Two secrets for the price of one.

I've been wondering lately if all the confusion lies in the fact that there are two 'secrets'. (John Stalker - who said the McCanns were hiding a big secret)

nr. 1 : Madeleine, completely their own secret, cover up very badly executed. She may just have been an inconvenient child, born to the wrong parents.' Letting it happen on purpose' seems to have been the scenario. They can square it with their own consciences, she would never have been quite 'right' etc. All that happened afterwards and all the information is so much smoke and mirrors.

nr.2: The Big Secret, is not theirs. But actions they could undertake would, as Gordon Brown intimated, undermine State Security. Hence all the protection to perpetuate secret nr. 1, has very little to do with the real reason for all this protection. The thinly veiled nr. 1 secret is covering nr. 2 which has nothing to do with Maddie.

The trick for SY is going to be to separate the two, after all, most of the protection can simply claim they were taken in by the media and the McCanns. The member for Kirkcalcy who instigated IMO the suppression and total turnaround of good and solid evidence against the McCs, is the key to nr. 2. Whether we will even get a whiff of the real reasons for this miscarriage of justice is doubtful.

I just don't believe in a big secret. I believe all kind of important people jumped on the bandwagon to help: knights on white horses, the blond girl in distress syndrome, always good for some positive publicity (and God knows some needed that), and when the pesky details of the case became clear they could not go back without loosing a lot of face. Nobody likes to look stupid, but for people who are dependent on the opinion of others it's like a mortal sin.

The pathetic parents know and abuse that to the fullest.

lj wrote:I just don't believe in a big secret. I believe all kind of important people jumped on the bandwagon to help: knights on white horses, the blond girl in distress syndrome, always good for some positive publicity (and God knows some needed that), and when the pesky details of the case became clear they could not go back without loosing a lot of face. Nobody likes to look stupid, but for people who are dependent on the opinion of others it's like a mortal sin.

The pathetic parents know and abuse that to the fullest.

I would agree with you totally, except that the protection was there too damn quick.
Totally agree about the bandwagon effect, as Dr. Ludke said, they were attended upon like the Beckhams, Madeleine was in the background.
How on earth did they get just the right photograph to tug at the public's heartstrings?
How on earth had they all this information, the title of the fund derived from a SY publication, amber alert, drug and paedo laws in Portugal, ready for use?
How on earth did they get the use of a spin doctor, Consul (who gave wrong information re the Portugese police as early as 10.00 am. 4/5/07)?

I think the disappearance of Maddie was something nobody else needed or wanted. There was a good reason, already there, for powerful people to 'help' the McCanns. IMO a damage limitation exercise. That is to say: if this gets to court, then not only 'x' will be made public, but by implication 'y' as well.

Again, totally with you on the wonky witnesses, all sorts of help and publicity being the result of all and sundry jumping on the bandwagon.
But IMO there was another reason, already in place and nothing to do with Maddie, as to why the McCanns should have this unparalelled degree of Government protection. Why did GB say it was a matter of national security? A little over the top,surely?
I too, thought he was in it for winning votes,but even so, there was no need to go that far and once the bandwagon got rolling, he was conspicuous by his absence. I think he is key to the mystery full stop.
The McCanns have been brilliant at co-opting celebrities, with or without their consent. Even now, they are still hooking up with everything that can give them leverage and publicity.
But Kate, lately, looks to me as if she is about to fold, she looks like a woman of 60 or so. Gerry seems to have melted into the background and Clarrie has b.... ...d off. We don't hear a lot from the previously informative family either.
I think the damage limitation is almost complete, that's why Clarrie could go. That's why DC could afford to publicly give the job to SY, in about a year's time, I think the Fund will be wound up. Maddie will be declared dead and the McCanns will have to shut up. But I think they'll get out of jail free, too much evidence in the public domain for a fair trial.
O yes, and secret nr. 2 will stay that way.

tigger wrote:How on earth did they get just the right photograph to tug at the public's heartstrings



what really bugs me is that we have seen a photograph of Madeleine with her sister at the pool, then we see a picture of Madeleine with her brother on the promenade (beach), I havent´seen a full face picture of the three siblings on their holidays with either their father or their mother.

I still believe Madeleine was super-imposed, i.e. photo-shopped, I may be alone here but untill someone can convince me of the opposite ............ etc.

No you're certainly not alone Invinoveritas in thinking that the photos supposedly taken in PDL are very suspect. Have you seen the long topics "The last photo" and "Photographs and memories"? You'll see that there are discussions about various photos, not just the supposed holiday ones. I am quite convinced that some of them are of different children and that others are photoshopped.

As an example, tigger, last year an American was shot on Falcon Lake. This lake is part of the border with Mexico, and it is the part where most violence is taken place lately. When this happened, everyone was over the surviving "grieving" widow, the media, the local sheriffs, even the governor of Texas. Real quickly became clear that her story of innocent tourists taking pictures of a very old, at time submerged, church was not true. In spite of that she kept being protected and supported, especially groups that want increased border security. She was repeatedly invited by Mexican investigators to come and give a statement, which she always refused, again supported in that by anything that had a bit of a name. Even selfproclaimed cartel sacmartists specialists, like Sylvia Longmire gave an opinion and wrote books. A Mexican investigator got decapitated and return in pieces to his headquarters. While by now it is known they had to leave Reynosa (one of the most violent cities and a battle ground between 2 cartels) because of the fact that one cartel were upset with them, people still believed they went for innocent reasons take photos in Zetaland. At the moment she is preparing a march in Austin, Texas' state capitol, and again has very positive media support, and all kind of LE support. Every week there will be a mention of another shooting, where the victims just got away, with the same truth value as the McCanns sightings. Hilarious in itself because it's an area where you get suspicious if there is no shooting.
I am convinced this woman has nothing on all her supporters. Even if in an investigation would come out that one LE or government official has ties with the cartels, nobody would be shocked, it's daily news around here. The only reason she is supported is that people wnat to get the border security in the news, and get funding for that. The big secret has nothing to do with the woman, and is in fact no secret at all.

If there is a big secret with the McCanns, it has nothing to do with them. They are zeros. Gerry's work in the nucleair workgroup is just because his form of imaging uses nucleair material, and I would bet to eat my hat if he even would know how that is produced. I think they all just wanted to look good and show off how they care for their citizens, and they just bet on the wrong horse.

Foolish, stupid, and for downing street no quiet soft way to back out as the vatican did.

And the McCanns are such fools they still think they can play people. Maybe the SY investigation will be a whitewash, not because of the McCanns though, but to protect others, from something as silly as egg on their face.

Marian wrote:No you're certainly not alone Invinoveritas in thinking that the photos supposedly taken in PDL are very suspect. Have you seen the long topics "The last photo" and "Photographs and memories"? You'll see that there are discussions about various photos, not just the supposed holiday ones. I am quite convinced that some of them are of different children and that others are photoshopped.

Yes Marian, I have checked both of the threads you have mentioned, I don´t want to delve into the possibility at the moment that there might be different children in the pictures, I just find it strange that there are no pictures of all three children on the same photograph, surely, as I do when on holiday, I would take photos of all our three children for my mother (82) with either myself, or my wife in the picture or even ask a friend or fellow guest to take a group photo of us all, these photos are missing and as we both have observed they are very suspect

lj wrote:...........snipped .....
If there is a big secret with the McCanns, it has nothing to do with them. They are zeros. Gerry's work in the nucleair workgroup is just because his form of imaging uses nucleair material, and I would bet to eat my hat if he even would know how that is produced. I think they all just wanted to look good and show off how they care for their citizens, and they just bet on the wrong horse.

Foolish, stupid, and for downing street no quiet soft way to back out as the vatican did.

And the McCanns are such fools they still think they can play people. Maybe the SY investigation will be a whitewash, not because of the McCanns though, but to protect others, from something as silly as egg on their face.

I can't really add to that. I totally agree with you. The press used the iconic photo like they used Diana, it sold loads of newspapers. They still do.
I still feel the real shadiness lies with GB. His visit to Leicester Police Station and I think the same day to the FSS. That alone infuriates me. His deal with Socrates too and he is the one with a connection to Gerry.

Neither Gerry nor Kate are particularly intelligent. I've read G's report on drugging in athletes and his paper (et al) on Cardiac MRI imaging. v. Average, he was never going to shine in his profession, whereas he took like a duck to water to marketing. Missed his vocation there I feel. The nuclear medicine board may have been a mistake, can't see what he would do there at all. Like you, I don't think that's significant. My betting is GB, without his interference we'd be looking at quite another scenario.

Yes, I was interested to see that the Vatican whooshed the mcCs within days of their audience. Not a lot of people know that!

Maybe GB wanted to work on his "softer" side....

:bad:

lj wrote:Maybe GB wanted to work on his "softer" side....

I suddenly thought: GB did an awful lot for the McCanns, if it had been merely a vote winning exercise, surely there would be the celebrated couple with the Prime Minister? I haven't seen anything like that.
But GB did take the trouble to personally visit Leicester Police Station and FSS. A number of phone calls with Gerry and his brother John.
Activated the FO, send and paid for a spokesman for ages, but still no photo opportunity?

Unless I've missed it of course. But I would have thought that it would have been useful just over a year ago, when he was campaigning in the elections.

So, if not, why not?

IMO it has always smelt of blackmail of Brown.

Estelle wrote:IMO it has always smelt of blackmail of Brown.

He would certainly consider himself to be essential to the UK. Therefore it was a matter of national security. The remark came very early. Anybody know when?

I also believe in a 2nd secret but I think it had to do with Madeleine.