The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Who still thinks this is a whitewash?

23% 23% 
[ 19 ]
6% 6% 
[ 5 ]
26% 26% 
[ 22 ]
2% 2% 
[ 2 ]
13% 13% 
[ 11 ]
30% 30% 
[ 25 ]
 
Total Votes : 84

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by HelenMeg on 02.08.14 11:03

@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@Woofer wrote:@ Helenmeg - Interesting question indeed - " Can anyone tell me just who is the 'establishment'? "

It would have to be the billionaires, the media moguls, the bankers - I doubt very much its the politicians and judges - they are just puppets with dodgey proclivities so can be blackmailed.  All thats required of a politician is a lust for fame and power and an ability to lie with impunity.  Not all of them of course, but the good ones will find it tough to get anywhere.  Someone made a remark here that Putin described Westminster as a nest of paedophiles and I`m sure he`s right.
Thanks Woofer. For SOMEONE to influence and order the remit of Op GRANGE, or any other Operation  - I wonder if it gets passed down from pillar to post.... I imagine this circle of establishment figures sitting together and making the decision about which way to go.... Or is it a series of phone calls ?

How is a decision made to protect - say - a pedophile who is a Lord? Who decides?  Just cant seem to get my head around the decision -making process.
I guess the 'establishment' does not exist - it is a virtual cloud - similar to that of the electron properties.

It is a cloud which encompasses key figures - who are they? Political donators? Peers ? as you say - the billionaires and the media moguls.  
I would love to see a TV doc on this subject...
HelenMeg, it's no secret that you support Textusa's theory of swinging, you very often quote Textusa (you've done it today).

I'm most interested in why you believe in swinging to be a cause of covering up things and can't understand a cover up of any other sort.

Swinging would have been known to the Portuguese investigation surely? I lived abroad and let me tell you even olive trees have eyes.
Hi Aquila

Just to clarify as you are slightly incorrect in your assertions about me!

I admire Textusa - I have yet to find a blogger / poster who supports assertions as well and meticulously as she.  There are some fantastic posts on her site - not just those which relate specifically to swinging theory - but that assess the entire situation from a global viewpoint.     I frequently visit her site and find new gems. 
I dont have to support the swinging theory to admire her.

I did used to wholeheartedly at one stage support the swinging theory.  Now, I happen to believe that that may have been one aspect of the reason why the group were at PdL that week. I also believe that nothingh is black and white and also think there may have been financial reasons - investment opportunities within the Algarve (specifally that area with is golf courses etc) that were being exploited by UK business men. I am pretty open minded as to  what was going on that week and remain interested in everyone's views.

I am like everyone else - I dont know !!!  I wish I did ... at the moment I am more interested in the strategies used by those in the UK intent on directing the investigation.
To me, and this is only my opinion so I'm not asking anyone to agree with it, if swinging were going on it would be known by even the gardeners and chambermaids - not a lot gets past them - and would have been devoured by the press both in Portugal and UK. Yet nothing has been made of this. It's unlikely that the press would miss the opportunity to report something salacious (even if it's not true!). CdM would have been in there like a shot and as far as I'm aware no-one can slap a D notice/injunction on a Portuguese newspaper.

After seven years, the loss of jobs in PDL and the relentless slurring of Portugal and the Portuguese it would be odd to think that not a single worker/local would have contacted the press to say that swinging was going on and at least the Portuguese press to report it.

This is where I have a problem with a cover up being made on the basis of swinging.

I'm like you in that I'm interested in those in UK intent on directing the investigation.
Hi
Yes... I just dont know...having had lengthy conversations about this tonight -  the establishment directing this will involve media moguls / key civil servants  / rich business men ... why would they wish to have interfered with justice? I think certain people have pulled favours from the likes of these  'figures in establishment'.  Who was at PdL that week staying in OC ? Film people (Jez 'n Bridge) plus P E (Stemcor Board) plus doctors plus god knows who else.  I dont know why they all congregated there that week  - but it was for some reason. Some VIP has pulled a favour as he / she / they dont want their activities exposed - which a proper investigation of MBM would have led to.  Things are now coming to the head - especially if the Mc Canns are suing The Times as reported. They may be suing the hand that has fed them...

Its interesting and I wish I had a better understanding. As for whether its swinging they're hiding - for the moment I'm not too bothered - I just think of it as some activity which they dont want exposing...
HelenMeg,

Firstly, there is no absolute confirmation that the McCanns are suing the Times. You say 'as reported' I haven't seen anything other than a screenshot from Twitter, if you know anything concrete then please post it.

Secondly, you have in the past totally rejected the idea of the McCanns being in PDL on a pharmaceutical company freebie.

Thirdly, you have totally supported (quite fervently) the swinging theory.

Fourthly, why do you think things are coming to a head?

As far as I can see and staying true to the topic, I don't see anything 'coming to a head' especially the Lisbon Trial. I can't see a ruling happening this year.

If you take a look at the Lisbon Trial, the convenient timings of SY's intervention 'revelation moment' followed by 'we're here, so don't you worry, the Professionals are here', 'we're working collaboratively', 'we've brought in the dogs and the diggers and the gpr', 'take a look at our photos', 'see our helicopter reccie' etc then you have to ask yourself what is it about the Lisbon Trial that is so irksome to prompt SY to do this at particular times? Then you have to ask yourself why Portuguese authorities (the big high-ups) have allowed this to happen.

















I dont know anything concrete - it may be a total wind-up -hence I used the words 'especially if the Mc Canns are suing The Times as reported.'  

-note use of the word 'if'

 Secondly, I still reject the idea of the McCanns being in PDL on a pharmaceutical company freebie (it s an area I'm familiar with and it is not plausible to me ).
 

Thirdly, I have certainly supported the swinging theory in the past and to this day do not reject it as a highly plausible theory for what was going on at OC that week. I happen to believe that there may be other factors involved based on other knowledge that I have learnt.However, as I mentioned.. why they were there is not foremost on my mind these days.. current strategies being played out are now what I tend to think about more than anything..

Fourthly, why do you think things are coming to a head?
Because of the amount of knowledge and reading that I do from a variety of sources
Because of an instinctive feeling
Because of a forthcoming election
Because it is is many peoples' interest to 'put this to bed quickly'.
 

the Lisbon Trial and the Portuguese investrigation are bound to be highly irksome - they are not within the control of UK establishment / investigation.

I know no more than you - but I do talk to some very strategicly minded people - so I guess my influences  come from people who are used to dealing in high level strategy and tactics. To be honest, I just find it interesting watching the game being played out. As I sit in my rocking chair in the front porch. Dont you? Better than Corrie




HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Justformaddie on 02.08.14 11:03

Thank you Claire25 
@Claire25 wrote:Prince Charles 'intervenes in changes' to elite Scotland Yard protection detail for the Royal Family

Regardless, a Scotland Yard shake-up which removes back-up officer support for the Royal and Diplomatic Protection Group went ahead as planned

PA
Intervention: Prince Charles
Prince Charles has reportedly intervened in changes to the elite protection detail for the Royal Family.
But the Scotland Yard shake-up which removes back-up officer support for[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/prince charles, prince of wales]the Royal[/url] and Diplomatic Protection Group went ahead as planned.
A source said: “The personal protection officers have been told effectively it is over to them to sort it out.
“Obviously it raises serious concern about the effectiveness of the department and will have an impact on the safety of the royal family.

"For the first time it seems Scotland Yard is putting a price on protecting the royal family. In the past this was not even a consideration — security came first.”
[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/metropolitan police]The Met[/url] denied the changes were part of money-saving plans to strip back its budget by a fifth as part of Government funding cuts.
Scotland Yard said: “There has been some re-organisation to ensure we deliver the most effective policing service to all of London – including[url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/royal family]those protected by the RDPG[/url] .”
A spokesman said “threat and risk levels” had been taken into account.
The annual bill for royal protection is kept secret, however is believed to be more than £100million.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-intervenes-changes-elite-3950290

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Woofer on 02.08.14 11:06

Who Still Thinks This is a Whitewash?

Goncalo Amaral does.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Justformaddie on 02.08.14 11:15

@Woofer wrote:Who Still Thinks This is a Whitewash?

Goncalo Amaral does.
And that's really scary to me but, the royals have been in the mirror app the last two days alone, has something changed? I soooooo hope so. Former aide up on 3 cases of child abuse and now protecting them too costly. That is ofcourse, if it's all true. IMO I don't think there could be lies or misprints to do with them. 
All IMO  fingers crossed

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by aquila on 02.08.14 11:59

@HelenMeg wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@Woofer wrote:@ Helenmeg - Interesting question indeed - " Can anyone tell me just who is the 'establishment'? "

It would have to be the billionaires, the media moguls, the bankers - I doubt very much its the politicians and judges - they are just puppets with dodgey proclivities so can be blackmailed.  All thats required of a politician is a lust for fame and power and an ability to lie with impunity.  Not all of them of course, but the good ones will find it tough to get anywhere.  Someone made a remark here that Putin described Westminster as a nest of paedophiles and I`m sure he`s right.
Thanks Woofer. For SOMEONE to influence and order the remit of Op GRANGE, or any other Operation  - I wonder if it gets passed down from pillar to post.... I imagine this circle of establishment figures sitting together and making the decision about which way to go.... Or is it a series of phone calls ?

How is a decision made to protect - say - a pedophile who is a Lord? Who decides?  Just cant seem to get my head around the decision -making process.
I guess the 'establishment' does not exist - it is a virtual cloud - similar to that of the electron properties.

It is a cloud which encompasses key figures - who are they? Political donators? Peers ? as you say - the billionaires and the media moguls.  
I would love to see a TV doc on this subject...
HelenMeg, it's no secret that you support Textusa's theory of swinging, you very often quote Textusa (you've done it today).

I'm most interested in why you believe in swinging to be a cause of covering up things and can't understand a cover up of any other sort.

Swinging would have been known to the Portuguese investigation surely? I lived abroad and let me tell you even olive trees have eyes.
Hi Aquila

Just to clarify as you are slightly incorrect in your assertions about me!

I admire Textusa - I have yet to find a blogger / poster who supports assertions as well and meticulously as she.  There are some fantastic posts on her site - not just those which relate specifically to swinging theory - but that assess the entire situation from a global viewpoint.     I frequently visit her site and find new gems. 
I dont have to support the swinging theory to admire her.

I did used to wholeheartedly at one stage support the swinging theory.  Now, I happen to believe that that may have been one aspect of the reason why the group were at PdL that week. I also believe that nothingh is black and white and also think there may have been financial reasons - investment opportunities within the Algarve (specifally that area with is golf courses etc) that were being exploited by UK business men. I am pretty open minded as to  what was going on that week and remain interested in everyone's views.

I am like everyone else - I dont know !!!  I wish I did ... at the moment I am more interested in the strategies used by those in the UK intent on directing the investigation.
To me, and this is only my opinion so I'm not asking anyone to agree with it, if swinging were going on it would be known by even the gardeners and chambermaids - not a lot gets past them - and would have been devoured by the press both in Portugal and UK. Yet nothing has been made of this. It's unlikely that the press would miss the opportunity to report something salacious (even if it's not true!). CdM would have been in there like a shot and as far as I'm aware no-one can slap a D notice/injunction on a Portuguese newspaper.

After seven years, the loss of jobs in PDL and the relentless slurring of Portugal and the Portuguese it would be odd to think that not a single worker/local would have contacted the press to say that swinging was going on and at least the Portuguese press to report it.

This is where I have a problem with a cover up being made on the basis of swinging.

I'm like you in that I'm interested in those in UK intent on directing the investigation.
Hi
Yes... I just dont know...having had lengthy conversations about this tonight -  the establishment directing this will involve media moguls / key civil servants  / rich business men ... why would they wish to have interfered with justice? I think certain people have pulled favours from the likes of these  'figures in establishment'.  Who was at PdL that week staying in OC ? Film people (Jez 'n Bridge) plus P E (Stemcor Board) plus doctors plus god knows who else.  I dont know why they all congregated there that week  - but it was for some reason. Some VIP has pulled a favour as he / she / they dont want their activities exposed - which a proper investigation of MBM would have led to.  Things are now coming to the head - especially if the Mc Canns are suing The Times as reported. They may be suing the hand that has fed them...

Its interesting and I wish I had a better understanding. As for whether its swinging they're hiding - for the moment I'm not too bothered - I just think of it as some activity which they dont want exposing...
HelenMeg,

Firstly, there is no absolute confirmation that the McCanns are suing the Times. You say 'as reported' I haven't seen anything other than a screenshot from Twitter, if you know anything concrete then please post it.

Secondly, you have in the past totally rejected the idea of the McCanns being in PDL on a pharmaceutical company freebie.

Thirdly, you have totally supported (quite fervently) the swinging theory.

Fourthly, why do you think things are coming to a head?

As far as I can see and staying true to the topic, I don't see anything 'coming to a head' especially the Lisbon Trial. I can't see a ruling happening this year.

If you take a look at the Lisbon Trial, the convenient timings of SY's intervention 'revelation moment' followed by 'we're here, so don't you worry, the Professionals are here', 'we're working collaboratively', 'we've brought in the dogs and the diggers and the gpr', 'take a look at our photos', 'see our helicopter reccie' etc then you have to ask yourself what is it about the Lisbon Trial that is so irksome to prompt SY to do this at particular times? Then you have to ask yourself why Portuguese authorities (the big high-ups) have allowed this to happen.

















I dont know anything concrete - it may be a total wind-up -hence I used the words 'especially if the Mc Canns are suing The Times as reported.'  

-note use of the word 'if'

 Secondly, I still reject the idea of the McCanns being in PDL on a pharmaceutical company freebie (it s an area I'm familiar with and it is not plausible to me ).
 

Thirdly, I have certainly supported the swinging theory in the past and to this day do not reject it as a highly plausible theory for what was going on at OC that week. I happen to believe that there may be other factors involved based on other knowledge that I have learnt.However, as I mentioned.. why they were there is not foremost on my mind these days.. current strategies being played out are now what I tend to think about more than anything..

Fourthly, why do you think things are coming to a head?
Because of the amount of knowledge and reading that I do from a variety of sources
Because of an instinctive feeling
Because of a forthcoming election
Because it is is many peoples' interest to 'put this to bed quickly'.
 

the Lisbon Trial and the Portuguese investrigation are bound to be highly irksome - they are not within the control of UK establishment / investigation.

I know no more than you - but I do talk to some very strategicly minded people - so I guess my influences  come from people who are used to dealing in high level strategy and tactics. To be honest, I just find it interesting watching the game being played out. As I sit in my rocking chair in the front porch. Dont you? Better than Corrie



I'm gobsmacked.



aquila

Posts : 7988
Reputation : 1227
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by HelenMeg on 02.08.14 12:09

Im sorry - I dont wish to sound unfeeling / uncaring. I'm here because I do care - about justice and about what happened to the little girl. Just that the politics of this is amazing and I'm glad to know that
the internet will help prevent cover ups rather than facilitate them.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Cops are being jailed and sacked

Post by PeterMac on 04.08.14 16:35

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715658/Ex-fianc-e-showered-luxury-gifts-corrupt-policeman-partner-1million-selling-drugs-confiscated-criminals-sacked-force.html

Cops are being jailed and sacked for corruption.
If you were a year away from your pension, what would you do ?

Ex fiancée who was showered with luxury gifts after her corrupt policeman partner made £1million selling drugs confiscated from criminals is now sacked from the same force
Corrupt detective Nicholas McFadden sold heroin, cocaine and cannabis
He and his brother, Simon, made £1million dealing confiscated drugs
Fellow-detective Tanya Strangeway had a relationship with him at time
She was given £10,000 and an Audi by McFadden as presents
After McFadden was jailed, Strangeway has now been dismissed
West Yorkshire Police say they expect high standards from officers

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Guest on 04.08.14 18:05

Mike Spudgun summed it up recently on Twitter for me:

"ONLY Mystery in the #McCann case is NOT what happened to Madeleine but why the Establishment has gone to such lengths to obscure the truth.8:33pm - 2 Aug 14"

A whitewash truly is the only explanation from the support the McCanns received from the beginning, through Amaral's removal, to today's media support for the pair. And so on.

Someone mentioned on the Times thread about someone more powerful than Murdoch "authorizing" the writ. There is no-one more powerful than Murdoch. He and his ilk are the establishment.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by plebgate on 04.08.14 23:17

@PeterMac wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2715658/Ex-fianc-e-showered-luxury-gifts-corrupt-policeman-partner-1million-selling-drugs-confiscated-criminals-sacked-force.html

Cops are being jailed and sacked for corruption.
If you were a year away from your pension, what would you do ?

Ex fiancée who was showered with luxury gifts after her corrupt policeman partner made £1million selling drugs confiscated from criminals is now sacked from the same force
Corrupt detective Nicholas McFadden sold heroin, cocaine and cannabis
He and his brother, Simon, made £1million dealing confiscated drugs
Fellow-detective Tanya Strangeway had a relationship with him at time
She was given £10,000 and an Audi by McFadden as presents
After McFadden was jailed, Strangeway has now been dismissed
West Yorkshire Police say they expect high standards from officers
Wouldn't it be a good idea if cops driving round in high priced motors, living in upmarket homes were called in and asked to explain how they managed to live a life of luxury on a cop's salary?

Too many blind eyes being turned by the sound of it.

plebgate

Posts : 5573
Reputation : 1307
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Justformaddie on 05.08.14 11:24

I hope AR is not just passing time, how evil that would be IMO . 
Then again, imagine if he done the right thing, blow it all out of the water and then retired, he could possibly retire a hero and leave whoever to deal with any exposure, who will then do the right thing and end any cover ups once and for all while he enjoys retirement! I know, wishful thinking but...

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by aquila on 05.08.14 11:33

Andy Redwood isn't the person who decides anything. Those who decide are far higher up the food chain and they are the ones responsible for the remit.

aquila

Posts : 7988
Reputation : 1227
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Woofer on 05.08.14 11:47

@aquila wrote:Andy Redwood isn't the person who decides anything. Those who decide are far higher up the food chain and they are the ones responsible for the remit.

And we aren`t allowed to know who they are.  Didn`t Tony ask in a FOI request and was told it couldn`t be made public?  That alone sets big bells ringing.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Justformaddie on 05.08.14 11:51

@aquila wrote:Andy Redwood isn't the person who decides anything. Those who decide are far higher up the food chain and they are the ones responsible for the remit.
Totally true, but if AR has a heart and grows a pair...

____________________
Parents=protection high5 

Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by aquila on 05.08.14 11:58

@Woofer wrote:
@aquila wrote:Andy Redwood isn't the person who decides anything. Those who decide are far higher up the food chain and they are the ones responsible for the remit.

And we aren`t allowed to know who they are.  Didn`t Tony ask in a FOI request and was told it couldn`t be made public?  That alone sets big bells ringing.
Woofer, don't mention FOI's, the establishment don't like 'em. Ask for a few things and you're labelled vexatious.

The UK media seem to have better luck with FOI's but then again the UK media can have a D notice or injunction slapped on them.

The fact that this has become an 'investigation' by Scotland Yard is a bit of a coup for the establishment in terms of FOI's. It's an excuse to keep mum and say that anything revealed may prejudice an active investigation. Add to that Scotland Yard's bizarre fanfare of publicity with diggers, helicopters, cadaver dogs etc in Portugal whilst at the same time instructing the media that if anything is leaked the Portuguese will pull the plug and boot them out is a masterpiece.

Just my opinion.

aquila

Posts : 7988
Reputation : 1227
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Cristobell on 05.08.14 12:56

Dee Coy wrote:Mike Spudgun summed it up recently on Twitter for me:

"ONLY Mystery in the #McCann case is NOT what happened to Madeleine but why the Establishment has gone to such lengths to obscure the truth.8:33pm - 2 Aug 14"

A whitewash truly is the only explanation from the support the McCanns received from the beginning, through Amaral's removal, to today's media support for the pair. And so on.

Someone mentioned on the Times thread about someone more powerful than Murdoch "authorizing" the writ. There is no-one more powerful than Murdoch. He and his ilk are the establishment.
For me the mystery is solved Dee Coy.

In 2007, the incumbent labour government had an agenda.  They were talking about ID cards, collecting everyone's DNA and bringing in rigorous policing of the internet to look for paedos.  The Missing Madeleine case fell in their laps.

Here was an angelic little girl, stolen from her bed in the night (something they keep warning us about) and tangible proof of the dangers facing our children.  Madeleine immediately became the poster girl for the campaign to hunt down paedophiles.  Her cherubic little face being a daily reminder of the dangers facing our kids.

Of course, her disappearance had absolutely nothing to do with the internet, but her case was enthusiastically taken up by CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection) - the enforcement arm of internet policing if you like.  Known previously for tracking down thousands of men for watching questionable pornography on their computers, but now seeking wider powers.  If only they arrested a few thousand more, Madeleine might still be with us.

CEOP had good reason to champion the case of Missing Madeleine.  Most of the kids that would fall under their remit would be unattractive, spotty belligerent teens, who's faces would not endear them to the public.  Madeleine by contrast, was attractive and endearing and tugged at the nation's heartstrings.  That she was a toddler unable to use the internet seems to have passed by the powers that be, but why let the truth get in the way of such a noble cause?

The VIPs who helped the McCanns were firmly fixed within the last government, the government of 2007, and that's where the buck stops.  And incidentally, Buck, the British consul, was told to withdraw when the McCanns were made arguidos.  It is my belief, that all the diplomatic help for the McCanns ceased at the end of the Summer 2007. Apart that is, from the assistance of CEOP which continued throughout the parents' aguido status. 

The Vanity Fair interview reveals much of what was going on at that time, Gerry was speaking freely because he thought some of what he said would be 'off the record', naturally he was mortified when it appeared in its entirety, including his callous remark about revealing his daughter's distinctive eye, that 'that there was a danger the abductor might do something to her eye, or kill her', but it was 'a good marketing ploy'.  In the same interview Clarence whines that he requested a face to face meeting with the Prime Minister but they only offered someone mid consul level, which they declined.  I should add I'm quoting from memory, so may not be exact words, but the message is plain.  The government assistance stopped. 

The McCanns continued to have assistance from the friends they made while they were the Media's golden couple, but their Night of a Thousand Stars Balloons, was a PR disaster.  Knowing the super efficient McCann publicity machine, they probably sent out thousands of invitations, but the poor celebrity turnout showed how much support the McCanns had lost. 

As for Lorraine Kelly and the interviewers who invite them to appear on their shows, I don't think it is out of benevolence, but rather it is a cynical ploy, every interviewer praying that they will be the ones to get the big story when it breaks.  Although maybe not Lorraine, who does seem to be genuinely dim. 

I don't quite know how all the interviews over the years came about, but again, the ever efficient McCann publicity machine probably sent out offers of interviews to every news channel around the globe, and as they were newsworthy, many offers were accepted.  Gerry likes to give the impression that they are constantly in demand, and he gets niggled if an interviewer points out that they, the McCanns, asked if they could appear.

I've said it on other threads, and I will say it here again.  The McCanns are far from unique, similar cases in the USA show the same patterns of behaviour, including the 'need' to clear themselves in the eyes of the public.  They genuinely believe that the more they explain their innocence, the more likely it is that people will believe them, and they continued in this vein, despite the facts proving their campaign was having the opposite effect.  Such is the vanity of narcissists, they believe they can talk themselves out of anything. 

No-one is helping the McCanns now.  In fact, I don't think they have had any 'inside' help for a number of years, one look at Kate's strained face, tells us they are very much alone.  This coalition government is not implicated in what went on in 2007. It wasn't David Cameron making person to person calls to police hero Gerry, and it wasn't DC who pressurised the Portuguese to remove Goncalo Amaral as co-ordinator of the original investigation. Those sins lay firmly at the door of the last government. Why would DC jeopardise his own career and legacy by covering up something that had nothing to do with him?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by Snifferdog on 05.08.14 13:33

Christobell: Why would DC jeopardise his own career and legacy by covering up something that had nothing to do with him?
***********************
Why indeed...Perhaps because he too may liae his vested interests. It is my belief one does not "get anywhere" in this life in the present dispensation unless one is "part of the club". Whether it be music, acting, politics or earning a peerage. In order to join this club one has to literally sell ones soul. Each member has dirt on another to put it plainly, and it is the glue that keeps them together, and protecting each other. I believe this is what the Eagles were referring to in their "Hotel California" track.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by aquila on 05.08.14 13:42

@Snifferdog wrote:Christobell: Why would DC jeopardise his own career and legacy by covering up something that had nothing to do with him?
***********************
Why indeed...Perhaps because he too may liae his vested interests. It is my belief one does not "get anywhere" in this life in the present dispensation unless one is "part of the club". Whether it be music, acting, politics or earning a peerage. In order to join this club one has to literally sell ones soul. Each member has dirt on another to put it plainly, and it is the glue that keeps them together, and protecting each other. I believe this is what the Eagles were referring to in their "Hotel California" track.
You have to love the Eagles  winkwink

aquila

Posts : 7988
Reputation : 1227
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: WHO STILL THINKS THIS IS A WHITEWASH?

Post by cockerspaniel on 07.08.14 20:04

I think this latest piece from  l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com  should get anyone who is left on the fence of of it for good !!

If you cant see this as a whitewash.....YOU CANT SEE !!   all in my opinion of course. duh  shit happens 





Those E.Fits Again


Its all very shocking, sickening that the McCanns would have created, E.Fits of a suspect, a suspect in the disappearance of their missing daughter, described by the Metropolitan Police, as vitally significant to their investigation - yet kept them undisclosed from the public for FIVE  YEARS.

Five years when young Madeleine if alive could quite possibly have been found, if only these E.Fits had been disclosed.

But there is something not quite right about the whole story of the E.Fits.

Yes the McCanns kept them to themselves for five years, that is did not reveal them to the public, and by so doing without question they failed Madeleine and damaged any search for her.

It's incomprehensible for any decent person to even begin to try and understand why the parents of a missing child would do this to the child especially when they have stated that they believed her to have been taken by paedophiles.

There were two sightings on the night Madeleine was reported as missing.   

The first by Jane Tanner a member of the McCann holiday group.  A sighting which the Portuguese Police knew instantly was not credible, knew instantly that Tanner was lying.

A sighting which the McCann private detectives said also was not credible!

The second sighting by the Smith family, independent witnesses, a family who own a property in Praia da Luz and were holidaying there at the time of Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns, despite knowing of the Smith family sighting as early as 2007,  and despite being advised by their private detectives that Tanner's sighting was not credible (this back in 2008)did not promote the Smith sighting.  They gave it a mention in their documentary, but linking it to the Tanner sighting as being one and same person, in so doing misleading the viewing public.  But gave no mention that they had in their possession E.Fits.

The Smith sighting  was given a mention in Kate McCanns account of the truth, but again, she did not mention that they had in their possession the E.Fits.

McCanns quite clearly had no intention of making these E.Fits public of promoting this sighting in the way they did the sighting by their buddy Tanner, the sighting which was all but ruled out by the Portuguese Police and their own private detectives.

Enter, DCI Andy Redwood.   He obtains copies of these E.Fits in 2011.

He does not disclose them until Crimewatch aired in the UK on 14th October 2013.

Redwood rolls out at this time his 'Revelation Moment'

Seems he, the Metropolitan Police too don't find Jane Tanner's sighting to be credible, Crimewatch the platform for its dismissal.

According to Redwood Jane Tanner did not see a man carrying off Madeleine, she saw a man carrying home his little daughter from the creche, a little girl who was wearing pyjamas only, a little girl whose dad didn't bother wrapping the child in a blanket from the cold night air.   A British dad on holiday with his family.   

The name of this dad, like the E.Fits of Smithman was not to be disclosed publicly!

But let us think about it.   The McCanns NEVER at any time gave the Smith sighting any real credence.  

The fact that the kept undisclosed from the public the E.Fits for five years, tells us they were not interested in the slightest in this sighting, which in itself is quite extraordinary.    A family of independent witnesses see a man carrying a child matching physically their daughter's description, the child dressed only in pyjamas as their daughter was, at around the time of night when Kate McCann supposedly discovered her daughter to be missing - and they do not disclose the E.Fits?

Their best chance as Gerry McCann said, five years after the E.Fits were put together, of finding Madeleine.

So why wait five years if this was Madeleine's best chance of being found?

Added to which, DCI Redwood kept them a secret too from 2011 until October 2013?

Would it be naive of us to believe that Redwood only learned of the Smith sighting after the commencement of Scotland Yard's involvement in this case?

Of course it would.

Would it be naive of us to believe that DCI Redwood only became aware of the E.Fits after Scotland Yard's involvement in the case?

Probably!


There is of course the tiniest of possibilities that the Met Investigation only became aware after officers from Operation Grange questioned the Smith family and they in turn  informed the Met Officers that the McCann private detectives had visited with them, and that they had co-operated with them giving descriptions of the man they had seen so that the E.Fits could be produced.

The Met Officers did interview the Smith family as soon as they began their investigation?  Well one would like to think so.

What I am struggling to understand is this.

Redwood, the Met knew that the Tanner sighting was a nonsense, a tale invented, an attempt to beef up the McCann abduction story.



We have heard many times that Redwood is playing the long game (it has been well over three years how much darn well longer?) that he has the McCanns and their buddies in his sights.  Much as I would like to believe this, and at times, I go there, momentarily, thinking, perhaps he has – but for Redwood to be doing that – he would not be doing ALL of the other things which he has been – and the timing of the release of any information by the Metropolitan Police, ALWAYS at a time favourable to McCanns (not their search for Madeleine, but coinciding at all times with  matters pertaining to the legal action they raised against Dr Amaral) has to be considered as suspicious. The timing of the release of the E.Fits/Crimewatch one such incidence.

(and no prizes for guessing when he will come out with his next round of revelations!)

Those E.Fits should have been out there IMMEDIATELY but Redwood held them back until Crimewatch was to be aired in the UK, the time the trial in Lisbon was in progress.  He didn’t suggest at that time that Madeleine was dead far from it – so why would he have held onto those E.Fits for so long, only publicising them at this time, if this child was alive, out there, waiting to be rescued?

Both DCI Redwood and the McCanns keeping these E.Fits under wraps for years and years, the lack of urgency to disclose them, suggests both parties know the child is dead.

The long game, for DCI Redwood, is not I believe to solve this case -he made this clear from the beginning that this was not likely to happen – his long game was to reach the finishing line - his finishing line – retirement!    And this is now not too far off.
And to reach it having left the public with stories of burglars taking Madeleine, or a pot bellied smelly man, a garbage collector, anyone in fact, just not the McCanns all part of the plan?
His dismissal of Tanners sighting, most hailed as just wonderful, Redwood had, we thought, seen at long last, what everyone else had the public, the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police - that Tanner had lied invented a story of a man carrying off a child, so now things could get moving, the investigation could progress.   

But Redwood must have seen that Tanner’s story was a nonsense LONG before any Metropolitan Police Review/Investigation of this case.

Remember too he did not say Tanner made a mistake that she never saw anyone at all, rather, he came up with a story which allowed him to be rid of Tannerman but still allowed for Tanner, her story to seem as though truthful but a simple case of mistaken identity - she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but another child being carried by her daddy, home from the night creche.
He also must have known before this Metropolitan Police investigation that the McCanns story of an abductor was a nonsense too.

An abductor who had been watching them for days on end



  • Who nipped in and out the apartment in minutes while Gerry McCann was standing outside the apartment?
  • Who jemmied the shutter and window open while Gerry McCann stood outside the apartment?
  • Who then walked across Gerry McCanns path carrying off Madeleine while McCann stood outside the apartment talking to an acquaintance.
  • Who jemmied open a shutter and window when this abductor knew if he had been watching them all week and that night also, that Jane Tanner and others would be checking, on their way to do checks of their children entering their apartments at the side of the building where the McCann children's bedroom window was located?  The window where Oldfield claims to have listened that very night.


***I must point out that it was proved that the window and shutter had not been jemmied open though that is the story the McCanns told the press and their family and friends back home.***

Kate McCann then changed this jemmied window story, to the abductor having opened the window and shutter from the inside, to create a
'red herring'  --- 

DCI Redwood knew like the rest of the world that the McCanns statements re the abductor were a nonsense.

Kate McCann's -  
They've been watching us, it was only a small window of opportunity but they've been watching us.' 

and

Gerry McCann's -  It was a high risk strategy - Jane almost caught him.'

What a load of bullshit!     Enough now McCanns!

Redwood knew this was all nonsense.  He knew no one went into that apartment at the time the McCanns claimed, that Tanner’s sighting was something they concocted.
If his agenda was to not solve this case but get to the finishing line with a resolution as he once said, one which left the McCanns/Tanner et al free – then Tannerman had to go.   And so did those statements by Gerry and Kate McCann about 'tiny windows of opportunity and abductors with high risk strategies, abducting Madeleine while he McCann stood outside the apartment. Stories of Jane Tanner almost catching the abductor just too ridiculous for words.

(See 'Abductor Almost Caught' blog above)

Neither Jane Tanner or the McCanns batted an eyelid at Redwood getting rid of Tanners sighting.
At the time Crimewatch aired six and a half years after Madeleine’s disappearance, during which time the McCanns had hammered home this sighting, claiming this was the man who had abducted Madeleine, and rejecting all the while the Smith sighting, suppressing the E.Fits for FIVE years, and then Redwood suddenly has a revelation moment and says - Hey the guy Jane Tanner saw did not abduct Madeleine.

And guess what?  Neither the McCanns or Jane Tanner had a thing to say about it. Not a word.  They did not bat an eyelid.

How can that be?
How is it that the McCanns who for years and years pushed this sighting by Tanner (and still have the sketch artists image on their website) and who did not disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting – that all of a sudden they were happy to go along with Redwood’s Revelation - which pretty much made them and Tanner out to be if not liars, having made a serious mistake, and McCann doesn't like to be made out to be wrong.

For McCanns, Gerry McCann in particular to have to swallow this after years of robustly telling anyone who questioned this sighting, that they were wrong.

Remember his angry response to Sandra Felgueiras where he was so angry he told her that the abductor had almost been caught?

When Ms Felgueiras asked him by whom - Gerry McCann replied

'By Jane!"  (Tanner) 

So it makes no sense that the McCanns and Tanner went along with Redwood getting rid of the Tanner sighting, unless of course it suited the McCanns.  Unless it got them out of a hole!

And they were in one huge hole with the Tanner sighting, and their tiny window of opportunity.   Who in their right mind believed that tale that an abductor nipped in and took Madeleine while Gerry McCann was outside the apartment?  While half the tapas group were going back and forth checking on the kids.  Didn't happen!
So, did Redwood introduce Crecheman to the world to



  • Help Madeleine, her plight, discover what became of her?



OR



  • To help her parents out of the situation they found themselves, one deep hole of deceit?



Was he tasked to solve the crimes against Madeleine, or simply to resolve this matter in a way that was favourable for McCanns, to wind this up good and proper, no jail time for anyone…not the McCanns, their buddies, not the burglars who, Portuguese style, according to Redwood steal kids not material goods, and not the pot- bellied, smelly man, whose only crime was not to wash as often as he should, and who ate too many donuts..?

Was the introduction of the burglars and all the smelly people, just persons Redwood had no intention of bringing any charges against through Portuguese Police, but simply used to plant seeds in the minds of the public, to forever hold on to - that a burglar or a smelly man took Madeleine McCann, but that he Redwood just never quite found enough evidence to nail them for it, to bring charges?

Redwood is not running the show in this investigation – Redwood is not calling the shots in this case he has his instructions.  He is but a puppet his strings being pulled by someone with a hell of a lot more power – Redwood's only goal as far as I can see is to get over the finishing line, leaving the McCanns in a better place than they were when the Met Investigation started.


The McCanns have been so adamant that Jane Tanner saw the abductor all of these years and as we now know, they didn't disclose the E.Fits of the Smith sighting.

Now they did that for a reason.

Would love to have been a fly on wall at that board meeting at the Madeleine Fund - All in favour of hiding the E.Fits say Aye?

I wonder how, good old uncle Brian voted, you know the good governance sort of guy?

The Board of Directors at the Madeleine Fund must be monsters that they would have done this to Madeleine, not disclosed the E.Fits which her daddy five years later is claiming is the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING HER?

Was it not the best chance 5, 4, 3,2,1 year ago?

So why would they the McCanns so readily, easily, suddenly accept DCI Redwood's Revelation - that he had discovered a British dad who he is almost certain is the person Tanner saw, and not someone carrying off Madeleine?

Put it this way.  The McCann private detectives investigated Tanner sighting thoroughly, as they did the Smith sighting.   They dismissed Tanner's sighting as a nonsense, not credible, they created E.Fits of the Smith sighting as it was considered credible.

Do we believe for a moment that neither the Portuguese Police, or the McCanns private detectives, the ones who produced the E.Fits,  did not check the creche records to see if anyone else had picked up a child that night, a little girl with blonde hair of around Madeleine's age, dressed only in pyjamas, by a male adult?

Of course they checked this out, and before DCI Redwood came on the scene, I'd say.

The purpose of Redwood's Revelation Moment, the release of Tanner, freeing her from her statement her sighting - and we all know this woman has lied and lied throughout this case, that is not up for dispute, that is a fact - and by doing so, it also frees the McCanns of their nonsense - the tiny window of opportunity and the high risk strategy.   His revelation was to serve a purpose, to take the heat off these people, it was not breakthrough in the case, not that I can see.

If the McCann private detectives had discovered that there was indeed a dad who had picked up his daughter that evening, they would not have condemned Tanner, her sighting, they would not have questioned the truthfulness of her account, her police statements.

They, and the Portuguese Police too, would have stated that Tanner had not lied, but she had been mistaken, she had not seen Madeleine being carried off but had seen a dad taking his child home.

They didn't!

And the reason I suggest for this is that there is NO crecheman/crechedad whatever you choose to call him!

What we must now consider, is, has Tanner done a deal with the Met spilled the beans in exchange for..?

OR,

And I now lean towards the following

Did Redwood got rid of Tannerman, replacing him with Crecheman, not to solve this case, to move in on the McCanns, get a step closer to having them charged with anything, not them or their buddies, but to dig them out of the hole they dug for themselves?

He knows their story doesn't add up.  That no one popped into that apartment under Gerry McCanns nose and abducted Madeleine under his nose.   He knows also that Tanner's statement to Portuguese Police is no more than lies.

He knows the tiny window of opportunity the McCanns spoke of needed widened as no one took Madeleine during that time.  To widen it - and to do that, Tanner's sighting had to go.   The time gap had to be increased to take the heat off McCanns.

Being rid of  Tanner sighting left the focus on Smith sighting - the ideal opportunity to bring the matter of these hidden E.Fits to the fore, the E.Fits McCanns had kept under wraps from the public for five years, and which the Met had kept under wraps for over TWO YEARS.

Is Redwood simply ticking off getting rid of all that points to the involvement of Gerry and Kate McCann and their buddies to some degree, in the disappearance of this child?  Getting rid of the Tanner sighting, not a step closer to them being charged with anything, rather distancing the McCanns from all the stories they have told, re-writing the FACTS of this case? 

The McCann parents sat through many interviews in that FIVE year period during which they were asked by interviewers all manners of things relating to their missing daughter, not least – ‘WERE THERE ANY NEW LEADS?’

McCanns never cracked a light about the E.Fits.  They replied in the negative.
THEY LIED – and not for the FIRST TIME, since the disappearance of their daughter!


And if I may quote Kate McCann at this point:

"We'd never lied about anything - not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else.  But we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn't seem to have a choice."

Madeleine Page 205- 206

I can only imagine based on their track record that they have found themselves in many tricky situations.

But why would they then be happy to go along with DCI Redwood if not because it suited them to do so?

The McCann twins are getting older if not already asking difficult questions, not too long before they do.

I think it suits the McCann down to a 'T' to wrap this mess up now.   The Fund will not be receiving the monies it once did, for one. 

McCanns know Tanner story is bullshit, as is their story of abduction, seven years and not the Portuguese Police, the Leicestershire Police, or any one of the several private detective companies the McCanns have employed, and most certainly not the Metropolitan Police - they're just drowning in shit - have found any evidence whatsoever that an abduction took place. 

I cannot imagine the McCanns want their twin children asking questions they cannot answer.  Those shutters being one - why they phoned home to the UK on the night Madeleine was reported as missing to several family members and told them this is what had happened.

Then when proved wrong, their mummy dreams up a story about an intruder opening the window from the inside to create a red herring?

Or why their daddy said he entered by a locked front door using his key then changed his story to having entered the apartment by an unlocked patio door -
and they are just the tip of the iceberg.

And the twins might just wonder why mummy and daddy were running in races, laughing having a good time, surfing sofas, at, and around the time when the Metropolitan Police were in Portugal digging for their missing sister/clues?

I think it will suit the Metropolitan Police, suit David Cameron, and suit the McCanns to wrap this up now - unsolved shall we say.

I just don't see that Redwood is moving in on them, getting ready to catch a McCann, one of their buddies, any culprits in this case who harmed Madeleine, committed crimes against her.  I don't see that he got rid of Tannerman to progress this investigation in any positive way for Madeleine, more to assist the parents, to free them, Tanner and the rest of the holiday party from the noose around their neck that was the Tanner sighting.

He has taken the focus from Tannerman placed it firmly with Smithman.   But not so as to catch out Gerry McCann.

Redwood before the release of the E.Fits had already ruled out Gerry McCann as being Smithman.  It didn't matter to McCann that the E.Fits were to be published.  Not now that Redwood the Met had ideas on how to deal with this and the E.Fits.

The McCanns worked together with the Met on the Crimewatch Production, several months they said.   So the McCanns knew for a very long time that the E.Fits were to be published.  It was of no surprise or of concern to them.

Who was going to call in and say they saw McCann carrying the child?  No one in the UK.   Jokers might have called the number and said they thought it looked like McCann, but that is not witnesses.

And the Smith family for sure that situation, too must have been 'sorted' before the release of the E.Fits.

If McCann is Smithman, he knows those who crossed his path that night, he knows if there is anyone other than the Smith family to have seen him, and if there was not, then he is secure in the knowledge that no one else will come forward to identify him.

The release of the E.Fits by the Met was not a problem for McCann not in the slightest.

Not a one of the suspects recently interviewed in Portugal fitted Smithman's description either.  None of them the person responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.   Just an excercise by the Met to give the impression, lots was being done?

Redwood by getting rid of Tannerman has re-written the facts of this case.   Unless someone, the Portuguese Police, come forward and state that there was no crechedad or the Smith's come forward and positively ID McCann then I would say they are home free.

I would say that being rid of Tannerman is a relief to McCanns, Tanner, and the rest of their group of buddies.

For Madeleine the missing child, it is a tragic situation.  The most well known missing child in the world.  More money thrown at the case than any other, yet it appears to be the most corrupt of cases. Little or nothing positive done to help find the child, more effort spent on cover ups, and the protection of those closest to the child.

It is truly beyond all understanding that with so much evidence pointing away from abduction, to parental involvement to some degree by those close to her, with so many lies and inconsistencies in the stories told, that there have been no arrests in this case, that justice for a little girl is yet to be had.

That the McCanns still more than seven years on, together with Clarence Mitchell are spinning like tops.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOPULx_Risc

6:36m


Kate McCann:

"...because a little girl is still out there missing, you know this is not solved this case.  She's still missing and there's an abductor out there a criminal out there who is free to do this over and over again if we let him..."


Gerry McCalled for transparency!

The irony - that Kate and Gerry McCann to call for transparency, ask the public to come forward with information, preach of how there is still an abductor out there, who is free to abduct children over and over again - WHILE DOING SO THEY WERE SITTING ON THE E.FITS OF THE MAN SUSPECTED OF BEING THAT ABDUCTOR.  SITTING ON THAT INFORMATION FOR FIVE YEARS.

Is that transparency in McCannworld?  Is that honesty in McCannworld.  Is that integrity in McCannworld?

They harp on too of how slow matters take to resolve between the authorities in the UK and in Portugal, blaming Portugal.

HOW MUCH SLOWER CAN ONE GET - FIVE YEARS TO DISCLOSE THE E.FITS TO THE PUBLIC?

Their daughter, unharmed they claim, in the hands of paedophiles (?) yet it took FIVE YEARS to help her.  Five years to release the BEST CHANCE OF FINDING MADELEINE!

If Redwood had not disclosed these E.Fits - were they McCanns ever planning to?

Images of the suspect tucked away, sure in hell wasn't going to put the frighteners on him, stop him abducting kids over and over again.

Funny though, how this alleged abductor who is free to commit this same crime over and over again - HASN'T BOTHERED HIS ASS?

Seems he never struck before the Madeleine case, and hasn't struck since!

Now there's something for DCI Redwood to ponder!

Hope I am so very wrong about Redwood, Operation Grange, but I just cannot see how getting rid of Tannerman has helped Madeleine, any investigation into her disappearance.  

It has helped her parents though!

It leave hanging lots of questions not least how McCann saw the bedroom door more widely open if the abductor had not struck at the time of his check on his kids at just after 9pm - but I guess Redwood isn't banking on anyone questioning all the little problems that getting rid of Tannerman has thrown up.   Like how crechedad was heading in wrong direction?

No, Redwood is boldly going where he knows no one is going to go, knowing that none of his stories will be challenged.

Makes one wonder, what in hell are the Portuguese Police doing?

____________________
Heracltus  say  You could not step twice into the same river.

cockerspaniel

Posts : 176
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum