Why are the McCanns being protected

by tiki 03.02.19 13:05

Has anyone really investigated why the McCanns warrant such a high level of protection when they are clearly guilty of simulating an abduction and disposing of their dead daughter to protect themselves. There has to be more to it for such a huge cover up involving so many high level people.

by **sharonl** 03.02.19 15:56

Are the McCanns being protected? Or is something else being covered up here? Something that the McCanns may know about or are a part of.

I find it interesting that some people appear, on one hand to be McCann sceptics but on the other hand are attempting to prevent us from looking at certain aspects of the case, like what happened earlier in the week or the role of Robert Murat.

These people are covering something up but are certainly not protecting the McCanns.

What and who is really being protected?

by **Jill Havern** 03.02.19 15:57

tiki wrote:Has anyone really investigated why the McCanns warrant such a high level of protection when they are clearly guilty of simulating an abduction and disposing of their dead daughter to protect themselves. There has to be more to it for such a huge cover up involving so many high level people.

Richard D. Hall has...

by Jackieuk 03.02.19 19:27

Very interesting this is. I would like to know why also

by willowthewisp 03.02.19 20:12

Jackieuk wrote:Very interesting this is. I would like to know why also

One point No One goes near is a special group of cohorts who have compromised the House of Common's and last year were conducting promotions to their Clan by Two different sections of them and Mr Cliff Richards has been photographed in his dressage to the "Knights of Malta",perhaps Mr Murdoch may have similar ideals?

A former double glazing "Company Director" and affiliations to certain legal sources maybe part of the same collaboration,"Birds of a feather flock together" and know the McCann Family!

Who knows perhaps a former UK Prime Minister may even be part of the delegate clan?

by Mark Willis 05.02.19 12:01

It's clear the Mcs are protected but on behalf of someone else, singular or plural. Per se the Mcs are nobodies. It follows that just being a pair of ordinary doctors the 12-year farce that has followed would never have occurred.
The plethora of agencies dispatched to P da L pronto was unprecedented. The PMs interventions (Lisbon, mobile phone contact etc). That the Mcs are given spokespersons. That they achieve apologies from newspapers not hidden away on page 27 but in large font on the splash. That no one is allowed to say anything negative about them on TV. That SKY are way too cosy with them. That the Met won't question them. That they are given Scotland Yard to play with. Ordinary mortals do not get that sort of blanket help/cover up.
Again, it follows that someone who might be the recipient of such power must themselves be very well-known, powerful and somehow involved that week. Even before that week it appears the Mcs already knew plenty of "names" with plenty more diving in afterwards. A combination of blackmail, favours called in and the unrealistic realization of the entitlement of the Mcs is stuff of the corridors of power - look at some FOIs where they refuse to answer on grounds of National Security.
Normal laws do not appear to apply to them. That can only be achieved at Home Office and secret services level. Back in the day all the above would be collectively expressed under the "Tenth Tapas" umbrella. To this day it's still raining.

by Franco99 05.02.19 17:52

I'm sure that there could be several reasons why such 'big guns' have been rolled out so rapidly in this case. I would agree that it cannot just have been because a couple of middle class holidaymakers had a tragic "accident" with their four year old child.

As others have indicated, it may be that what occurred in PDL had some sort of unrealised knock-on effect that threatened to expose somebody or something of much greater importance than the McCann's personal tragedy.

When the highest ranks in our society - Cabinet Ministers/Prime Ministers/Senior Police/MI5 operatives/Lawyers - all suddenly appear and start 'leaning' on the politicians & police of a foreign country, one has to ask oneself what have the McCanns done to justify the incredible protection & outpouring of funds that have been provided.

There has to be some link that runs through the breadth of society that could warrant such a high level of protection and such a swift closing of ranks. There are several that spring to mind that bind people from all walks of life - freemasonry being one but I would have thought even that wouldn't have produced the amazing response and assistance that occurred in this case. Much more likely I should imagine is some behaviour or practices that would lead to huge embarrassment, public disgrace and probably gaol if it was exposed.

by tiki 05.02.19 18:36

You are very likely right my friend. GM was said to call in favours so my guess is he's involved in something high up and dodgy and they've had no choice but to cover up. One day, hopefully, something will come to light about this case but sadly will probably be once those involved are dead. Jim my Savile was protected for years and they well knew what he was up to the dirty old goat . He was known as Jimmy the Nec for years in Leeds so don't tell me the BBC never realised what he was. I hope some brave soul blows this case wide open one day and I'd love to be alive to see it. There has to be a weak link amongst the tapas mob. Russell O'brien possibly

by tiki 05.02.19 18:42

I don't get why they were allowed to do a collective time line of events. That would not normally be allowed . Statements are given individually and NOBODY is allowed to speak for anyone else so why in this case were the tapas able to get away with this. Also GM was allowed to to sit in with her which is also very wrong. Presumably we can now all do this as if it's OK for them it's OK for us. We'll just make our own rules as we go along like that filthy lot did. Doctors, my are, I wouldn't trust any of them with my bin bags.

by Flossy 05.02.19 18:48

I may be in the minority on this forum in that I don't believe in any high level cover up relating to this case.

by willowthewisp 05.02.19 19:19

Flossy wrote:I may be in the minority on this forum in that I don't believe in any high level cover up relating to this case.

Hi flossy,you are entitled to your opinion and to be respected that you believe there is No high level cover up?

Bearing in mind what has been wrote by people over the past Twelve yrs about Madeleine McCann's disappearance,what do you believe has happened to her?

by Phoebe 05.02.19 22:06

IMO. McCanns played the victim card with unprecedented perfection, even to the extent that they were "handled with care" by the Portuguese authorities. I doubt they had any masonic or paedophile-ring connections in Portugal yet even the police there felt under pressure to treat them differently! Eg. Gerry allowed to sit in with Kate and touch her during questioning, clothes not taken for analysis after the ambassador's intervention. Not charging the parents with neglect of their children etc. Dr. Amaral has gone on record to say that there was too much deference to political pressure.
In the U.K. the McCanns initially fooled the majority of the public, as evidenced by the rush to donate to their fund. Celebrities leaped on the bandwagon, eager to be seen to support them in their plight. Their circumstances were, for those who believed their story, unprecedented - a British 3 year old, snatched from her bed by abductors, on a holiday organised through a British travel company and in an area of the Algarve dubbed "little England".
When the parents and their supporters publicly stated that the Portuguese authorities weren't up to the job in terms of investigation there was little condemnation of this view from the U.K. government. In truth, the very dispatching of British police to Portugal to "assist" lent credence to those claims in the minds of many. I believe it became a case of the U.K. versus Portugal and has remained so since. True, the McCanns were media savvy and had an unusual amount of useful, powerful connections and they used these to great effect.
The U.K. clung to the horse it had publicly backed and endorsed ie. the McCanns, even to the extent of Redwood claiming that they were investigating the "Smellyman in the maroon top with the white circle", who had "molested several British girls in their bedrooms" apparently with impunity from the Portuguese police.!
How can the U.K. or Op. Grange ever back down now without looking extremely foolish.
It is not just the McCanns who are being protected IMO. rather it is the potential fallout from the bungled, unwarranted, political interference by the U.K. since 2007.

by Franco99 05.02.19 22:21

Hi Flossy.....

Hopefully, you'll never get into trouble abroad but just in case, you might like to take the phone numbers of Scotland Yard, 10, Downing Street & MI5. Perhaps they'll come along in 48hrs and sort things out for you as well..... Don't hold your breath though....

by Verdi 05.02.19 22:57

Mark Willis wrote:It's clear the Mcs are protected but on behalf of someone else, singular or plural. Per se the Mcs are nobodies. It follows that just being a pair of ordinary doctors the 12-year farce that has followed would never have occurred.
The plethora of agencies dispatched to P da L pronto was unprecedented. The PMs interventions (Lisbon, mobile phone contact etc). That the Mcs are given spokespersons. That they achieve apologies from newspapers not hidden away on page 27 but in large font on the splash. That no one is allowed to say anything negative about them on TV. That SKY are way too cosy with them. That the Met won't question them. That they are given Scotland Yard to play with. Ordinary mortals do not get that sort of blanket help/cover up.
Again, it follows that someone who might be the recipient of such power must themselves be very well-known, powerful and somehow involved that week. Even before that week it appears the Mcs already knew plenty of "names" with plenty more diving in afterwards. A combination of blackmail, favours called in and the unrealistic realization of the entitlement of the Mcs is stuff of the corridors of power - look at some FOIs where they refuse to answer on grounds of National Security.
Normal laws do not appear to apply to them. That can only be achieved at Home Office and secret services level. Back in the day all the above would be collectively expressed under the "Tenth Tapas" umbrella. To this day it's still raining.

Amen to that!

The evidence is there for all to see. No need looking for conspiracy theory and/or theorists, the evidence is there if you only take the time to look.

by NickE 06.02.19 17:57

Mark Willis wrote:It's clear the Mcs are protected but on behalf of someone else, singular or plural. Per se the Mcs are nobodies. It follows that just being a pair of ordinary doctors the 12-year farce that has followed would never have occurred.
The plethora of agencies dispatched to P da L pronto was unprecedented. The PMs interventions (Lisbon, mobile phone contact etc). That the Mcs are given spokespersons. That they achieve apologies from newspapers not hidden away on page 27 but in large font on the splash. That no one is allowed to say anything negative about them on TV. That SKY are way too cosy with them. That the Met won't question them. That they are given Scotland Yard to play with. Ordinary mortals do not get that sort of blanket help/cover up.
Again, it follows that someone who might be the recipient of such power must themselves be very well-known, powerful and somehow involved that week. Even before that week it appears the Mcs already knew plenty of "names" with plenty more diving in afterwards. A combination of blackmail, favours called in and the unrealistic realization of the entitlement of the Mcs is stuff of the corridors of power - look at some FOIs where they refuse to answer on grounds of National Security.
Normal laws do not appear to apply to them. That can only be achieved at Home Office and secret services level. Back in the day all the above would be collectively expressed under the "Tenth Tapas" umbrella. To this day it's still raining.

Great post.
I have a feeling that someone else was/is protected but where do the McCann's come into the picture?
Do Gerry knows something very sensitive about someone or somebody?
Do he knows something about a sketchy Gov project?
Could he have been given some sort of legal immunity for something he did back in the years?

Amaral had information that Gerry had Gov and Political connections and he requested more information from the UK but nothing was sent.

by Verdi 06.02.19 21:09

NickE wrote:I have a feeling that someone else was/is protected but where do the McCann's come into the picture?
Do Gerry knows something very sensitive about someone or somebody?
Do he knows something about a sketchy Gov project?
Could he have been given some sort of legal immunity for something he did back in the years?

This is all very cloak and dagger a la Miss Marple but it forgets the vital ingredient - Madeleine McCann!

Madeleine McCann disappeared during her holiday with her family the week of 28th April to 3rd May 2007, she hasn't been seen or heard of since.

Madeleine is the key to this mystery which ever way you care to look. Madeleine McCann must never be located because if she were, the house of cards would come tumbling down.

Look no further.

by Basil with a brush 07.02.19 8:40

The little girl had to disappear. That's a certainty.

Because she did exactly that.

At whatever level or depth it goes, with regard to the parents circle or higher, it's for sure, without any doubt whatsover, due to some form of child abuse. Everything points that way. Whether among their circle or higher, they've sure got clout and are under somebody's heavily feathered wing.

Be wonderful justice and closure for the poor little girl if the truth does eventually unfold beforehand, but as was mentioned above by 'tiki' ... maybe only, when like Mr "Now then, now then....uuugh eee uuugh eee uuugh"... they are no longer here themselves.

Keep searching everyone!

by **Hobs** 07.02.19 17:27

The weak links are tanner and matt oldfield

by willowthewisp 07.02.19 17:46

Hobs wrote:The weak links are tanner and matt oldfield

Hi Hobs,wasn't Mathew Oldfield missing from the Tapas 6 MSM picture Libel victory?

by Flossy 10.02.19 9:29

willowthewisp wrote:
Flossy wrote:I may be in the minority on this forum in that I don't believe in any high level cover up relating to this case.
Hi flossy,you are entitled to your opinion and to be respected that you believe there is No high level cover up?

Bearing in mind what has been wrote by people over the past Twelve yrs about Madeleine McCann's disappearance,what do you believe has happened to her?

I believe that the simplest explanation is often also the correct one. Abduction, Madeline wandering off, accidental death are all possibilities. I am trying to read through the evidence myself to draw my own conclusions. It is very difficult, one could nearly impossible, so many years on and with some many different stories and opinion already in the public domain. The evidence just isn't there for a cover up. That is my opinion. I.am open to having that opinion change should I see evidence to justify it. I have posted this before but to summarise:
Looking at the history of cover ups that have eventually been exposed or come out..... Nothing about this case follows that pattern. Obviously difficult to comment about the ones we don't know about.
Six degrees of separation.... You could link two people through a series of potentially very short links. It does not mean those two people have any meaningful association with each other.

by Verdi 10.02.19 12:08

Flossy wrote:I believe that the simplest explanation is often also the correct one. Abduction, Madeline wandering off, accidental death are all possibilities. I am trying to read through the evidence myself to draw my own conclusions. It is very difficult, one could nearly impossible, so many years on and with some many different stories and opinion already in the public domain. The evidence just isn't there for a cover up

If you are so undecided, I strongly suggest you cast aside all outside commentary over the past eleven and three quarter years and concentrate only on the official investigation conducted by the Portuguese police between May and October 2007.

Take into consideration everything going on around that official investigation. Don't take anything for granted nor on it's surface value.

In short - look at the evidence!

by dmc1899 24.05.19 21:40

Phoebe wrote:IMO. McCanns played the victim card with unprecedented perfection, even to the extent that they were "handled with care" by the Portuguese authorities. I doubt they had any masonic or paedophile-ring connections in Portugal yet even the police there felt under pressure to treat them differently! Eg. Gerry allowed to sit in with Kate and touch her during questioning, clothes not taken for analysis after the ambassador's intervention. Not charging the parents with neglect of their children etc. Dr. Amaral has gone on record to say that there was too much deference to political pressure.
In the U.K. the McCanns initially fooled the majority of the public, as evidenced by the rush to donate to their fund. Celebrities leaped on the bandwagon, eager to be seen to support them in their plight. Their circumstances were, for those who believed their story, unprecedented - a British 3 year old, snatched from her bed by abductors, on a holiday organised through a British travel company and in an area of the Algarve dubbed "little England".
When the parents and their supporters publicly stated that the Portuguese authorities weren't up to the job in terms of investigation there was little condemnation of this view from the U.K. government. In truth, the very dispatching of British police to Portugal to "assist" lent credence to those claims in the minds of many. I believe it became a case of the U.K. versus Portugal and has remained so since. True, the McCanns were media savvy and had an unusual amount of useful, powerful connections and they used these to great effect.
The U.K. clung to the horse it had publicly backed and endorsed ie. the McCanns, even to the extent of Redwood claiming that they were investigating the "Smellyman in the maroon top with the white circle", who had "molested several British girls in their bedrooms" apparently with impunity from the Portuguese police.!
How can the U.K. or Op. Grange ever back down now without looking extremely foolish.
It is not just the McCanns who are being protected IMO. rather it is the potential fallout from the bungled, unwarranted, political interference by the U.K. since 2007.

Hi [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],

I held your view above for some time. However, having waded through more of the PJ files and specifically witness statements, I'm suspicious of a number of mistruths being spoken which may belie other things (not directly related to Madeleine) being covered up. I really don't know what those things could be. Something that could damage Mark Warner, something that might shine a spotlight on a range of middle-class, professional British holiday goers perhaps.

If I read what G Amoral has written, he is adamant of involvement from MI5. He suspects cooperation from forensic science lab in the UK.

If I look at the rejected FOI Act requests with a rebuttal of "National Security Interests", I can't reconcile all of this with simply losing face against the Portuguese.

I am a big fan of the simplest explanation wins, but the more I read, reluctantly, the more I have to concede this is more complex than perhaps I am presently considering.

by Verdi 25.05.19 0:41

This blinkered casual approach overlooks the fundamental question - why were they there in the first place, the UK authorities didn't get stuck in immediately following the alleged disappearance on Thursday 3rd May because they anticipated future repercussions between the two countries.

Unless you go along with the secret report produced by Jim Gamble, at the time the chief executive of the CEOP, which suggested so many people were anxious to help, that confusion ensued - too many cooks spoiling the broth so to speak. Unfortunately for M. Gamble, that's not how the system works as he, above all else, should know.

To that I say poo!

The UK involvement in this case was unprecedented, there is no plausible explanation to excuse their riding roughshod over Portuguese terrain.

Once that question is answered, then and only then, can the UK establishment's involvement in this seemingly routine policing matter, start to unravel.