Im slowly trusting Scotland Yards movements ....

russiandoll wrote:Why is a whitewash being carried out ?
 Why was CW necessary in this case.... the strategy taken not to carry on a fake investigation then report no conclusions from evidence, trail cold, money has run out, cant go on indefinitely, sad to close case with Maddie abducted and no trace, don't know of alive or dead.

Instead  have a fake CW, a pantomime to make it look as if we are doing something honest, that show makes it clear that we are not to the many in UK whio have read Kates book [ even for the abduction believers,  the omission of Payne must raise eyebrows.]

Why the bother of the pantomime? Most people have not read the files, many have read the book and the tabloid press and would have accepted the first scenario with a sad shrug of the shoulders.

 Many people, if it turns out that we have been duped, and who have read the files , can write to every editor and tv station in the UK a few lines pointing out the inclusion in Kates book of a visit by David Payne and the omission of this from CW.

 That raises huge questions. They can't both be truthful.

 You believe that every tv station and newspaper editor will be told to ignore this and that they will obey?
  Sorry, I do not believe in this kind of conspiracy.

Goncalo Amaral does!

Truthandjustice wrote:I am still sceptical about SY investigation.  They called CW a reconstruction which of course it wasn't, not in an investigative sense. With a detailed investigative reconstruction, lies are revealed and directions of further questioning/ investigation highlighted.

I am sure they have done this in private but there is no need to reveal this to the public because it would serve no purpose

The scenarios of that evening have been gone over time and time again for the last six and half years, and nobody is going to remember anything extra now

CW was NSY's way of telling the UK public, who have been repeatedly misled by the British MSM, that Bundleman was irrelevant

The MSM only went crazy about him in the first place because it made for an exciting story, there was never enough substance in the "sighting" to warrant so much attention

Now AR is saying forget Bundleman - but Smithman (whom most of the UK public had no knowledge of) could be of interest

Even his introduction to the story won't bring any new information from the public, it's all too long ago

But there will have been one or two people watching, at whom this change of emphasis was specifically aimed, who may feel inclined to step forward

russiandoll wrote:Why is a whitewash being carried out ?
 Why was CW necessary in this case.... the strategy taken not to carry on a fake investigation then report no conclusions from evidence, trail cold, money has run out, cant go on indefinitely, sad to close case with Maddie abducted and no trace, don't know of alive or dead.

Instead  have a fake CW, a pantomime to make it look as if we are doing something honest, that show makes it clear that we are not to the many in UK whio have read Kates book [ even for the abduction believers,  the omission of Payne must raise eyebrows.]

Why the bother of the pantomime? Most people have not read the files, many have read the book and the tabloid press and would have accepted the first scenario with a sad shrug of the shoulders.

 Many people, if it turns out that we have been duped, and who have read the files , can write to every editor and tv station in the UK a few lines pointing out the inclusion in Kates book of a visit by David Payne and the omission of this from CW.

 That raises huge questions. They can't both be truthful.
 

 You believe that every tv station and newspaper editor will be told to ignore this and that they will obey?
  Sorry, I do not believe in this kind of conspiracy.

So far this is exactly what every TV  station, editor etc have done. They have been told through letters, reader comments etc. They have access to a wealth of information at the click of a button on the internet. They have a formal report from the Portuguese investigation. They have totally ignored it all and colluded in the pantomime - look at the Sun today. The holes in The Mcs stories and the holes in the SY investigation are so glaringly obvious that no one with half a brain could miss them and yet they are totally ignored. In six years no one has asked a single challenging question because if they once do the whole house of cards will fall down.

Hillsborough rolled on for 23 years before it was finally accepted that the police had all lied, the police investigations had lied, the coroner had covered up, politicians had covered up, the press had covered up. We currently have the Mitchell case where he has recorded eveidence that the police lied and the police turn round and say "well it wasn't actually lying".

Regrettably this is how our society works.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Woofer wrote:

StraightThinking wrote:It isn't NSY's case, so how can they charge anybody?

There was discussion about this not long ago - it was found they can if it involves the abuse of a child abroad.  Can`t remember the exact details but a new Act was passed which allows this.

Well, according to the media the CPS were in Portugal,  and what reason would they go for........their job is to prosecute people isn't it?

Amaral, Pat Brown, Joana Morais, Wendy Murphy : these people believe do not have confidence in SY and believe a whitewash is being carried out to clear the McCann's. Why the heck would anyone who wants justice for Maddie believe otherwise?  I know optimism is a healthy trait but there is nothing at all that suggests to me that this is some kind of trap for the McCann's.

I am very sceptical of SY and my gut feeling is we are heading for a massive whitewash.

That said, IF they are hoping to crack the case they are never going to get far by challenging the pair. Let's face it, they have said exactly what they please all along. Anything elicited from them now would be circumstantial.

That leaves the T7. The secrecy pact is key. DP openly referred to it. That is where you have to start chipping away IMO.

 GM is fond of confusion - as long as he is the one dispensing it! What controlling characters DO NOT LIKE, and cannot deal with, is confusion coming at them. This puts any controller on the defensive foot, an area where he is a complete novice - as shown by his reaction when asked about the dogs.

It could, therefore, be significant that DP  - along with his wife and mother-in-law - seems to be taking the silence pact to a whole new level. They have, without public explanation, dropped off the radar. Result - significant swathes of the public have noticed and started talking. Confusion confusion confusion. That would indeed be unsettling for a controlling personality. Can you imagine that the pair have been told... we have left your bestest friends out of the pivotal scene and these are the reasons. Same thing with the in-out, shake it all about versions of JT.

IF these things have been explained to the pair behind the scenes then we are back to whitewash. For the moment, I believe the true situation is unknowable.

Cheshire Cat I asked you questions which you never answered,  and if GA believes in a massive conspiracy to cover up and accidental death then he must also believe that the death is not what is being concealed but something happening at the same time which can't come to light.
 
 
 
 Could you please tell me why there needs to be this charade and why this was not buried quietly a long time ago ? Telling me GA believes in a conspiracy is not answering my very reasonable q I believe , considering you make a conspiracy claim without saying why you believe this to be the case.


 thank you !

This could never be buried quietly a long time ago, the Portugese police made sure of that when they put the files onto WWW.

They played a blinder there imo.

endgame  : the police involved in Hillsborough had a motive for hiding their own actions.
  What would be the motive for SY...no motive but told by the government that they had to go down a prescribed route?

  more than 30 detectives aware that this has happened and at the heart of it an innocent child.

 also involved every editor and every tv station boss in the country.

 Will someone on the forum even if by pm, tell me what they think is being covered up?

 The more people involved, the more risk of the truth coming out.

 I am not convinced without a reason why.

I don't think news papers and tv stations need to be TOLD not to cover certain statements or elements of the case, they just don't want to be the ones to stick their necks out before something is confirmed by someone else.   It's true in life and throughout history ( Galileao and his trial for 'heresy', Hungarian doctor Semmelweis who discovered dead bodies spread diseases and was struck off and put in a mental institution) -Nobody finds it easy to stand up and question something that is established as 'the truth' , you get alot of anger and venom directed at you by those who never questioned the consensus and just went along with it.

 I agree that this could be following the MacAlpine strategy of set up a false accusation, prove it to be false and then no-one will dare to ever accuse you again. Then again I'm still hopeful that Jane Tanner was given some kind of deal through the demise of bundleman or maybe the Paynes are preparing to break ranks as they were absent from the Crimwatch programme.

Do we know whether the police involved have had to sign to say that they will not divulge anything to do with the investigation?

I am back on the fence about whether it is a whitewash or not, but it is very hard (for me at least) to understand why it is being dealt with "like an onion" peeling away the layers?

russiandoll, unfortunately I don't have time to go through all your posts but I am really interested to know what you think has happened to MM and if you think her parents are involved in some way.

If the UK media publish anything that's damaging and unproven (and let's face it, nothing is proven in this strange story) they will be sued for defamation

The laws of England don't even allow publication of something defamatory if you counter it with the opposing argument, or if you say so-and-so said it

However you will probably get away with it if you say vile internet trolls have said it, and dismiss their theories as damaging nonsense (even then it could theoretically be a libel for repeating their claims, but that doesn't seem to happen)

But the newspapers recognise a good story when they see one, so they've chosen to publish nonsense

Why? It sells papers

Regarding AR, if he cracks this he will go down in everlasting history as the man who solved one of the most mysterious cases of all time

A real-life Poirot

Is there a detective anywhere who wouldn't want to make a contribution like that, with all the plaudits that will follow?

No whitewash

If it's whitewash you don't spend £5m and several years opening it up and creating a LOT more uncertainty than  you started with all in the public eye. I still think the way to break the McCann 'pact' is to drown them in uncertainty. GM is a controller we can all see that. The one weapon you have against that is confusion; confusion so he loses his grip on every last tendril of every last little lie..

russiandoll wrote:Cheshire Cat I asked you questions which you never answered,  and if GA believes in a massive conspiracy to cover up and accidental death then he must also believe that the death is not what is being concealed but something happening at the same time which can't come to light.
 
 
 
 Could you please tell me why there needs to be this charade and why this was not buried quietly a long time ago ? Telling me GA believes in a conspiracy is not answering my very reasonable q I believe , considering you make a conspiracy claim without saying why you believe this to be the case.


 thank you !

The review was triggered by the McCann's putting pressure on the Government through News International. The terms of reference are narrow. There has been nothing to suggest that the review / investigation has deviated from the McCann's original demand for a review. On the contrary, SY have ruled out the parents and the Tapas as suspects and have disregarded any evidence they don't like by 'going back to zero'.

russiandoll wrote:endgame  : the police involved in Hillsborough had a motive for hiding their own actions.
  What would be the motive for SY...no motive but told by the government that they had to go down a prescribed route?

  more than 30 detectives aware that this has happened and at the heart of it an innocent child.

 also involved every editor and every tv station boss in the country.

 Will someone on the forum even if by pm, tell me what they think is being covered up?

 The more people involved, the more risk of the truth coming out.

 I am not convinced without a reason why.

Yes I accept that Hillsborough is not a direct comparison but the hypothesis you are intent on rejecting is not the one that anyone is proposing. I don't think anyone is suggesting that all the police, editors, TV stations, politicians etc have got together and explicitly agreed a cover up plan. Cover ups happen by default, incompetence, out of fear, out of ignorance of the true facts and in particular through the development of a culture which seriously discourages people in all kinds of ways from sticking their head above the parapet.

That is what happened at Hillsborough. Hundreds of police officers knew the truth but nothing emerged. Police enquiries deliberately didn't look anywhere where the truth might be found. In fact one or two officers did try to raise some questions but they were quietly dealt with.

Once this sort of thing moves beyond a certain tipping point it develops a momentum of its own where those who may begin to realise that all is not right have a vested interest in maintaining the front because to do so may make them look stupid or guilty.

I don't believe that there is a massive conspiracy which all these individuals have signed up to but the evidence suggests that there is some reason why in six years no one has sought even as a critical friend to the Mccanns to expose weaknesses in some of the assertions that are constantly made about the case. That may be partly fear of McCann lawyers and that is also another element reinforcing the idea of covering up.

But in the end , it is the lack of anyone anywhere asking even the most innocent challenging question of the McCanns or SY which suggests most strongly to me that for whatever reason the establishment collectively has no interest, perhaps all for different reasons, in pursuing or revealing the truth.

Is it possible the media have been told to play along in the charade, as i believe it is very possible that if the suspect(s) are British & there is enough evidence to point in their direction this could end up in a British court...12 UK suspects has allowed review = Full SY investigation with the Crown Prosecution Service involvement suggesting this is the case...we wouldn't want the media scuppering a trial, would we? 
The media could have been told to stfu as far back as... "when the McCanns were cleared"...

ProfessorPPlum wrote:If it's whitewash you don't spend £5m and several years opening it up and creating a LOT more uncertainty than  you started with all in the public eye. I still think the way to break the McCann 'pact' is to drown them in uncertainty. GM is a controller we can all see that. The one weapon you have against that is confusion; confusion so he loses his grip on every last tendril of every last little lie..

Maybe you have to look at the origins of the review to find an answer. Rebekah Brooks saw this as simply another in a long line of populist Sun campaigns, riding a bandwagon to sell newspapers and make the Sun look like it was a purveyor of good deeds. Cameron as so often saw an opportunity to appeal to the populist masses and improve his street credibility by supporting these terribly let down parents - as always completely misreading the popular mood. The timescale of decision making on this was incredibly quick - it wasn't a considered reaction just a knee jerk.

Then once they are in it they have to keep paddling even if somewhere along the line they realise they have backed a loser. Crimewatch was merely a response to growing unrest that apparently after 2 1/2 years and £5m, SY had achieved nothing. The purpose was to demonstrate that au contraire SY had done a brilliant job and here they were with all sorts of new theories. It was as much a PR job for SY as it was for the McCanns.

The enquiry was not originated by the Met and is not being paid for by the Met. Normal rules don't apply.

ChillyHeat wrote:David Payne could be or might not be....You get my drift.
The thing is, if its true he will not be prepared to give evidence against.
So the only way around it is this. The Gaspar evidence is proved false. That wont happen because it was more than likely accurately accounted to be true, albeit in some eyes it could be an innocent drunken moment (strange, but benefit of the doubt possible). All David has to do is convince the world it was in jest and Gerry took it in jest.....Apologies Mrs Gaspar, would you like to make a further statement.....Along those lines.
As far as Im concerned though, if the statement is a very true account of what happened, and David knows she knows the truth. He will simply walk away from Madeleine.....That's how sad these group of people are.

I'm not happy with the thought of throwing out the Gaspar statement - like the cadaver dog evidence it's a key part of real evidence as opposed to theories and speculation.  As far as I remember the statement cast aspersions on Gerry McCann as well as Payne, it has never been publicised widely and if it was used to bring Payne into line it clearly hasn't worked - no-one in the press has reacted to this in the slightest and the public as a whole are unaware.   It doesn't sound made up to me.  It might have been a joke in very bad taste. But I don't think it's something we can dismiss out of hand, unpleasant as it is.

Whose benefit is the whitewash for? a handful of hating internet nutters?

ChippyM wrote:I don't think news papers and tv stations need to be TOLD not to cover certain statements or elements of the case, they just don't want to be the ones to stick their necks out before something is confirmed by someone else.   It's true in life and throughout history ( Galileao and his trial for 'heresy', Hungarian doctor Semmelweis who discovered dead bodies spread diseases and was struck off and put in a mental institution) -Nobody finds it easy to stand up and question something that is established as 'the truth' , you get alot of anger and venom directed at you by those who never questioned the consensus and just went along with it.

 I agree that this could be following the MacAlpine strategy of set up a false accusation, prove it to be false and then no-one will dare to ever accuse you again. Then again I'm still hopeful that Jane Tanner was given some kind of deal through the demise of bundleman or maybe the Paynes are preparing to break ranks as they were absent from the Crimwatch programme.

Yes I think you are right to question the use of language here. I don't believe there is an injunction, a D notice or that instructions are given to editors. If journalists are told by AR that he believes the McCanns to be innocent, what else are they going to do other than report what he says? You'd need to very brave and very sure of yourself to stand up above the crowd and say "I don't believe what Mr Redwood is saying is true" particularly when Carter Ruck are poring over your every utterance.

As I have written elsewhere, the mechanics of all this are I think far more subtle than many people assume. It is not a question of on the one hand everyone is involved in a massive conspiracy or on the other that the papers have been told to say this or that. Hints are given, suggestions are made, press releases are put out, stories are leaked to grateful editors, gentle threats are made about withdrawing future cooperation on other stories. Its not blatant but it is effective.

galena wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:David Payne could be or might not be....You get my drift.
The thing is, if its true he will not be prepared to give evidence against.
So the only way around it is this. The Gaspar evidence is proved false. That wont happen because it was more than likely accurately accounted to be true, albeit in some eyes it could be an innocent drunken moment (strange, but benefit of the doubt possible). All David has to do is convince the world it was in jest and Gerry took it in jest.....Apologies Mrs Gaspar, would you like to make a further statement.....Along those lines.
As far as Im concerned though, if the statement is a very true account of what happened, and David knows she knows the truth. He will simply walk away from Madeleine.....That's how sad these group of people are.

I'm not happy with the thought of throwing out the Gaspar statement - like the cadaver dog evidence it's a key part of real evidence as opposed to theories and speculation.  As far as I remember the statement cast aspersions on Gerry McCann as well as Payne, it has never been publicised widely and if it was used to bring Payne into line it clearly hasn't worked - no-one in the press has reacted to this in the slightest and the public as a whole are unaware.   It doesn't sound made up to me.  It might have been a joke in very bad taste. But I don't think it's something we can dismiss out of hand, unpleasant as it is.

The Gaspar statement becomes far more worrying when one also considers Yvonne Martins statements and comments.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

galena wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:David Payne could be or might not be....You get my drift.
The thing is, if its true he will not be prepared to give evidence against.
So the only way around it is this. The Gaspar evidence is proved false. That wont happen because it was more than likely accurately accounted to be true, albeit in some eyes it could be an innocent drunken moment (strange, but benefit of the doubt possible). All David has to do is convince the world it was in jest and Gerry took it in jest.....Apologies Mrs Gaspar, would you like to make a further statement.....Along those lines.
As far as Im concerned though, if the statement is a very true account of what happened, and David knows she knows the truth. He will simply walk away from Madeleine.....That's how sad these group of people are.

I'm not happy with the thought of throwing out the Gaspar statement - like the cadaver dog evidence it's a key part of real evidence as opposed to theories and speculation.  As far as I remember the statement cast aspersions on Gerry McCann as well as Payne, it has never been publicised widely and if it was used to bring Payne into line it clearly hasn't worked - no-one in the press has reacted to this in the slightest and the public as a whole are unaware.   It doesn't sound made up to me.  It might have been a joke in very bad taste. But I don't think it's something we can dismiss out of hand, unpleasant as it is.

The Gaspar statement becomes far more worrying when one also considers Yvonne Martins statements and comments.

I agree, we often mention the disturbing Gaspar statements but Yvonne Martin was suspicious of the very same person in that holiday group and she works in child protection. What are the chances eh?

margaret wrote:

Cheshire Cat wrote:

galena wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:David Payne could be or might not be....You get my drift.
The thing is, if its true he will not be prepared to give evidence against.
So the only way around it is this. The Gaspar evidence is proved false. That wont happen because it was more than likely accurately accounted to be true, albeit in some eyes it could be an innocent drunken moment (strange, but benefit of the doubt possible). All David has to do is convince the world it was in jest and Gerry took it in jest.....Apologies Mrs Gaspar, would you like to make a further statement.....Along those lines.
As far as Im concerned though, if the statement is a very true account of what happened, and David knows she knows the truth. He will simply walk away from Madeleine.....That's how sad these group of people are.

I'm not happy with the thought of throwing out the Gaspar statement - like the cadaver dog evidence it's a key part of real evidence as opposed to theories and speculation.  As far as I remember the statement cast aspersions on Gerry McCann as well as Payne, it has never been publicised widely and if it was used to bring Payne into line it clearly hasn't worked - no-one in the press has reacted to this in the slightest and the public as a whole are unaware.   It doesn't sound made up to me.  It might have been a joke in very bad taste. But I don't think it's something we can dismiss out of hand, unpleasant as it is.

The Gaspar statement becomes far more worrying when one also considers Yvonne Martins statements and comments.

I agree, we often mention the disturbing Gaspar statements but Yvonne Martin was suspicious of the very same person in that holiday group and she works in child protection. What are the chances eh?

Quite. I think this must be a reason for SY to have omitted the Payne visit from CW.

First time poster!

I haved dipped in and out of this forum for months, but since Monday's CW, felt compelled to join.

My feelings are that SY are very aware indeed of the McCanns involvement in 'the situation Madeleine found herself in' and that one glance at Kate's face confirms this.  She now looks as I would have expected her to look all those years ago, when her priority was jogging and regular tanning sessions by the pool, and the search through the undergrowth for her firstborn was left to the locals.  So, I don't think, bearing in mind how she visibly 'glowed' following her daughter's abduction, that the obvious strain on her face is due to her missing daughter.  I think that it could be because the net is closing, and she's aware of it, just my opinion, of course.

I also felt, after watching CW that the McCann's won few fans: we were told how much Maddie loved the water, and yet they left her near a swimming pool.  The mention of the night creche was something that some of my friends knew nothing, so that did them no favours, and it also debunked the previous statement that they didn't use the night creche because it opened at seven thirty, when they clearly stated that it was after eight when they met friends for Tapas - and the commentator said that the apartment was out of the grounds, and accessible from two entrances - hardly like dining in your back garden. Most upsetting for me and others I've spoken to is that Kate spoke about Maddie asking her why she and Sean cried and they didn't go to her - and still they went out!  Beggars belief!  And that Maddie looked tired and "washed out" the night she disappeared (of course she did, all that crying the night before) and still they left her.  So no, they didn't come across well to me at all.  As usual, things were glossed over - I still want to know why Kate refused to answer those questions!  But all in all, I didn't find it 'Pro McCann'  - I think it exposed them and their friends.

The Sun article too, does them no favours - it mentions those dogs!  The public will, after they read the Sunfiles, surely think again about how accurate these dogs are - so I think even the mention of them to discredit them could be turned against the McCanns.

I truly hope that my optimism isn't misplaced, perhaps I am clutching at straws.  But the old adage, 'Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer' springs to mind when I think of SY.

Welcome Tangledweb, great post.

saltnpepper wrote:Whose benefit is the whitewash for? a handful of hating internet nutters?

Absolutely...the vast majority of the public know very little about the case and apart from a few soundbites about the poor McCanns (though that is changing dramatically in the last week or so) and of course hoping that "Our Maddie" will be found, they really don't care one jot about the case.

Therefore, I'm of the belief that there is not cover up and there will be no whitewash, there's just no point, because lets face it, this could have been achieved in 2008 when the case was archived and the Mc's could just have disappeared.  They haven't though because they want to be completely exonerated, which in the current limbo, they never will be, and there is no way that a review and investigation of this magnitude would be devised to silence a (very) small minority of people like us on the internet who continue to question, because really, what power do we have?  None, none at all, and as you said, we have been repeatedly called, nutters, trolls, haters etc, so who gives a toss about what we think.

I have never believed in any conspiracy or protection, because if that was the case we would never have heard of the McCanns, and if there was an all powerful person, then they would have used that same power to shut the Mc's up for once and for all, instead of continually bleating on and begging for money...effectively drawing attention to themselves and by drawing David Cameron and the Met into it, I would imagine this all powerful entity would be rather annoyed, and Kate's button pushing thoughts would probably have become a reality.  Yes, we do know that things can happen behind the scenes and nefarious deeds are covered up, but those who are involved are usually "disappeared" in some way, and everyone washes their hands of it..thinking specifically about Dr David Kelly here, so in a cover up scenario the Mc's would in fact, be a complete pain in the backside to anyone who was protecting them and would have been silenced by now, with the perfect headline...Kate's anguish caused her to take her own life...inquest states that she was suicidal, it was even reported in the press..verdict suicide, inquest closed...End..

I also believe that for SY to succeed where the PJ failed, they have to be meticulous in gathering every single shred of evidence to ensure a conviction, because anything less than a watertight case and the McCanns will walk away and there will be no chance of ever convicting them and finding out what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann in Praia Da Luz in May 2007.