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 start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Tony was right was he not?

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by missmar1 on 15.06.14 20:50

@Praiaaa wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:

Of course, it isn't really an admission, except possibly that there might just be something in the claims made by Martin Grime about his two dogs' alerts.

It was simply Dr Kate McCann's way of saying:

"Madeleine was seen alive by Gerry at 9.15pm. She was gone by the time I checked at 10.00pm. If there was any cadaver odour, Madeleine must have been killed by the burglar/adopter and taken out of the apartment before I checked at 10.00pm".



Precisely - that is what she is trying to say albeit in a clumsy way - she is not admitting anything.


So if she is saying in her book that Madeleine was SEEN ALIVE by Gerry at 9.15  .....why then did Kate claim shock/surprise in that documentary that when she did her 10 oclock check she had found the door to the children's bedroom was not in the same position as they had left it when they left the apartment to go to the tappas ONE and a HALF HOURS earlier ?    

I have always found this remark very odd because they have claimed the children were checked regularly  ( Crimewatch also showed other members of the tappas group going to check on the Mccann's children for them on the night Madeleine disappeared  )   yet Kate on her 10 oclock check tells the documentary audience she was "surprised" to find that door was NOT in the same position as SHE and GERRY had left it ???????   All my opinion only

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Guest on 15.06.14 21:00

@ Missmar1
Simple. The script was that [the non-existing] Tannerman at approx. 9:15pm was the abductor. Therefore they inserted a door at various angles, something to be cautious about at hindsight and give credibility to an intruder. Redwood eliminated the 9:15pm Tannerman, but they stayed to the original script by wont for a better one ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Lady-Heather on 15.06.14 21:14

This has gone on for long enough.

IMO Evidence exists which implicate the parents in the cause of the disappearance of the child.  Evidence that cannot be acknowledged as existing at all, for 'national security' reasons.  Evidence which the holders of cannot admit to gathering, or having held in the first place.


Evidence that was collected by forces in the UK, acting on said prior evidence which cannot be acknowledged.  Evidence which cannot be used in court against the McCann’s.

The McCann’s know this, the services know this, Brooks knows it.  Hence the 'review'.


Enough.

All entirely my opinion, of course.

Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by ultimaThule on 15.06.14 21:22

Châtelaine wrote:@ Missmar1
Simple. The script was that [the non-existing] Tannerman at approx. 9:15pm was the abductor. Therefore they inserted a door at various angles, something to be cautious about at hindsight and give credibility to an intruder. Redwood eliminated the 9:15pm Tannerman, but they stayed to the original script by wont for a better one ...

They've repeated the words on the original script so many times that they can't depart from it now and they're stuck with it forevermore..

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by missmar1 on 15.06.14 21:26

Châtelaine wrote:@ Missmar1
Simple. The script was that [the non-existing] Tannerman at approx. 9:15pm was the abductor. Therefore they inserted a door at various angles, something to be cautious about at hindsight and give credibility to an intruder. Redwood eliminated the 9:15pm Tannerman, but they stayed to the original script by wont for a better one ...

I see they also keep Tannerman on standby on their web Chatelaine ...... imo, It's a safety net they are keeping  just incase they ever get in a tight spot and have the need in the future to ask Redwood to produce Tannerman and his daughter's pj's !!

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by BlueBag on 15.06.14 21:28

@missmar1 wrote:yet Kate on her 10 oclock check tells the documentary audience she was "surprised" to find that door was NOT in the same position as SHE and GERRY had left it ???????



Yes... makes no sense. Zero, none, nada, zilch.

She had no idea how Matthew may have left it.

Pure nonsense from Kate.

BlueBag

Posts : 3424
Reputation : 1274
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by missmar1 on 15.06.14 21:52

@Lady-Heather wrote:This has gone on for long enough.

IMO Evidence exists which implicate the parents in the cause of the disappearance of the child.  Evidence that cannot be acknowledged as existing at all, for 'national security' reasons.  Evidence which the holders of cannot admit to gathering, or having held in the first place.


Evidence that was collected by forces in the UK, acting on said prior evidence which cannot be acknowledged.  Evidence which cannot be used in court against the McCann’s.

The McCann’s know this, the services know this, Brooks knows it.  Hence the 'review'.


Enough.

All entirely my opinion, of course.

The problem they have ( whoever "they" are besides the Mccann's )   though is that the known evidence is already out there - and it is growing and circulating all around the net, so no matter how much is covered up from the public, it will always be there - ready to surface 

  This case seems to be growing rather than sudsiding, and the available evidence is always going to be there still bubbling below the surface but could come out at anytime ....  What a nightmare life it must be for some who are living with the knowledge that the truth will escape one day  !   All my opinion of course.

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by ultimaThule on 15.06.14 22:13

@Lady-Heather wrote:This has gone on for long enough.

IMO Evidence exists which implicate the parents in the cause of the disappearance of the child.  Evidence that cannot be acknowledged as existing at all, for 'national security' reasons.  Evidence which the holders of cannot admit to gathering, or having held in the first place.


Evidence that was collected by forces in the UK, acting on said prior evidence which cannot be acknowledged.  Evidence which cannot be used in court against the McCann’s.

The McCann’s know this, the services know this, Brooks knows it.  Hence the 'review'.


Enough.

All entirely my opinion, of course.

It seems that you've put forward a set of reasons why there shouldn't have a been a review.  

If all of the evidence you claim cannot be acknowledged as it would compromise national security, and/or those who gathered it, exists I have no doubt that any review held would have been by way of tokenism and would not have been escalated to a full scale homicide investigation, LadyH.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Lady-Heather on 15.06.14 22:40

Journalists in this country receive a lot of critisism re this case, most of it deserved.  This case however is (IMO) prevented a full and frank (printed, published) dissection and analysis of the facts by MSM (and any other publication for that matter) - that is my point re. Brooks.  She's aware of how far she (and by implication NI) can report, and hold discussion on the case before CR decend.  The coercion to conduct a 'review' was (IMO) a poke at government that this case wont go away until the truth is told.

Lady-Heather

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-10-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by galena on 16.06.14 10:01

@missmar1 wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:@ Missmar1
Simple. The script was that [the non-existing] Tannerman at approx. 9:15pm was the abductor. Therefore they inserted a door at various angles, something to be cautious about at hindsight and give credibility to an intruder. Redwood eliminated the 9:15pm Tannerman, but they stayed to the original script by wont for a better one ...

I see they also keep Tannerman on standby on their web Chatelaine ...... imo, It's a safety net they are keeping  just incase they ever get in a tight spot and have the need in the future to ask Redwood to produce Tannerman and his daughter's pj's !!
Interesting theory and it makes perfectly good sense.  If the McCanns did invent Tannerman they must know that Jane saw no-one, hence the Crecheman witness can't exist.

This is why I believe that - if Redwood invented Crecheman he must never expect to see the McCanns face charges in court.  Imagine how it would look if it turned out that SY's finest had fabricated evidence and lied to the British public?

galena

Posts : 286
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by AndyB on 16.06.14 10:35

@ultimaThule wrote:
@Lady-Heather wrote:This has gone on for long enough.

IMO Evidence exists which implicate the parents in the cause of the disappearance of the child.  Evidence that cannot be acknowledged as existing at all, for 'national security' reasons.  Evidence which the holders of cannot admit to gathering, or having held in the first place.


Evidence that was collected by forces in the UK, acting on said prior evidence which cannot be acknowledged.  Evidence which cannot be used in court against the McCann’s.

The McCann’s know this, the services know this, Brooks knows it.  Hence the 'review'.


Enough.

All entirely my opinion, of course.

It seems that you've put forward a set of reasons why there shouldn't have a been a review.  

If all of the evidence you claim cannot be acknowledged as it would compromise national security, and/or those who gathered it, exists I have no doubt that any review held would have been by way of tokenism and would not have been escalated to a full scale homicide investigation, LadyH.
Are you suggesting that Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security is a forum myth?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Okeydokey on 17.06.14 0:53

@juliet wrote:Jenny Murat said recently she hadn't been re-interviewed - yet any genuine investigation would have to look at Murat as well as the Tapas 9.  Has Redwood been told "Find a culprit....anyone at all but the McCanns and their cronies."  If so,  it is takng him rather a long time.

The Murats probably haven't been re-interviewed because they are too close to "home" in that Jane Tanner positively identified Robert Murat. If you eliminate the Murats, you would most definitely have to re-interview Jane Tanner in those circumstances...and that would well and truly open the can of worms.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by ultimaThule on 18.06.14 2:25

@AndyB wrote: Are you suggesting that Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security is a forum myth?

As I'm not aware of any thread(s) relating to 'Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security', perhaps you could provide a link AndyB?

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Doug D on 18.06.14 8:14

Freedom of Info. request rejection from Theresa May iirc.

I'll have a dig around.

Doug D

Posts : 2146
Reputation : 635
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by nglfi on 18.06.14 9:17

I've been pondering lots of things overnight and I have a more general question for those believing in a whitewash, and I hope it's ok if I post it here - 
If the outcome of operation Grange is unsuccessful,  (as in no one is charged), will that prove beyond doubt a whitewash?

I've been thinking about Sr Amaral's bombshell on Monday and feeling quite negative again. I still don't believe in a whitewash, but I feel, as Pat Brown has alluded to, that no one will ever be charged. The McCanns have got away with it. And they have known this for some time. It explains why they pushed for a review.  It explains Gerry's duping delight and smirks. It explains their continued support from Clarrie, and seemingly from the British Govt (although that may be in appearance only). I'm just thinking that for an outcome favourable to the McCanns,  a whitewash isn't even necessary.  Amaral really shocked me on Monday with his revelations about the coffin and second beach witness. Why on earth would he come out with this information now? If it is true, the Portuguese have already warned the British media and people in general not to leak information which could compromise the investigation.  He has done just that.  And if it isn't true, then I don't know what he's playing at. No, I think Anaral fears that he may lose the trial,  and knows full well there will never be enough evidence to charge the pair, so he's decided to release all that he hasn't yet said,  in the interests of truth and to support his case.

Operation Grange is,  I believe,  genuine. But with a cremated body, where (so the Internet tells me), DNA is impossible to retrieve from correctly burned ashes, and no way of establishing for sure who did what, there will never be a charge. How do you prove who killed Madeleine?  How do you prove,  without a body, she had an accident?  The most you could ever show was that Gerry at some point carried a child down to the beach,  which isn't enough.  They could reinterview the t9 but what would that achieve?  They'd all say no comment. I think Andy Redwood has been given the task of trying to crack this case, but it's nigh on impossible.  As to why millions have been spent on it if it's such a lost cause, I suspect it has more to do with RB's threats to Cameron than anything else. Sorry for the depressing post this morning!

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by AndyB on 18.06.14 9:36

@ultimaThule wrote: As I'm not aware of any thread(s) relating to 'Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security', perhaps you could provide a link AndyB?
There's this one, although it doesn't mention national Security: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8522-home-office-is-withholding-info-on-mccann-case-from-sy

There's also this: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5239-madeleine-mccann-file-kept-secret-sunday-july-1-2012 which suggests the reason is to avoid a diplomatic incident with Portugal (whatever that means).

Regardless of the reasons, IMO the Home Office does appear to be withholding evidence, although it could still be a forum myth. If its true I think Lady Heather may be correct in her thinking

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by missmar1 on 18.06.14 9:50

@nglfi wrote:I've been pondering lots of things overnight and I have a more general question for those believing in a whitewash, and I hope it's ok if I post it here - 
If the outcome of operation Grange is unsuccessful,  (as in no one is charged), will that prove beyond doubt a whitewash?

I've been thinking about Sr Amaral's bombshell on Monday and feeling quite negative again. I still don't believe in a whitewash, but I feel, as Pat Brown has alluded to, that no one will ever be charged. The McCanns have got away with it. And they have known this for some time. It explains why they pushed for a review.  It explains Gerry's duping delight and smirks. It explains their continued support from Clarrie, and seemingly from the British Govt (although that may be in appearance only). I'm just thinking that for an outcome favourable to the McCanns,  a whitewash isn't even necessary.  Amaral really shocked me on Monday with his revelations about the coffin and second beach witness. Why on earth would he come out with this information now? If it is true, the Portuguese have already warned the British media and people in general not to leak information which could compromise the investigation.  He has done just that.  And if it isn't true, then I don't know what he's playing at. No, I think Anaral fears that he may lose the trial,  and knows full well there will never be enough evidence to charge the pair, so he's decided to release all that he hasn't yet said,  in the interests of truth and to support his case.

Operation Grange is,  I believe,  genuine. But with a cremated body, where (so the Internet tells me), DNA is impossible to retrieve from correctly burned ashes, and no way of establishing for sure who did what, there will never be a charge. How do you prove who killed Madeleine?  How do you prove,  without a body, she had an accident?  The most you could ever show was that Gerry at some point carried a child down to the beach,  which isn't enough.  They could reinterview the t9 but what would that achieve?  They'd all say no comment. I think Andy Redwood has been given the task of trying to crack this case, but it's nigh on impossible.  As to why millions have been spent on it if it's such a lost cause, I suspect it has more to do with RB's threats to Cameron than anything else. Sorry for the depressing post this morning!

Your thoughts may be right about the outcome of this terrible case - but I do believe Amaral is in total control over his recent decisions and has his own very good reasons for his actions  -  What they are ?  We will all have to wait and see.
He may even have been advised to take these actions ?

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Cristobell on 18.06.14 10:11

Good morning Nglfi, I don't think there is any reason to think charges will never be brought in this case.  In fact the opposite is true. There are two live and very expensive police investigations underway into the disappearance of Madeleine.  Neither the SY investigation nor the PJ investigation would have been opened if there was no prospect of prosecutions.  The AG and the CPS were fully involved before the case reopened and they would not have given the go ahead if the intention were to file the case with no charges being brought. 

In my opinion, both police forces know exactly who they are after, but they are searching for that 'clincher', that one piece of evidence that is beyond dispute.  The police, like Goncalo, have all the time in the world, this is a case where the suspects have literally nowhere to go.  It would be far worse if the prosecution went to trial and failed through lack of evidence.  In that case, the 'suspects' would walk, and never face trial again (double jeopardy).

As for Goncalo, he has been dealing with the slippery pair for 7 years, and probably knows more than anyone what makes them tick. He looked happy and relaxed when he left the court on Monday, I am sure he knows what he is doing.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by missmar1 on 18.06.14 10:18

Hi Cristobell,

Hope you are right - I really do.  btw, not sure about the " double jeopardy" rule anymore ...I think that has been changed in recent years and people can now stand trial a second time - might only be in certain Countries though ....I may be wrong.

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Guest on 18.06.14 10:55


I'm no legal eagle, but it is my understanding the rule indeed has changed, in that suspects can be charged and prosecuted again WHEN there's NEW evidence against them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by fossey on 18.06.14 11:04

Châtelaine wrote:
I'm no legal eagle, but it is my understanding the rule indeed has changed, in that suspects can be charged and prosecuted again WHEN there's NEW evidence against them.
It was scrapped in 2005 IIRC. 

Certainly in the UK. Not sure about Portugal.

fossey

Posts : 293
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-06-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by nglfi on 18.06.14 11:26

@Cristobell wrote:Good morning Nglfi, I don't think there is any reason to think charges will never be brought in this case.  In fact the opposite is true. There are two live and very expensive police investigations underway into the disappearance of Madeleine.  Neither the SY investigation nor the PJ investigation would have been opened if there was no prospect of prosecutions.  The AG and the CPS were fully involved before the case reopened and they would not have given the go ahead if the intention were to file the case with no charges being brought. 

In my opinion, both police forces know exactly who they are after, but they are searching for that 'clincher', that one piece of evidence that is beyond dispute.  The police, like Goncalo, have all the time in the world, this is a case where the suspects have literally nowhere to go.  It would be far worse if the prosecution went to trial and failed through lack of evidence.  In that case, the 'suspects' would walk, and never face trial again (double jeopardy).

As for Goncalo, he has been dealing with the slippery pair for 7 years, and probably knows more than anyone what makes them tick. He looked happy and relaxed when he left the court on Monday, I am sure he knows what he is doing.
Good morning!  I very much hope you are right. I don't think it's the intention to file the case without bringing charges, but SY and the PJ have such a difficult job ahead of them. I guess I'm just feeling a bit negative this morning.  I suppose we don't know a lot about what the PJ are actually up to at the moment,  since they sensibly keep it under wraps as much as possible.  That's why the coffin revelation was so surprising. But as you say, Goncalo left the courtroom looking happy enough, and the McCanns were definitely upstaged. And when you consider the path that events are following,  the situation for the MCs is definitely worse than it was a year ago. Let's hope they are just searching for that 'clincher' :)

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by Cristobell on 18.06.14 12:32

Hi Missmar, I'm not sure about the double jeopardy rule either, or if it applies in Portugal.  In any event, this will be a massive trial and no-one wants it to fail. 

Courtesy of public donations, the McCanns have a large defence fund (probably not so large anymore) and criminal lawyers who are at the top of their profession.  I am in no doubt that the McCann team have been influencing the investigation and that they are insisting that all the bedhoppers and smellymen are thoroughly checked out. Can you imagine how the McCanns would play out leads that weren't followed if they found themselves in the dock?

All these delays and hold ups are unbearably frustrating for us, but the size and scale of Operation Grange suggests they are looking for a lot more than a lone abductor and a missing child. 

In addition, there is no urgency to either of the police investigations.  In fact, they are doing the opposite of what we would expect if there were a dangerous child predator on the loose. No urgency from the parents either.  I know they had money on their minds, but even they didn't beg for her immediate return or a clue to her whereabouts during their recent press conference.

Kate and Gerry look terrible, Kate especially, she is turning into the embodiment of the portrait Dorian Gray kept hidden in his attic.  These are not people who are being protected.  Kate has been caught up in her own 'misery and fear' curse, her need to destroy Goncalo, is in fact destroying her.  She has squeezed every drop of sympathy out of the watching world, and whining about childcare and it being 'not fair' won't appeal to anyone, not even the most ardent candle lighters. 

Whilst I winced at the 'childcare and hotel' remarks, the 'not fair', made me choke on my cappuccino!  Not fair Kate? Good grief!  I wonder what Kerry Needham made of the 'not fair' comment?  Or indeed the parents of every other missing child in the UK?  To be fair, hmm, Kate was referring to Goncalo Amaral inconveniencing them by forcing them to attend Court to get their money.  He should have just put the cheque in the mail, as the others did.  Not only did Goncalo refuse to give them the money, he has held out for 5 long years to have his day in Court.  Their claims that this libel case is about Madeleine and justice sound hollow, even tabloid headline skimmers know a libel trial is about money.  They are now embarrassed by their monetary claim, saying the booty is intended to be 'folded' into the investigation. The 'search' word is no longer available to them, having been taken over by the authorities and turned into an investigation. 

Are they going to give their winnings to Scotland Yard?  Probably not, perhaps they have a publically funded Team McCann investigation in mind for the future should the SY one not give them the result they want. 

I have no idea why Goncalo did as he did on Monday.  However, I remember watching the book banning trial in 2010, and how all we observing the trial believed it was impossible for the Court to find in the McCanns' favour, particularly after the evidence presented by Goncalo's witnesses.  The book was banned!  Happily, this miscarriage of justice was swiftly overturned by a higher Court, but the memory of that Court error, must haunt those involved in the trial now.  

Both parties face ruination by this trial. Though we (perhaps with a biased view) can see the McCanns have no case whatsoever, Goncalo has much at risk and he would not be human if he were not anxious as to the result. He must use every tool available to him to defend himself, the McCanns have a history of fighting dirty, and he won't get caught again.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by ultimaThule on 18.06.14 12:41

@AndyB wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote: As I'm not aware of any thread(s) relating to 'Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security', perhaps you could provide a link AndyB?
There's this one, although it doesn't mention national Security: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8522-home-office-is-withholding-info-on-mccann-case-from-sy

There's also this: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5239-madeleine-mccann-file-kept-secret-sunday-july-1-2012 which suggests the reason is to avoid a diplomatic incident with Portugal (whatever that means).

Regardless of the reasons, IMO the Home Office does appear to be withholding evidence, although it could still be a forum myth. If its true I think Lady Heather may be correct in her thinking

Thank you for providing the links, AndyB, and, having read the content, I am inclined to concur with Russian doll's opinion that "if the real events of the Maddie case were so shocking and threatening to powerful individuals, were of such gravity that they needed to be covered up by the government , it would have happened years ago and without the expense of a review of the case".

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony was right was he not?

Post by AndyB on 18.06.14 13:18

@ultimaThule wrote:
@AndyB wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote: As I'm not aware of any thread(s) relating to 'Theresa May withholding evidence on the grounds of national security', perhaps you could provide a link AndyB?
There's this one, although it doesn't mention national Security: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8522-home-office-is-withholding-info-on-mccann-case-from-sy

There's also this: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5239-madeleine-mccann-file-kept-secret-sunday-july-1-2012 which suggests the reason is to avoid a diplomatic incident with Portugal (whatever that means).

Regardless of the reasons, IMO the Home Office does appear to be withholding evidence, although it could still be a forum myth. If its true I think Lady Heather may be correct in her thinking

Thank you for providing the links, AndyB, and, having read the content, I am inclined to concur with Russian doll's opinion that "if the real events of the Maddie case were so shocking and threatening to powerful individuals, were of such gravity that they needed to be covered up by the government , it would have happened years ago and without the expense of a review of the case".
That's perfectly logical, although it does tend to conflate "powerful individuals" and "the government". It also raises the question, exactly why was Grange started. I just wonder if the powers that be were happy to leave it all in the background to disappear, and they believed that it had all been covered up years ago. But then something happened that threatened the status quo that ultimately lead to Grange, the objectives of which are as much to do with maintaining the cover up as searching for Madeleine. Hence my interest in Cameron's motivations in ordering the review.

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 53
Location : Consett, County Durham

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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