Re: Clarrie is in over-drive this week

by pennylane 26.05.13 16:00

The entire McCann farce has gone so far off the charts of believability, that it's literally begging for the authorities to bust it wide open!

by aiyoyo 26.05.13 16:08

ShuBob wrote:It looks like the Mail have decided to name-a-suspect-a-day until they go through the twenty or so suspects they claim the MET are looking at. Towards the end of their exercise, they should be left with the McCanns and their friends. Let's see.

The thing is: in spite of Hamish Campbell unnecessary proclamation I don't think the MET were feeding the Press.

This recent resurgence of old stories - what with the dead child-snatcher and then this army guy - are just spins.
Even with the 6 Brit cleaners thrown in for good measure for the countdown of the 20 potential suspects, we will never arrive at four couples plus one old woman or finally down to just the odious pair for obvious reason that the recent spike of stories are just pink regurgitates through and through.

The only positive of this pink regurgitates may be they were not kept informed of the Review by the MET as they would have us believed. There is no valid reason whatsoever for MET to have kept them informed on operational matters for obvious reason.
Even had they been in touch with MET and MET were obliged to reply, at most they would have gotten standard general reply with no value.

There is no indication in Campbell's statement that MET were looking at abduction.
There was absolutely no mention of the 195 fresh leads that the Mccanns claimed Police were investigating.
Effectively Campbell was calling the Mccanns bluff; and they knew it.

by aiyoyo 26.05.13 16:42

pennylane wrote:The entire McCann farce has gone so far off the charts of believability, that it's literally begging for the authorities to bust it wide open!

Sadly,I dont think any authority will do that, not in the imminent future anyway.
HC's penultimate Review Closure statement is sign that the MET found no substantive evidence for Portuguese Judiciary to justify the re opening. Thus, IMO the re-opening is not going to happen, NOT on the MET 20 potential suspects statement anyway.
At best it is good for elimination process and not does not constitute new substantive evidence, good and valid enough for a feasible reopening that would lead to the arrest and charge of the Maddie's perpetrators.

Unless the reopen will lead to prosecution of someone/s no authority will entertain such an expensive exercise on a flimsy excuse the MET had come up with recently. If included in the MET 'handful of suspects' were the eventual main players as people seem to believe then there IMO there is no need for MET to have made the announcement as they did. They only have to wait till the Portuguese reopens the case officially to make any kind of announcement. To have it successfully officially reopened first, then to announce they were looking at a handful of suspects, then it would make sense to believe they were going for the kill. But, not when it is the other way round. Just my opinion anyway.

by pennylane 26.05.13 18:03

aiyoyo wrote:
pennylane wrote:The entire McCann farce has gone so far off the charts of believability, that it's literally begging for the authorities to bust it wide open!

Sadly,I dont think any authority will do that, not in the imminent future anyway.
HC's penultimate Review Closure statement is sign that the MET found no substantive evidence for Portuguese Judiciary to justify the re opening. Thus, IMO the re-opening is not going to happen, NOT on the MET 20 potential suspects statement anyway.
At best it is good for elimination process and not does not constitute new substantive evidence, good and valid enough for a feasible reopening that would lead to the arrest and charge of the Maddie's perpetrators.

Unless the reopen will lead to prosecution of someone/s no authority will entertain such an expensive exercise on a flimsy excuse the MET had come up with recently. If included in the MET 'handful of suspects' were the eventual main players as people seem to believe then there IMO there is no need for MET to have made the announcement as they did. They only have to wait till the Portuguese reopens the case officially to make any kind of announcement. To have it successfully officially reopened first, then to announce they were looking at a handful of suspects, then it would make sense to believe they were going for the kill. But, not when it is the other way round. Just my opinion anyway.

I agree with you, aiyoyo, it isn't going to happen... and it appears Operation Grange are hell bent on looking everywhere but at the two perpetrators from Rothley, whose version of events is riddled with red flags, supported full force by the CSI blood and cadaver dog alerts. No legitimate investigation would ignore these alarm bells, or Jane Tanner's ultra-dodgy dual sighting.

My hope is that someone will step out of the shadows and blindside the bloody lot of them! I feel the Mc's have not been able to cover their tracks sufficiently to rest easy, and I sense paranoia in much of their actions. I suppose that gives me a modicum of hope for the future.

by Guest 26.05.13 18:27

Clarrie is in over-drive this week - Page 2 847771

Maman, my own little Miss Marple, has predicted that it's only a matter of time that someone will step out off line and spill the marbles to get a peace of mind ...

by Peneda Geres 26.05.13 18:45

ShuBob wrote:It looks like the Mail have decided to name-a-suspect-a-day until they go through the twenty or so suspects they claim the MET are looking at. Towards the end of their exercise, they should be left with the McCanns and their friends. Let's see.

As the days and weeks go on ShuBob the number of suspects will increase, I guarantee that, as will the sightings the closer we come to the GA trial.

by aiyoyo 26.05.13 19:37

Châtelaine wrote: Maman, my own little Miss Marple, has predicted that it's only a matter of time that someone will step out off line and spill the marbles to get a peace of mind ...

Bless your Maman! I hope she is right.

by pennylane 26.05.13 19:53

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote: Maman, my own little Miss Marple, has predicted that it's only a matter of time that someone will step out off line and spill the marbles to get a peace of mind ...

Bless your Maman! I hope she is right.

I hope Maman is right too. Clarrie is in over-drive this week - Page 2 725573

I feel certain it won't be one of the tapasniks however. Far too much conning of the masses and worldwide police searches, and framing of innocents, not to mention The Fund and the fat payouts... all as a direct result of their sleazy actions! No it won't be one of the usual suspects (imho)

by Guest 26.05.13 19:54

Just something I've been thinking about in cases of kidnap and murder, how worried are the MET about public opinion?

Imo the fund was all about media monitoring and control from the beginning.

by Smokeandmirrors 26.05.13 20:00

Peneda Geres wrote:
ShuBob wrote:It looks like the Mail have decided to name-a-suspect-a-day until they go through the twenty or so suspects they claim the MET are looking at. Towards the end of their exercise, they should be left with the McCanns and their friends. Let's see.

As the days and weeks go on ShuBob the number of suspects will increase, I guarantee that, as will the sightings the closer we come to the GA trial.

I would like to think that the trial will happen, but as time goes by I am starting to think this is less likely. Amaral would most certainly call on the McCanns to be in court so that they can be questioned and I think this is where the constant stalling comes from. I may be way off the mark on this, but I can hardly see a full blown libel trial taking place without the McCanns being examined by Amaral or his defence team. On many of the matters it is his word against theirs, and they would be forced under oath to explain WHY Amarals claims and theories are libellous, and this I think, is something they are never going to do.

If Amarals representation of the case is deemed NOT to be libellous, and he produces evidence in a court that validates his theories then I feel this would lead to a reopening of the case and an investigation into the McCanns involvement. I believe that they would be reconstituted as Arguido if Amaral was victorious. I don't believe the Portugese are prepared to reopen the case unless they are free to add the McCanns to the investigative procedure, and I don't believe the PJ feel that they can force the McCanns and the Tapas 7 to go back and co-operate with requisitioning and that is where the stalemate lies, IMO.

by Guest 26.05.13 20:41

They've had their confrontation February 2010. I don't think they will ever risk it again. D.V they will have to, though.

by maebee 26.05.13 21:47

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3491-dr-christian-ludke-criminal-psychologist-talks-about-kate-and-gerry-mccann

I'd forgotten about this guy. Just saw it on FB. He speaks a lot of sense, imo.

by plebgate 26.05.13 22:06

Joana M posted some months ago that Mr. A. had been approached by Mr. & Mrs. re. out of court settlement providing the right terms could be agreed.

I believe Joana M. She has been consistent these last six years so why would she risk her reputation if this were not true.

I believe also that any offer made might have been to to give them time to see how the SY review would pan out. We are getting a lot of re-hashed headlines at the moment and as pendre gen. said, these will probably increase the nearer the libel trial comes.

Problem is, any dead paedo is of no use to them, unless the dead paedo. left a letter of admission (one that can be shown to actually exist). No DNA found in the apartment so even if DNA is available from a dead paedo, it can't be shown that they were ever in apartment 5a?

Unless Mr. A. settles the trial will go ahead. If Mr. & Mrs. settle on Mr. A's terms people will make their own assumptions as to why imo, but if they have to go to court, who knows what will happen when they are alone in the witness box?

Maybe this is why the Portugese Police are not re-opening the case at the mo. Wait and see. Wait and see possibly.

Very interesting times ahead me thinks.

by **PeterMac** 26.05.13 22:32

plebgate wrote:. . . , but if they have to go to court, who knows what will happen when they are alone in the witness box?

They will NEVER go into a witness box.
Not in Portugal
Not in England.
The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Let us always remember that the only person who has ever gone into a witness box on their behalf,
giving evidence on their behalf, and UNDER OATH on their behalf, had to concede under ruthless cross examination,
along the lines of "do you have any evidence . . . ?" on their behalf that she had no evidence of abduction.
It was at this point that their QC, on unbelievable oodles per day, called a halt to the whole charade and they settled for a massive reduction in their so-called "costs".

Or at least that is my recollection !

by plebgate 26.05.13 22:38

PeterMac wrote:
plebgate wrote:. . . , but if they have to go to court, who knows what will happen when they are alone in the witness box?
They will NEVER go into a witness box.
Not in Portugal
Not in England.
The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Let us always remember that the only person who has ever gone into a witness box on their behalf,
giving evidence on their behalf, and UNDER OATH on their behalf, had to concede under ruthless cross examination,
along the lines of "do you have any evidence . . . ?" on their behalf that she had no evidence of abduction.
It was at this point that their QC, on unbelievable oodles per day, called a halt to the whole charade and they settled for a massive reduction in their so-called "costs".

Or at least that is my recollection !

Clarrie is in over-drive this week - Page 2 82678

Yep earning oodles and under ruthless cross examination had to admit no evidence of abduction.

I agree, they will never get in the witness box, so settlement on Mr. A's terms?

by Angelique 26.05.13 22:45

PeterMac

I agree with you - the McCanns will never go into a witness box but I think my reason for holding this opinion differs from yours.

My opinion is that HM Government will not allow it.

Which makes me wonder what will happen as regards GA in Portugal. Will HM Government step in and force this case to be settled.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 26.05.13 22:46

PeterMac wrote:The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Really? So after all these years and millions of pounds spent they are likely to get away with it*?

And no one will ask why they have got away with it?

Police will turn a blind eye to the death of a 3 year old child, the government will turn a blind eye and so will the media?

I find that shocking. Absolutely sickening.

*whatever 'it' is, of course.

by lufc50337 26.05.13 22:54

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:
PeterMac wrote:The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Really? So after all these years and millions of pounds spent they are likely to get away with it*?

And no one will ask why they have got away with it?

Police will turn a blind eye to the death of a 3 year old child, the government will turn a blind eye and so will the media?

I find that shocking. Absolutely sickening.

*whatever 'it' is, of course.

If nothing happens this year with either the review or GA's case IMO they are home and dry unless something totally unexpected blindsides them in the future.

by lufc50337 26.05.13 22:58

Angelique wrote:PeterMac

I agree with you - the McCanns will never go into a witness box but I think my reason for holding this opinion differs from yours.

My opinion is that HM Government will not allow it.

Which makes me wonder what will happen as regards GA in Portugal. Will HM Government step in and force this case to be settled.

A last minute intervention like the Paul Burrell case?

by IAmNotMerylStreep 26.05.13 23:03

I value PeterMac's opinions seeing as he's a former high ranking police officer. In one post, however, he said the net was closing in and then another he said it's unlikely they'll get in the dock.

That's confusing to me.

by littlepixie 26.05.13 23:04

I took it that he meant they would never be in a WITNESS box. That is different than being a suspect in the DOCK (isn't it) ?

by Liz Eagles 26.05.13 23:13

PeterMac wrote:
plebgate wrote:. . . , but if they have to go to court, who knows what will happen when they are alone in the witness box?
They will NEVER go into a witness box.
Not in Portugal
Not in England.
The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Let us always remember that the only person who has ever gone into a witness box on their behalf,
giving evidence on their behalf, and UNDER OATH on their behalf, had to concede under ruthless cross examination,
along the lines of "do you have any evidence . . . ?" on their behalf that she had no evidence of abduction.
It was at this point that their QC, on unbelievable oodles per day, called a halt to the whole charade and they settled for a massive reduction in their so-called "costs".

Or at least that is my recollection !

I'm confused, what court case are you speaking of PeterMac?

by Woofer 26.05.13 23:28

If there`s no hope of justice, we might as well all give up then. I`ve often thought I could stomach them getting away with it if only they`d stop peddling their lies continually in the media and making out they`re innocent. They`d end up in the Ramsey, Anthony category of people that got away with it.

I think PM`s referring to Martorell (or whatever her name is) in TB`s case.

by lj 26.05.13 23:54

I guess that, as far as the pathetic parents are concerned, the statute of limitations will soon make it impossible to prosecute the McCanns, unless proof murder will come to light. I don't know if Portugal has a statute of limitations for murder.

So it seems likely that they indeed will join the ranks of Simpson, Antony and Ramsey.

I do think though that some justice will be done: can you imagine the twins asking "but mammy, why didn't you come when we were crying?

by Peneda Geres 27.05.13 0:08

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
plebgate wrote:. . . , but if they have to go to court, who knows what will happen when they are alone in the witness box?
They will NEVER go into a witness box.
Not in Portugal
Not in England.
The most we could ever hope for is a dock, but that is getting increasingly unlikely.

Let us always remember that the only person who has ever gone into a witness box on their behalf,
giving evidence on their behalf, and UNDER OATH on their behalf, had to concede under ruthless cross examination,
along the lines of "do you have any evidence . . . ?" on their behalf that she had no evidence of abduction.
It was at this point that their QC, on unbelievable oodles per day, called a halt to the whole charade and they settled for a massive reduction in their so-called "costs".

Or at least that is my recollection !

I'm confused, what court case are you speaking of PeterMac?

PeterMac was referring to McCann's v Bennett.

Log in for more topics