The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

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.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Who and why would participate in a cover up

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by tigger on 27.04.12 15:04

@worriedmum wrote:Ross, Lbc had a phone in on Madeleine Mccann last night, and a listener suggested micro-chipping. I sent an email which was read out on air,sayng that human care is better than electronic surveillance.( He didn't eread out the part where I said the children were left alone while the parents went out...)

Microchipping with GIS at the very least is close to the hearts of our masters, I should think. As a method of safeguarding children against paedophiles - it's utterly useless. It would just hasten the death of a child or if the chip was detectable with fairly simple means, it would be removed - likelihood is that the location in the body would be roughly the same for all.

Ross, I wouldn't be surprised if the microchip promotion would come to life again. Now that we've been told Maddie might be alive, look like a 12 year old schoolgirl and wouldn't it have been much easier to find her with the magic chip?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by roy rovers on 27.04.12 17:44

I had a friend who told me that the 'cock-up' theory of history is more persuasive than the 'conspiracy' theory of history. I don't see any evidence of a 'conspiracy' in the McCann case. As I see it something terrible and unplanned happened (a 'cock-up') probably early in the holiday and the bungled abduction was the best they could come up with in the time available and under the circumstances. The T7 had to be brought on board and since then it's been all 'front' - attack as the best form of defense. As to why there had to be a cover up there are plausible reasons - an extermely violet act ('Google' Madeliene Mccann 'broken neck'), bruising that would indicate ongoing mistreatment, sleeping pills, a desire to stay out of prison for the twins / career etc. I am fairly sure of three things - it will all come out in the end, the McCanns will continue to deny any involvement and a body will never be discovered.

roy rovers

Posts : 466
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by roy rovers on 27.04.12 17:48

My friend was a historian by the way.

roy rovers

Posts : 466
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Genbug on 27.04.12 18:14

@roy rovers wrote:I had a friend who told me that the 'cock-up' theory of history is more persuasive than the 'conspiracy' theory of history. I don't see any evidence of a 'conspiracy' in the McCann case. As I see it something terrible and unplanned happened (a 'cock-up') probably early in the holiday and the bungled abduction was the best they could come up with in the time available and under the circumstances. The T7 had to be brought on board and since then it's been all 'front' - attack as the best form of defense. As to why there had to be a cover up there are plausible reasons - an extermely violet act ('Google' Madeliene Mccann 'broken neck'), bruising that would indicate ongoing mistreatment, sleeping pills, a desire to stay out of prison for the twins / career etc. I am fairly sure of three things - it will all come out in the end, the McCanns will continue to deny any involvement and a body will never be discovered.

Still doesn't explain why they are clearly being protected though?

Genbug

Posts : 186
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-12-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by friedtomatoes on 27.04.12 19:13

Thanks for all your replies. Much food for thought. My main question was who outwith the mccanns would conspire to hide the death of a child. It just does not make sense to me but the only fact in this case is that little makes sense. May the truth out.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by tigger on 27.04.12 19:25

@Genbug wrote:
@roy rovers wrote:I had a friend who told me that the 'cock-up' theory of history is more persuasive than the 'conspiracy' theory of history. I don't see any evidence of a 'conspiracy' in the McCann case. As I see it something terrible and unplanned happened (a 'cock-up') probably early in the holiday and the bungled abduction was the best they could come up with in the time available and under the circumstances. The T7 had to be brought on board and since then it's been all 'front' - attack as the best form of defense. As to why there had to be a cover up there are plausible reasons - an extermely violet act ('Google' Madeliene Mccann 'broken neck'), bruising that would indicate ongoing mistreatment, sleeping pills, a desire to stay out of prison for the twins / career etc. I am fairly sure of three things - it will all come out in the end, the McCanns will continue to deny any involvement and a body will never be discovered.

Still doesn't explain why they are clearly being protected though?

There are quite a few indications that Maddie died earlier in the week, probably the 1st.
Just to give one clue: the ambassador himself got himself to PdL and arrived late that morning.
a) it's the job of the Consul General
b) the ambassador would not have been woken up in the night, so likely heard it first thing in the morning.
c) then he must have had orders from the FO to go down there himself after phoning FO or vice versa
unless the FO had already been alerted one or two days earlier and already had instructed the Ambassador
d) this is a very tight timescale - the PR etc too was so quick of the mark, why on earth would anyone think that was necessary?



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by friedtomatoes on 27.04.12 19:38

http://forum.astro.com/cgi/forum.cgi?num=1335347274

For anyone who believes in that stuff, some interesting posts!

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ross on 27.04.12 21:02

@tigger wrote:
There are quite a few indications that Maddie died earlier in the week, probably the 1st.
Just to give one clue: the ambassador himself got himself to PdL and arrived late that morning.
a) it's the job of the Consul General
b) the ambassador would not have been woken up in the night, so likely heard it first thing in the morning.
c) then he must have had orders from the FO to go down there himself after phoning FO or vice versa
unless the FO had already been alerted one or two days earlier and already had instructed the Ambassador
d) this is a very tight timescale - the PR etc too was so quick of the mark, why on earth would anyone think that was necessary?


More than tight tigger. According to the story, Madeleine was discovered missing at 10 pm, yet somehow the ambassador was on the phone to the director of the PJ at 11 pm. So, for that to work, someone in PDL phoned someone in England who either spoke to or was the Foreign Secretary (we have no way of knowing how many steps this took). Presumably the FS would have at least spoken to his permanent secretary, and someone at that very senior level would have called the ambassador in Lisbon to brief him (with what instructions I wonder?). The ambassador then called the director (to tell him what exactly I wonder?). All this took place between 10 and 11 pm. Does anyone really believe that based on a panicky confused phone call late in the evening from some holidaymaker that the wheels of the British state would suddenly and precipitately spring into action? How could the ambassador say anything of value to the national director of the PJ about a situation of which he knew next to nothing? It's nonsense.

As you are probably aware, the ambassador, John Buck not only left his post in Lisbon when the McCanns were made arguidos, he left the Foreign Office altogether. I bet he could shed a bit of light on all this, and I'd also bet he never will.

re microchipping - I don't want to derail the thread, but I suspect if it happens (or even has already happened!) it will be done covertly using nanotech introduced intravenously.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ross on 27.04.12 21:06

@roy rovers wrote:I had a friend who told me that the 'cock-up' theory of history is more persuasive than the 'conspiracy' theory of history.

My friend was a historian by the way.

If your friend has such a facile reductive view of the machinations of power throughout the ages then I would suggest they are not a very good historian. Or to put it another way, I suspect they are a very good Historian.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by jd on 27.04.12 21:52

As you are probably aware, the ambassador, John Buck not only left his post in Lisbon when the McCanns were made arguidos, he left the Foreign Office altogether. I bet he could shed a bit of light on all this, and I'd also bet he never will.

British diplomat warned Foreign Office of concerns over McCanns

"The diplomat was sent to the holiday resort of Praia da Luz in the days following the four-year-old's disappearance and soon became concerned over "inconsistencies" in the testimonies by her parents and their friends.
After visiting the McCanns, the unnamed diplomat sent a report to the Foreign Office in London, admitting his worries about "confused declarations" of the McCanns' movements on the night of May 3. He also noted the couple's "lack of co-operation" with the Portuguese police. The diplomat's concerns were made over four months before Gerry and Kate were named arguidos (suspects) on September 7.

The then-Prime Minister Tony Blair sent special envoy Sheree Dodd to act as a "media liaison officer" for the pair soon after Madeleine vanished. Ms Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, while the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, has retired. John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, no longer works in the country."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-499340/British-diplomat-warned-Foreign-Office-concerns-McCanns.html

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ross on 27.04.12 21:56

@jd wrote: Ms Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, while the British consul in the Algarve, Bill Henderson, has retired. John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, no longer works in the country."

Hm. I suppose half a conscience is better than no conscience at all.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by jd on 27.04.12 22:02

Ambassador Alexander W. Ellis

5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/pruebas/caso/Madeleine/elpepuint/20101213elpepuint_15/Tes

http://www.free-science.com/2010/12/kate-mccann-and-gerry-mccann-are.html


jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by rainbow-fairy on 27.04.12 23:21

@jd wrote:Ambassador Alexander W. Ellis

5. (C) Madeleine McCann's disappearance in the south of Portugal in May 2007 has generated international media attention with controversy surrounding the Portuguese-led police investigation and the actions of Madeleine's parents. Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working cooperatively. He commented that the media frenzy was to be expected and was acceptable as long as government officials keep their comments behind closed doors.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/Cable/pruebas/caso/Madeleine/elpepuint/20101213elpepuint_15/Tes

http://www.free-science.com/2010/12/kate-mccann-and-gerry-mccann-are.html


Exactly, jd. Our gutless media always fail to report it was the UK who had suspicions about the McCanns and the inconsistencies.

Lee Rainbow, anyone?

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ross on 27.04.12 23:29

@rainbow-fairy wrote:

Exactly, jd. Our gutless media always fail to report it was the UK who had suspicions about the McCanns and the inconsistencies.

Lee Rainbow, anyone?

It's not gutless media rainbow, it's controlled media.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by jd on 27.04.12 23:32

Its gutless too...The media are just wimps that the sheep follow

jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Truthseeker2012 on 29.04.12 1:28

Great question. Unfortunately we will never know the answer.

Politicians have gone out of there way to help the team. They really have received unprecedented support from both sides of the house.

The team have received a relatively easy ride in the media. Particularly the Murdoch media. The Mirror Group and Aunty Beeb have also backed them (Labour).Carter Ruck have dealt with the media that didn't play ball.

My guess is someone with connections to Murdoch is somehow involved, either that or Madeleine really is an issue of national security.

Truthseeker2012

Posts : 11
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Miraflores on 29.04.12 6:47

But why should a 3 -4 year old be a matter of national security? It's not as though she was Royalty!

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by rainbow-fairy on 29.04.12 10:54

@Miraflores wrote:But why should a 3 -4 year old be a matter of national security? It's not as though she was Royalty!
She herself, Madeleine, imo wasn't the matter of 'National Security' - it was the person up to no good with her/around her that was. All my opinion, of course. Hi C-R - remember what Gerry said at Leveson? "No problem with people purporting theories"

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by tigger on 30.04.12 8:20

@roy rovers wrote:I had a friend who told me that the 'cock-up' theory of history is more persuasive than the 'conspiracy' theory of history. I don't see any evidence of a 'conspiracy' in the McCann case. As I see it something terrible and unplanned happened (a 'cock-up') probably early in the holiday and the bungled abduction was the best they could come up with in the time available and under the circumstances. The T7 had to be brought on board and since then it's been all 'front' - attack as the best form of defense. As to why there had to be a cover up there are plausible reasons - an extermely violet act ('Google' Madeliene Mccann 'broken neck'), bruising that would indicate ongoing mistreatment, sleeping pills, a desire to stay out of prison for the twins / career etc. I am fairly sure of three things - it will all come out in the end, the McCanns will continue to deny any involvement and a body will never be discovered.

It's amazing how many pointers one can miss. Yesterday I came across a remark from Kate 'It wasn't supposed to happen like this'. Rather like David Payne saying 'We were expecting something to happen, but not this'.
Well, assuming the above remarks are correct (and who on earth would make that up?) it looks like a plan that's gone wrong.
Murat's remark 'It's the biggest c...-up in history', helps the theory along.
I don't agree with the abduction being thought up on the spot. Murat was summoned imo on the 29th. Probably the man with a key if not several keys.
Which means the disaster had already happened.
The marketing, the Fund and the publicity, as well as the efforts of GB and the FO were just way too quick of the mark to have been dreamt up in a panic.
But the abduction plan, the neglect was in place from the start imo. Neglect was virtually advertised from the start.
Because there was no reason for it otherwise.
Both the Paynes and ROB/Tanner had baby monitors with them. It is likely that 7 children slept in one apartment, supervised by one of the Tapas.
Surely, this could equally well have been done by just one nanny? Between the 9 of them, it would not have been expensive. The baby monitors would be an extra safety measure.
So as this was not done, there was a reason for it. From the start. From the Sunday morning when somebody booked the Tapas for the week.
IMO, there was a plan which involved an abduction. It went wrong, because something happened to Maddie that shouldn't have.
The plan IMO, was full of holes. But arrogant, narcissistic people tend to think they are perfect.
The cover up had to repair damage already done and out in the public domain. It will always be a bad job, because the foundation of the whole affair is flawed.
GB is still central imo. Why did he not capitalise on the affair by winning more votes? He told us it was national security, which is a little worrying - how can two neglectful parents losing a child have anything to do with that? He personally visited LP and FSS both of which changed their outlook after that.
But he never received the McCanns at Downing Street, was never photographed with them - if he'd played his cards better, it might have won him the next election. So my feeling is that he helped because he had to. Not because he wanted to.

So I agree, it was a .....up. There was plan A, then an accident, then plan B - both full of holes. Then the prepared cover which was ready well before 3/5/07. All IMO.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ribisl on 30.04.12 12:25

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@Miraflores wrote:But why should a 3 -4 year old be a matter of national security? It's not as though she was Royalty!
She herself, Madeleine, imo wasn't the matter of 'National Security' - it was the person up to no good with her/around her that was. All my opinion, of course. Hi C-R - remember what Gerry said at Leveson? "No problem with people purporting theories"

Or it could be that by chance, there was some clandestine gathering taking place in PDL at the time when Madeleine went missing, but unconnected to the McCanns or her friends. And the powers that be were more than willing to help the McCanns in order to make sure no information got out about their own activities or who was involved. What better smoke screen than to give the missing child massive publicity? Maybe McCanns were mere pawns in their greater scheme of things. thinking

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by Ross on 30.04.12 13:24

@Ribisl wrote: Maybe McCanns were mere pawns in their greater scheme of things.

I think there is a 'third position' that does not get much consideration. Position one - the McCanns are innocent parents (don't think many here buy that!). Position two - the McCanns are responsible either through negligence or criminality for the death of Madeleine. Position three - the McCanns have been coerced/corrupted into playing the game/being the fall-guys for other forces responsible for something terrible.

Of the three, I think the third is the most likely. Although we have to be careful how we regard any single piece of evidence (so many lies!) if Healy's first words to the group were "They've taken her!" as reported, then I think position three is the only one feasible.

____________________
"Believe nothing, no matter where you heard it, no matter who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

Buddha

Ross

Posts : 205
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-12-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by MrsC on 30.04.12 13:41

@Ross wrote:
@Ribisl wrote: Maybe McCanns were mere pawns in their greater scheme of things.

I think there is a 'third position' that does not get much consideration. Position one - the McCanns are innocent parents (don't think may here buy that!). Position two - the McCanns are responsible either through negligence or criminality for the death of Madeleine. Position three - the McCanns have been coerced/corrupted into playing the game/being the fall-guys for other forces responsible for something terrible.

Of the three, I think the third is the most likely. Although we have to be careful how we regard any single piece of evidence (so many lies!) if Healy's first words to the group were "They've taken her!" as reported, then I think position three is the only one feasible.

I agree. Somebody else is being protected, not the McCanns.

MrsC

Posts : 247
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2011-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by jd on 30.04.12 13:58

@tigger wrote:
It's amazing how many pointers one can miss. Yesterday I came across a remark from Kate 'It wasn't supposed to happen like this'. Rather like David Payne saying 'We were expecting something to happen, but not this'.
Well, assuming the above remarks are correct (and who on earth would make that up?) it looks like a plan that's gone wrong.
Murat's remark 'It's the biggest c...-up in history', helps the theory along.
I don't agree with the abduction being thought up on the spot. Murat was summoned imo on the 29th. Probably the man with a key if not several keys.
Which means the disaster had already happened.
The marketing, the Fund and the publicity, as well as the efforts of GB and the FO were just way too quick of the mark to have been dreamt up in a panic.
But the abduction plan, the neglect was in place from the start imo. Neglect was virtually advertised from the start.
Because there was no reason for it otherwise.
Both the Paynes and ROB/Tanner had baby monitors with them. It is likely that 7 children slept in one apartment, supervised by one of the Tapas.
Surely, this could equally well have been done by just one nanny? Between the 9 of them, it would not have been expensive. The baby monitors would be an extra safety measure.
So as this was not done, there was a reason for it. From the start. From the Sunday morning when somebody booked the Tapas for the week.
IMO, there was a plan which involved an abduction. It went wrong, because something happened to Maddie that shouldn't have.
The plan IMO, was full of holes. But arrogant, narcissistic people tend to think they are perfect.
The cover up had to repair damage already done and out in the public domain. It will always be a bad job, because the foundation of the whole affair is flawed.
GB is still central imo. Why did he not capitalise on the affair by winning more votes? He told us it was national security, which is a little worrying - how can two neglectful parents losing a child have anything to do with that? He personally visited LP and FSS both of which changed their outlook after that.
But he never received the McCanns at Downing Street, was never photographed with them - if he'd played his cards better, it might have won him the next election. So my feeling is that he helped because he had to. Not because he wanted to.

So I agree, it was a .....up. There was plan A, then an accident, then plan B - both full of holes. Then the prepared cover which was ready well before 3/5/07. All IMO.


I totally agree with you Tigger, every word. Lets not forget clarrie the clowns comment about "7 children" when it should have been 8. I think murals 'biggest c***up' line was in large referring to jane tanner seeing her abductor man at 9.15, I think she should have said 9.45pm because with Matt Oldfield being in the apartment stating all was fine/shutters up at 9.30pm, this totally flaws their timeline with tanner seeing an abductor at 9.15pm! A glaring mistake you certainly do not need 28 detectives to work out! This is probably what the PJ most wanted to prove in the reconstruction

Its curious that 99% of people there had children under the age of 4 years old. On resort holidays there are children of all ages, shapes and sizes but on this one they all seem to be under 4. Holidays or not, this is still very weird and if I was at a resort and saw all families with kids under 4 then I would find this very odd

I personally believe GB was protecting someone closer to home, which in turn could have blown him being Prime Minister. There is also some scottish connection quite clearly too



jd

Posts : 4152
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Who and why would participate in a cover up

Post by dentdelion on 30.04.12 15:29

The number of children under four in the resort is understandable given that they were all under school age and it was not a midterm week or school holiday time. School authorities would frown on children being taken out of school.

Holidays in these off season weeks tend to be good value and also take into account perhaps free travel/accommodation for under two's.

dentdelion

Posts : 129
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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