Re: Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed

by AndyB 06.07.14 19:06

Brian Griffin wrote:What doesn't make sense is why they would carry on with the show. I know people say it's for the money, but as doctors, they are already on very good salaries. If they had committed a crime, wouldn't it just be better to let it all settle and fade into the back of the public consciousness?

It depends on what crime and who else, if anyone, was involved. What pressure did the Portuguese releasing the case files put on them and their need to control the agenda? Were they perhaps badly advised by Mitchell to keep pushing it? Are they trying to hide in plain site - "Look, we're still searching for Madeleine so we can't possibly have anything to do with her disappearance"? I think that in the early days, and maybe to an extent still, they believed that they were untouchable but one thing is certain - nothing is ever straightforward with this case

by plebgate 06.07.14 19:12

Brian Griffin wrote:What doesn't make sense is why they would carry on with the show. I know people say it's for the money, but as doctors, they are already on very good salaries. If they had committed a crime, wouldn't it just be better to let it all settle and fade into the back of the public consciousness? Then quietly move overseas. Instead it's in the media all the damned time! Why let that happen - or even encourage it - if you've got something to hide? In my books that's one point in favour of TM and their interpretation of events.

Mr. is on video somewhere or in the papers saying that he wished it would all die down and not be reported in the media all the time IIRC.

by Justformaddie 06.07.14 19:13

tiny wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Any word on tomorrow yet? Or is that Tuesday? Wonder if the rest of the met came home?

From the sunday mirror,

Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge. They believe they have a very strong case against Mr Amaral and they expect to win their claim.”

Thank you tiny:) and no good luck from me mcs!

by Brian Griffin 06.07.14 19:19

AndyB wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:I have wondered about that too. Just my theory here of course (like we all have to say that now like we are guilty of something!), but if Gerry is a Freemason, then maybe other members of the T9 were too, and they would be bound by oath to help out under a pact of secrecy. Also, if I am understanding the situation correctly, the tapas crowd were also professionals, and were also leaving their children alone for hours on end while they partied etc. Wouldn't this drag their neglect into the equation too? You know how the press like to tear people apart! They could have feared that they might have been exposed if anything bad were to come out. It's not beyond feasibility that they might even have been strong-armed into complying, a kind of 'we go down, we'll take you down with us' kind of thing. Just the idea of what might happen to your job, career, private life back home might be enough to gain compliance. Whatever the reason, to continue with the analogy - once they are on the roundabout, they can't get off either! Just my opinion, of course. I think that, if Madeleine had died of an overdose administered by the parents, then they would have been torn apart in the public eye back home, and I doubt they would have been able to continue working as doctors and their ability to look after the other kids would also have been thrown into question. It's a horrible situation whichever way you play it out, and I can see why a staged abduction (if that is what indeed it was) would have been preferable to vilification in the press back home. From a pragmatic point of view, if she is already dead, there is nothing you can do to bring her back so...
They can't have been dragged in over fear of a press drubbing over neglect because they all readily admit it. Its possible, of course, that, like many on here believe, there was no neglect and that this was an invention to facilitate and abduction. Irrespective of whether its true or not, the T9 voluntarily involved themselves at the Rothley meeting with the vow of silence. Something motivated them to do this, which brings me to the second bit that I've emboldened: They may not be able to get off the roundabout now they're on it but they didn't need to get on it in the first place

I see your point. I was just a possible scenario. With the pressure of the situation maybe people weren't thinking straight, after all, the witness statements kept on changing, didn't they? If they had been thinking logically, the timeline would have had to have been watertight. One thing - I'll bet they all regret having taken that holiday with the McCanns!

by Guest 06.07.14 19:21

Justformaddie wrote:
tiny wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Any word on tomorrow yet? Or is that Tuesday? Wonder if the rest of the met came home?

From the sunday mirror,

Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge. They believe they have a very strong case against Mr Amaral and they expect to win their claim.”
Thank you tiny:) and no good luck from me mcs!

***
Pull the other one. They appealed court to make statements ... big grin

by NickE 06.07.14 20:06

comperedna wrote:Accident, plus probable non-legal sedation, plus not having proper child care arrangements whilst they were out 'wining and dining' would be enough for them to lose their jobs, their status, and possibly their other children too.

That's still a likely scenario, but not the only one I keep in mind. If the above simple explanation is true, a huge edifice has been built onto it with staged abduction and all that followed it. The parents once on the whirling roundabout must stay on it.

Then come thoughts of all the theoretical reasons someone might wish to cover up a death and hide/dispose of a body.
Hypothetically speaking, of course...

What reasons might there be for not wanting a child's body to be medically examined?
- Evidence of the use of illegal/unwise amounts of medication
- Evidence of child abuse (physical)
- Evidence of child abuse (sexual)
- Evidence of manner of death (homicide) (Did someone give the poor child a four-penny one?)
- Other reasons which might lead to prosecution

Evidence... evidence... hard evidence is what is needed, but of course there may not be enough of it for the CPS to recommend a prosecution.

English isn´t my first language.

I think this was a pre planned faked kidnapping and not a sudden accident.
If there had been a sudden accident had they become som kind of stress about the situation and then comes the mistakes.
Everything was planned, they were mentally prepared, the last photo, Robert Murat was involved in the planning as a "scapegoat", cleaned apartment,timeline for the evening of May 3 was already done,fast contacts with the media unt zu weiter ..
I believe that Madeleine was gone before the May 3, it's much because of this the police have problems, they have targeted the May 3 and this was just what the McCann's wanted them to do.
So, what happened?
Most of us have probably asked ourselves, how can parents whose little girl is dead laugh and look happy in pictures?
Witnesses said that Kate laughed out loud just a day after the May 3.
How can this be possible?
Until I see Madeleine's medical records, I think that Madeleine had a serious illness that was life threatening and she suffered from pain.
Their friends were doctors and had a full understanding of the parents were willing to help Madeleine to move on to the other side
As I said, they look happy on many pictures, they're religious and believe that Madeleine now avoid the pain and have come to God in which she has it much better.
Have also read several tweets and posts on UK Justice Forum from shills where they say that "Madeleine is just fine and is well looked after."
This is what the McCann's have had in their minds since the day they took the decision.
But they look sad and distressed in the TV studios?
Yes, of course, they used this as a kidnapping to earn money and they try to look sad, but they're really bad actors.

by stillsloppingout 06.07.14 20:07

Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.

They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association . Furthermore i feel they would be treated worse because they could have stopped this all at source .

The McCanns have no choice . and there arrogant posturing, outside the court will not have gone unnoticed ,add there dishonest and stumbling police statements they dare not speak .

by AndyB 06.07.14 20:16

stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .

But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?

by stillsloppingout 06.07.14 20:24

AndyB wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .
But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?

IMO Swinging , plus the administration of drugs [ possibly class a ] to all of the children ,one died could have been any of them , they are all in it together .

by JohnyT 06.07.14 20:26

Hi
I haven't posted much but have been an avid follower/reader of this forum.
I'm going to be devils advocate here and just say this.......do you not think that a lot of people are over-thinking things? Seriously. would Freemasons (if they were of course) keep quiet if they knew about a wrongful death? (is the 'oath' so tight?). I do see and hear things that the McCs have done and think, hang on that doesn't sound right, but to be honest I'm not 100% convinced that they're guilty. I'm not a supporter, to be honest they do seem smug BUT, people react in different ways to bad things that have happened to them. Could the abductors (IF there were any) just have been flukey and left no signs and not been seen etc.?? Is it a possibility? I can't explain the dogs scenting what they did ( I know someones going to mention that). Do you really think SY would not have looked again and again at all the statements?
JohnyT

by JohnyT 06.07.14 20:28

^^ Really? You'd cover a death up because you're a 'swinger'?

by AndyB 06.07.14 20:32

stillsloppingout wrote:
AndyB wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .
But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?
IMO Swinging , plus the administration of drugs [ possibly class a ] to all of the children ,one died could have been any of them , they are all in it together .

I agree that they're all in it together but do you seriously believe that swinging provides sufficient motivation for covering up the death of a child? (I'm assuming that you believe that they are covering up Madeleine's death however caused. If not please correct me). Apart from, perhaps, a little embarrassment, what would the consequences of their swinging have been? As far as I'm aware, no-one has ever suffered in the UK after being identified as a swinger and certainly not enough to conspire to cover up a child's death but again, please correct me if I'm wrong

by Guest 06.07.14 20:34

Somebody asked re why the mccanns have chosen to be in the media so much since.

Could the answer be that simply,the papers want to fill inches,given that from the start they courted the media,even arranging photo ops so the press got a bit of what they wanted,they had no choice but to try and constantly put their version out through clarrie ? If not the press would do a bit more digging and print what they like-as they do in most other cases.
They simply had no choice.

by AndyB 06.07.14 20:36

JohnyT wrote:Hi
I haven't posted much but have been an avid follower/reader of this forum.
I'm going to be devils advocate here and just say this.......do you not think that a lot of people are over-thinking things? Seriously. would Freemasons (if they were of course) keep quiet if they knew about a wrongful death? (is the 'oath' so tight?). I do see and hear things that the McCs have done and think, hang on that doesn't sound right, but to be honest I'm not 100% convinced that they're guilty. I'm not a supporter, to be honest they do seem smug BUT, people react in different ways to bad things that have happened to them. Could the abductors (IF there were any) just have been flukey and left no signs and not been seen etc.?? Is it a possibility? I can't explain the dogs scenting what they did ( I know someones going to mention that). Do you really think SY would not have looked again and again at all the statements?
JohnyT

Any views on the Gasper statements?

by JohnyT 06.07.14 20:42

Did they report them to the authorities? It's a serious question ( I don't know if they did or didn't). Personally, if I thought someone was talking about a child like what they said they had heard, I would have either said something to them or reported them to the relevant authorities.
JohnyT

by Guest 06.07.14 20:46

JohnnyT
Gaspars DID talk to the police.

by JohnyT 06.07.14 20:48

If they did, good on them. Were they reported before or after the 'abduction'?
JohnyT

ETA I know the Gaspars' gave statements to the police but did they report this incident at the time it happened?

by HelenMeg 06.07.14 20:51

stillsloppingout wrote:
AndyB wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .
But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?
IMO Swinging , plus the administration of drugs [ possibly class a ] to all of the children ,one died could have been any of them , they are all in it together .

I still think the swinging scenario fits the bill more than any other. But I dont think that it is the MCc Cann 'swinging' that caused any cover up - it is the swinging of the various higher profile 'VIP' guests that were part of the crowd invited to the gathering that week. Doctors swinging - no real problem. High profile establishment figures swinging - they would definitely want a cover up.

by AndyB 06.07.14 20:55

HelenMeg wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
AndyB wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .
But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?
IMO Swinging , plus the administration of drugs [ possibly class a ] to all of the children ,one died could have been any of them , they are all in it together .
I still think the swinging scenario fits the bill more than any other. But I dont think that it is the MCc Cann 'swinging' that caused any cover up - it is the swinging of the various higher profile 'VIP' guests that were part of the crowd invited to the gathering that week. Doctors swinging - no real problem. High profile establishment figures swinging - they would definitely want a cover up.

It won't surprise you to learn that I disagree. I just don't believe that swinging by anyone, VIP or not, could cause parents to cover up the death of their first child.

by JohnyT 06.07.14 20:56

HelenMeg wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
AndyB wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
Benion wrote:I think the rest of the T9 can get off the roundabout now. If they turned witness there is no way they would be prosecuted.
They would be crucified , especially if they have knowingly covered up the death and disposal of a child , even worse if they have assisted in the disposal ,but either way guilt by association .
But what motivated them to get on the roundabout in the first place? What was the imperative? What was the thought process that lead up to "...so therefore we have to help cover-up the McCann's involvement in their daughter's death"? Irrespective of whether they can get off the roundabout or not, for me, the issue is why get on in the first place?
IMO Swinging , plus the administration of drugs [ possibly class a ] to all of the children ,one died could have been any of them , they are all in it together .
I still think the swinging scenario fits the bill more than any other. But I dont think that it is the MCc Cann 'swinging' that caused any cover up - it is the swinging of the various higher profile 'VIP' guests that were part of the crowd invited to the gathering that week. Doctors swinging - no real problem. High profile establishment figures swinging - they would definitely want a cover up.

Come on....this is getting ludicrous, even 'High Profile' people would eventually get over the shame (and i use that term loosely as in my book people can do whatever they like, within reason. behind closed doors.
If people are saying "cover up" it would have to be far far worse.
JohnyT

by AndyB 06.07.14 21:05

JohnyT wrote:ETA I know the Gaspars' gave statements to the police but did they report this incident at the time it happened?

If you know that the Gaspers gave statements, why did you ask if they had reported it to the authorities?

by Guest 06.07.14 21:06

JohnyT wrote:If they did, good on them. Were they reported before or after the 'abduction'?
JohnyT

ETA I know the Gaspars' gave statements to the police but did they report this incident at the time it happened?

***
If you know Gaspars gave statements to the police, you should know WHEN and WHY they did it. Go google ;-)

by stillsloppingout 06.07.14 21:07

JohnyT wrote:^^ Really? You'd cover a death up because you're a 'swinger'?

No .
The reason Because you have administered recreational drugs to children one dies thus the cover up . the alleged swinging explains there mindset and mentality . as it is NOT normal .

by JohnyT 06.07.14 21:23

Châtelaine wrote:
JohnyT wrote:If they did, good on them. Were they reported before or after the 'abduction'?
JohnyT

ETA I know the Gaspars' gave statements to the police but did they report this incident at the time it happened?
***
If you know Gaspars gave statements to the police, you should know WHEN and WHY they did it. Go google ;-)

Can't you just tell me?

by JohnyT 06.07.14 21:24

stillsloppingout wrote:
JohnyT wrote:^^ Really? You'd cover a death up because you're a 'swinger'?
No .
The reason Because you have administered recreational drugs to children one dies thus the cover up . the alleged swinging explains there mindset and mentality . as it is NOT normal .

I agree with what you said but that isn't in the context of how it was originally put.

Log in for more topics