Maddie gang probe - Cops given cash to probe ‘important’ new lead that Maddie was snatched by people trafficking gang

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/offbeat/madeleine-mccann-detectives-set-to-investigate-important-new-lead-1-8273848
From my local paper ( most of) the comments seem to sum up what the average MOP thinks

From yesterday:

http://portugalresident.com/%E2%80%9Clast-throw-of-the-dice%E2%80%9D-sees-renewed-funding-for-%E2%82%AC15-million-maddie-hunt

Andrew wrote:From yesterday:
http://portugalresident.com/%E2%80%9Clast-throw-of-the-dice%E2%80%9D-sees-renewed-funding-for-%E2%82%AC15-million-maddie-hunt

I hadn't thought to connect the latest nonsense with the claims about the Podesta brothers but it does fit and explains who the "they" are that "have taken her" (or is it a forum myth that Kate said this?).

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:From yesterday:
http://portugalresident.com/%E2%80%9Clast-throw-of-the-dice%E2%80%9D-sees-renewed-funding-for-%E2%82%AC15-million-maddie-hunt

I hadn't thought to connect the latest nonsense with the claims about the Podesta brothers but it does fit and explains who the "they" are that "have taken her" (or is it a forum myth that Kate said this?).

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

I don't think the 'they've taken her' is a forum myth. But I can't recall off the top of my head.

The Villa that was once owned by Freud but wasn't owned by him in 2007. He used to rent it out but as far as I know it was sometime after the 3rd of May he was over there? There are rumours floating about that the Podesta brothers were staying with him on and around the 3rd of May.

Is it established that the Podesta brothers even knew Freud let alone holiday with him?

I think it's all bollox myself and this sort of nonsense is great for Team McCann. Anything to shift the focus slightly from themselves.

AndyB wrote:

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

One or more of the more vocal bloggers make the claim that it is known to UK Police that the Podestas were indeed staying at Freud's place on 3/5/2007. I cannot verify this and anyway find it hard to believe. Anyway I think it has been definitely established that Freud himself wasn't there.

Try looking at it from my angle. Having already "fingered" two prominent individuals as being of interest, to me at least - to then see people heavily connected to them, quite independently and out of the blue being linked to the case, but from a direction I would never have considered looking; well it's given me quite a start, I can tell you.

I think this is a story that has become more interesting, in light of events.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case

Andrew wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:From yesterday:
http://portugalresident.com/%E2%80%9Clast-throw-of-the-dice%E2%80%9D-sees-renewed-funding-for-%E2%82%AC15-million-maddie-hunt

I hadn't thought to connect the latest nonsense with the claims about the Podesta brothers but it does fit and explains who the "they" are that "have taken her" (or is it a forum myth that Kate said this?).

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

I don't think the 'they've taken her' is a forum myth. But I can't recall off the top of my head.

The Villa that was once owned by Freud but wasn't owned by him in 2007. He used to rent it out but as far as I know it was sometime after the 3rd of May he was over there? There are rumours floating about that the Podesta brothers were staying with him on and around the 3rd of May.

Is it established that the Podesta brothers even knew Freud let alone holiday with him?

I think it's all bollox myself and this sort of nonsense is great for Team McCann. Anything to shift the focus slightly from themselves.

I don't believe it either, but, like I say, there's something at the back of my mind that thinks there could be something in it. I was hoping for proof that the story has indeed been established as untrue so I can forget about it.

What's interesting though is:

• The rumours/fake news about John Podesta being linked to an American establishment paedophile ring arose entirely independently of Madeleine McCann's disappearance
  
• Wikileaks has no emails from John Podesta prior to 04/07/2007 (i.e. he deleted all his emails on that day)
  
• The Podesta brothers do bear an extraordinary resemblance to the e-fits
  
• The McCanns themselves have always said she was taken by paedophiles and, as a statement analyst might say, Kate says that's what happened so we have to believe her
  

BTW I'm not so sure that it does shift attention from the McCanns unless you're inclined to believe that Madeleine really was abducted and it was the Podesta brothers that abducted her

unreorganised wrote:

AndyB wrote:

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

One or more of the more vocal bloggers make the claim that it is known to UK Police that the Podestas were indeed staying at Freud's place on 3/5/2007. I cannot verify this and anyway find it hard to believe. Anyway I think it has been definitely established that Freud himself wasn't there.

Try looking at it from my angle. Having already "fingered" two prominent individuals as being of interest, to me at least - to then see people heavily connected to them, quite independently and out of the blue being linked to the case, but from a direction I would never have considered looking; well it's given me quite a start, I can tell you.

I think that's where I'm coming from, although I have no idea who you mean by " two prominent individuals as being of interest". Unexpected dots seem to be being connected even though the story seems ridiculous. It would be nice if I could establish that neither of the Podesta brothers stayed at Freuds villa and that they didn't even know him.

unreorganised wrote:

AndyB wrote:

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

One or more of the more vocal bloggers make the claim that it is known to UK Police that the Podestas were indeed staying at Freud's place on 3/5/2007. I cannot verify this and anyway find it hard to believe. Anyway I think it has been definitely established that Freud himself wasn't there.

Try looking at it from my angle. Having already "fingered" two prominent individuals as being of interest, to me at least - to then see people heavily connected to them, quite independently and out of the blue being linked to the case, but from a direction I would never have considered looking; well it's given me quite a start, I can tell you.

I think this is a story that has become more interesting, in light of events.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/488487/EXCLUSIVE-Potential-key-witness-McCann-case

Hi. Could you expand/elaborate a bit on that. Be interested to hear your take on it?

In regards to your link... Was it ever established who this woman was? She made no mention of the 'disposal' to the PJ in the aftermath and not recorded in the PJ files... (If I understood that correctly)

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:From yesterday:
http://portugalresident.com/%E2%80%9Clast-throw-of-the-dice%E2%80%9D-sees-renewed-funding-for-%E2%82%AC15-million-maddie-hunt

I hadn't thought to connect the latest nonsense with the claims about the Podesta brothers but it does fit and explains who the "they" are that "have taken her" (or is it a forum myth that Kate said this?).

There's a comment by "PM" that states "It has been established, if course, that the story about their staying with Freud is simply not true." Does anyone know where the story about the Podesta brothers staying with Freud is established as being untrue? I don't believe it myself but have the nagging feeling that there might be something in it and it would be nice to put my mind at rest if there were proof that its rubbish

I don't think the 'they've taken her' is a forum myth. But I can't recall off the top of my head.

The Villa that was once owned by Freud but wasn't owned by him in 2007. He used to rent it out but as far as I know it was sometime after the 3rd of May he was over there? There are rumours floating about that the Podesta brothers were staying with him on and around the 3rd of May.

Is it established that the Podesta brothers even knew Freud let alone holiday with him?

I think it's all bollox myself and this sort of nonsense is great for Team McCann. Anything to shift the focus slightly from themselves.

I don't believe it either, but, like I say, there's something at the back of my mind that thinks there could be something in it. I was hoping for proof that the story has indeed been established as untrue so I can forget about it.

What's interesting though is:

• The rumours/fake news about John Podesta being linked to an American establishment paedophile ring arose entirely independently of Madeleine McCann's disappearance
  
• Wikileaks has no emails from John Podesta prior to 04/07/2007 (i.e. he deleted all his emails on that day)
  
• The Podesta brothers do bear an extraordinary resemblance to the e-fits
  
• The McCanns themselves have always said she was taken by paedophiles and, as a statement analyst might say, Kate says that's what happened so we have to believe her
  

BTW I'm not so sure that it does shift attention from the McCanns unless you're inclined to believe that Madeleine really was abducted and it was the Podesta brothers that abducted her

I was under the impression that was what's it all about. To reinforce the 'abduction' nonsense. The Podesta brothers and Freud were involved in a P ring and abducted Madeleine. Nothing to do with the parents etc.

The McCanns had to jump on the P angle from the off. It was the only thing that they could say in why she was 'taken'. There was never going to be a kidnap/ransom demand so that was out the question. They had to point the finger away from themselves being complicit. Abducted by paedophiles was there only option, IMO.

Andrew wrote:

AndyB wrote:
BTW I'm not so sure that it does shift attention from the McCanns unless you're inclined to believe that Madeleine really was abducted and it was the Podesta brothers that abducted her

I was under the impression that was what's it all about. To reinforce the 'abduction' nonsense. The Podesta brothers and Freud were involved in a P ring and abducted Madeleine. Nothing to do with the parents etc.

The McCanns had to jump on the P angle from the off. It was the only thing that they could say in why she was 'taken'. There was never going to be a kidnap/ransom demand so that was out the question. They had to point the finger away from themselves being complicit. Abducted by paedophiles was there only option, IMO.

My thinking was along the lines of: No-one in law-enforcement genuinely believes that this was a stranger abduction so if Madeleine was taken by anyone - including the paedophiles that the McCanns themselves claim took her - then the McCanns must have known something about it and quite possibly facilitated it. Ergo, having a couple of alleged paedophiles in PdL staying at the villa of a known paedophile (that subsequently befriended the Mccanns) at the time Madeleine disappeared and who bear an extraordinary resemblance to efits that SY are interested in, doesn't exactly help the McCanns.

(And it would get much worse for them if links could be established between them and members of the establishment that may also have links to Freud/the Podestas. Comare?)

I should reiterate that I think the whole Podesta thing is a nonsense created by Trump supporters to smear Hilary Clinton and if you look into it some of it is serious tinfoil hat stuff

Andrew wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4001976/Madeleine-McCann-kidnapped-European-child-trafficking-ring-fear-British-Portuguese-police-forces-say-focusing-theory.html

If you take out the the recent trafficking nonsense that story still makes sense and is really quite interesting, if there's anything in it.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to think of that article at first glance. Will reread it again shortly.

Something somewhere appears to be 'heating up' though as this mass flurry of Madeleine related recent stories is in overdrive.

Same journo and same article in the Express:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/740014/Madeleine-McCann-search-European-traffickers-snatched-tot-Portuguese-police-believe

And the Star:

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/567781/Madeleine-McCann-trafficking-gang-search-lead

Andrew wrote:Hmmm. I'm not sure what to think of that article at first glance. Will reread it again shortly.

The main points for me are
Good relationship between PJ and SY
PJ rejected burglary gone wrong theory
PJ haven't received an expected further rogatory letter re botched burglary
"Since the Operation Grange leadership changed, the relationship is easy and fluid"
"the final [rogatory letter of the six sent by SY to the PJ] which is thought to have contained the results of DNA tests from Portugal's Police Scientific Laboratory, was sent back to the British authorities"
There's been no further contact between SY & the PJ

Yes, agree. Reading between the lines then there are some positives out of it. Now whether it's factual or not is another thing.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/12/05/portuguese-police-refuse-to-rule-out-new-madeleine-mccann-trafficking-lead-6302510/

Portuguese police chiefs have refused to rule out a new lead in the Madeleine McCann case which claims she was snatched by a gang of European traffickers in 2007.

Policia Judiciaria (PJ) today declined to make any official comment on the weekend trafficking claims being investigated by Scotland Yard.


PJ not commenting. OG not commenting. All McSpin?

Do the PJ honestly think that Madeleine was snatched by a trafficking gang? Nah, I don't think so.

What sort of child trafficking gang takes a dead body anyway?

Random thoughts.

Freud doesn't "officially" enter the story until his apparent letter of introduction to Kate. Yet the McCanns' first two spokespeople - Justine McGuiness and David Hughes - were/are prominent LibDem activists. What are the chances? Was Mitchell then sent out there by the (Labour) Government to wrest back some control of the narrative?

Freud is unmasked as a predatory paedophile (although, not really) on 15th June. This news is completely eclipsed by the murder of Jo Cox on 16th June. Immediately prior to the EU referendum a ridiculous story emerges of Freud lunching with Murat in "The Pig's Head" pub - echoing Michael Ashcroft's equally bizarre and unproven "Pig's Head" allegations made against Cameron.

The McCanns defensive tactics over the years (litigation or threat thereof, aggressive domination of social media, the odd unexplained death) have much in common with those employed by the Clinton Foundation.

https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-machine-of-paid-trolls-floods-social-media-to-counteract-negative-news-about-hillary-clinton/

"Correct the Record" = "Stop The Myths"?

As I more or less said elsewhere on the forum, I get the impression that this case is being used as just one front in a huge war between two factions, and to keep various folks in their respective boxes.

@Unreorganised.

Cheers - an interesting take on things.

unreorganised wrote:
The McCanns defensive tactics over the years (litigation or threat thereof, aggressive domination of social media, the odd unexplained death) have much in common with those employed by the Clinton Foundation.

https://stream.org/astroturf-outrage-machine-of-paid-trolls-floods-social-media-to-counteract-negative-news-about-hillary-clinton/

"Correct the Record" = "Stop The Myths"?

The question then is; Are the tactics common because they're being practiced by the same people/organisation or is it just how modern "PR" works?