri Gellars house!!!

Its like through the keyhole!

Christine and Edwin Needham were directors of a company called E & C RECYCLING LIMITED  17 Mar 2004 - 05 Apr 2004

It was later renamed C & E RECYCLING LTD  05 Apr 2004 - 20 Mar 2008

They resigned on 1st April 2006.

NEEDHAM, Christine  
Correspondence address 2 Cottage, Haltham Garrs Farm, Legsby, Market Rasen, Lincs, LN8 3QS
Role Resigned Director Date of birth September 1952 Appointed on 17 March 2004 Resigned on1 April 2006
NationalityBritish OccupationDirector

NEEDHAM, Edwin  
Correspondence address2 Cottage, Haltham Garrs Farm, Legsby, Market Rasen, LN8 3QS
Role Resigned Director Date of birthOctober 1948 Appointed on17 March 2004 Resigned on1 April 2006
NationalityBritish OccupationDirector

Some time after they resigned the company was renamed CASSELLS 4 LIMITED and dissolved in 2012.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/05076429/officers

There is no Haltham Garrs Farm in Legbsy, but here is a Holtham Garrs Farm.

And there is: 2 Holtham Carrs Cottages, which seems to be a business address: https://address-search.co.uk/business/15233943/2-Holtham-Carrs-Cottages-Legsby-MARKET-RASEN-Lincolnshire-LN8-3QS/



Other addresses attached to Cassells 4 are:

28 QUEEN STREET,  MARKET RASEN. Which I think is simply where the company was registered.

and:

78 Gordon Field, Market Rasen

In the article about the burglary in 2003 they were living in Legsby, which is a hamlet close to Market Rasen.

Yes, Uri Geller's house in Sonning-on-Thames.

Same windows and crystally things on the table:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/look-inside-spoon-bending-uri-6613234

Not bad for an honest spoon-bender.

And his Elvis statue features in this article:
http://www.ingridpitt.net/anecdotes/elvis-and-ingrid.html

And just to complete the looney loop......heres some interesting Gellar stuff to make you say......"Well....i never!!!"......courtesy of CMOMM

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12957-the-exeter-connection-clement-freud-uri-geller-jimmy-savile-michael-jackson-greville-janner-and-robert-murat

Snipped from thread......


As the article below makes clear, both Clement Freud and Uri Geller had  strange Exeter connections:

4 In May 2002, Uri Geller bought a football club, Exeter F.C., currently in Division 2      

5 Geller’s friend, pop star Michael Jackson, also became a Director of Exeter F.C.  Geller’s son Danel also became a joint Vice-Chairman of Exeter F.C.

6 Uri Geller and Clement Freud jointly owned a racehorse

7 Uri Geller asked Michael Jackson to visit Exeter, to which Jackson allegedly replied: “I will come if you bring sick kids from hospitals”. He did visit Exeter later that year

8 Uri Geller and Greville Janner were close friends, and both were members  of the magiclans’ club, the Magic Circle

I think this might confirm that Geller is an Elvis fan.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.nme.com/news/elvis-presley/23084&ved=0ahUKEwibqry41vDPAhUGHxoKHcFDDqEQFggcMAE&usg=AFQjCNFu2cK90qtk9uXSeyPUZkBXyNs-Ag

Elvis Presley’s former house has been bought by spoon-bender Uri Geller.

The psychic purchased the Tennessee residence in an online auction on eBay for $905,100 (£481,000) and now expects it to be restored and opened to the public.

The home was lived in by Presley before the singer moved to Graceland.

“We are unbelievably pleased. This is a piece of history,” said Geller.

“As the clock closed on the bidding (on) Sunday (May 14), I felt intuitively I got the price,” he added. “Suddenly the radio started playing an Elvis song. That was Elvis telling me we got the house.”

As reported by BBC News, Geller bought the house with two others – New York lawyer Jim Gleason and jewellery maker Lisbeth Silvandersson – and revealed that he wants to take children on tours of the restored property before turning it into a museum.

Presley met Geller during the 1970s in Las Vegas, and asked him to perform his spoon-bending.

Living there with his parents and grandmother, Presley bought the four-bedroom residence in 1956 from his royalties.

A year later, as the star’s career took off, police were regularly called to control the crowds of fans who visited the place, and eventually Presley moved in Graceland in 1957.

On Oct 12 I made a post at 3.20 pm about the possibility of Ben drowning in the drum of water.  Another  member recently posted the same theory and some others responded, it was as if I had never mentioned it at all.  This is certainly not having a go at that member who I agree with on many things ,they are a great poster and us both having the same idea about the  water barrel shows great minds think alike!

My point is I had posted the same idea 10 days earlier.

It's not the first time this happened on Ben's thread and the earlier times I ignored it but now I realise I can't.

I have put my heart and soul into that topic over the last month. Any time my pain has lessened to allow me to read and type I have done so. Instead of 'enjoying' those few hours at whatever time they come I was doing whatever I could to further the debate.

But the last week I have been very ill indeed, I had family members check the site now and again to see if there was news on Dr Amaral. Because what I have being doing with Ben's case over the last month is what I have being doing with Madeleine's case over the last nine years albeit under different names. I must add very much against my family's and medical professional's wishes and advice.

But I can't let go because I care too much. It's certainly made my life harder but Madeleine need's people, strangers, to fight for her.

Today I am well enough to use my laptop, albeit propped up in bed with about 20 pillows. So when I went to Ben's thread and read the new post about the water barrel I was gutted. Gutted that the effort I put in 10 days ago had been forgotten.

This is NOT me throwing my toys out of the pram, please friends don't think that. It's me saying publicly to myself what is the point. Am I just fooling myself that I  can make a difference?

Where I normally sit I can look straight over at the place where this all began and where somewhere out there are the remains of a little girl who has had no dignity and privacy, even in death.  How can I walk away from her? The answer is I can't.

So my message here is one for all of us, when you read the post's that interest you, maybe if time allows, read a little slower and take the words in, because none of us know the effort that might have gone into that post.

I am not reading this back in case I lose my nerve to post it.

Hope, there is no post from you at that time. This is the nearest one:

Can't believe what I just saw on Duncan Wood's update, see Andrew's link.

Was at site 2, work over for day there, Cousins and others drove off, site left with piles of earth unguarded. This is a supposed crime scene, traffic up and down, no barriers or tape.

Calandar, Wood and prod Mark Whitty to be commended for their constant work on Ben's case over 25 years, fair play to them.

Now saying will be on Kos til next week.

End of post.

I am sure that, even if it was there, it would not have been ignored intentionally. For some unknown reason the topic was split after page 40 so it would be very easy to overlook previous posts.