Re: Redwood's Role - And the 'Theory of the Developing Narrative'

by missmar1 15.07.14 16:41

Varriott wrote:
missmar1 wrote:
Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve. Why is SY promoting narratives at all? The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time. Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources. I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity. The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all. I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely. If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone. If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

WHY a special case ? Madeleine's parents are not special people ? Imo, they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends. For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ? They conduct tv and magazine interviews, but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children ? Gerry Mccann even stated " The situation Madeleine found herself in "

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation" imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ? The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mcanns.

Eta, imo, there is something very very wrong with this case - yes, I can understand the sympathy shown to the Mccann's when it first happened because their daughter had gone missing, but , with the release of the files and their continued odd behaviour ..ie, the mother not answering police questions , rubbishing the dogs, statements discrepancies etc....they, and all their holiday pals, need to be re-interviewed at the very least .

All my opinion only.

What makes this a special case? I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again. That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent. And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty. All that was special here is that it happened abroad. Therefore the parents must be innocent. Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it. SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!! This is all a case study in xenophobia.

I know the British like to think they are superior to others - but imo, this case has all the hallmarks of good PR and plenty of brain washing to people who do not delve too deeply into the whys and hows. - it reminds me of the play called The Crucible by Arthur Miller, it was about witchcraft in the 16 th century but my point about the play is how the witchmaster General was able to create mass hysteria - it spread like wildfire......

by canada12 15.07.14 16:51

Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case? I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again. That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent. And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty. All that was special here is that it happened abroad. Therefore the parents must be innocent. Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it. SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!! This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

by missmar1 15.07.14 16:58

canada12 wrote:
Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case? I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again. That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent. And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty. All that was special here is that it happened abroad. Therefore the parents must be innocent. Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it. SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!! This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

Very well said canada12 thats my opinion too.

by Newintown 15.07.14 17:07

canada12 wrote:
Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case? I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again. That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent. And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty. All that was special here is that it happened abroad. Therefore the parents must be innocent. Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it. SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!! This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

That's an excellent summing up of all that has gone on for the past 7 years, although don't forget the highly paid lawyers, consultants, PR agencies plus people who have their own morning TV programmes who don't ask the McCanns any awkward questions, have all helped the McCanns along the way to fame and fortune and have all forgotten about the REAL VICTIM, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN.

by Justformaddie 15.07.14 17:17

Newintown wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Varriott wrote:
What makes this a special case? I think it's the iron law of crime reporting, which I have seen over and over again. That is, when a crime is committed abroad, the British public always consider British suspects to be innocent. And when a crime is committed at home, the British public always consider British suspects to be guilty. All that was special here is that it happened abroad. Therefore the parents must be innocent. Therefore a smelly, Mediterranean, swarthy, paedophile, drunken, foreign, schitzophrenic, Russian, thieving, homeless, begging, dark-haired, non-British person must have done it. SY only want to make it seem like they are "doing their job" and are not bumbling, disgraced, sardine-munching foreigners - because who else might suspect a British person ABROAD!! This is all a case study in xenophobia.

IMO from the very start, the McCanns and their friends made sure they sabotaged any chance of the Portuguese police looking good. IMO they deliberately muddied the circumstances and made it difficult to collect proper clues. IMO they then took advantage of the confusion by pointing the Portuguese police out as bumbling and inefficient, and took every opportunity to build on this theme in their actions, statements, and stories conveyed to the British media. With that impression clearly planted, IMO they then played on that theme when push came to shove and they were made arguidos. They used the idea they they were being "framed" or that the PJ were incompetent, in order to convince the British public that their refusal to answer questions, and their refusal to cooperate, and their swift departure from the country, and their refusal to return for a reconstruction, was all completely understandable under the circumstances. And that, my friends, is how Kate and Gerry have managed to twist and spin everything that happened seven years ago into where they - and we - are now in the investigation.

That's an excellent summing up of all that has gone on for the past 7 years, although don't forget the highly paid lawyers, consultants, PR agencies, people who have their own morning TV programmes and don't ask the McCanns any awkward questions, have all helped the McCanns along the way to fame and fortune, and have all forgotten about the REAL VICTIM, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN.

So so sad, IMO maddie was money in the end. IMO Sad

But in the end the fan

The dogs have trapped them lol4

Then they'll be where they belong prisoner

All IMO and hopes and dreams!

by Okeydokey 15.07.14 20:00

Think you're probably right Tony. Equally they might time something for the election - I mean soon after.

Tony Bennett wrote:
mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.
Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair' - forever.

by Guest 15.07.14 21:53

missmar1 wrote:

I know the British like to think they are superior to others - but imo, this case has all the hallmarks of good PR and plenty of brain washing to people who do not delve too deeply into the whys and hows. - it reminds me of the play called The Crucible by Arthur Miller, it was about witchcraft in the 16 th century but my point about the play is how the witchmaster General was able to create mass hysteria - it spread like wildfire......

The Crucible was actually about McCarthyism, under which Arthur Miller personally suffered. In a rather heavy handed bit of allegory he portrayed a metaphorical witch hunt by depicting an actual witch hunt.

by SuspiciousMinds 15.07.14 22:02

How easy is it going to be to "bury" this news, when several million pounds have so very publically and controversially been spent on it? And if the final report in any way exonerates the McCanns, you can bet your little red wellies that they will be out there with their PR team in full force saying, "See, we told you we were innocent! Oh, and erm... yeah...we're obviously really sad that the kid died, by the way."

It's not really the kind of story that is going to disappear unnoticed, is it?

And nobody who already has their doubts (and knows about the dogs) will be convinced by it anyway. So how is the report supposed to conclude anything? It will just be another unedifying chapter in a long, ongoing saga.

by nomendelta 15.07.14 22:27

Even if SY provide any kind of proof to confirm MM died before "disappearing" I don't think it will hamper the McCanns one bit. The campaign will go on, the fund will go on with them publicly disagreeing with the evidence and sticking to their belief that there is no evidence that MM came to any harm.

by XTC 15.07.14 23:05

Okeydokey wrote:Think you're probably right Tony. Equally they might time something for the election - I mean soon after.

Tony Bennett wrote:
mysterion wrote:Problem is there would have to be a Crimewatch special to explain everything to the UK public with MM being such a high profile case on that program. That explanation could actually widen suspicion.
Disagree, mysterion.

This is far more likely IMO:

1. The actual 'final report' will be secret, as was said at the outset, and later confirmed via the answer to a Freedom of Information Act request (mine).

2. A summary will be released via a written statement put out either by the Head of the Met (or their Media Office) or the Home Secretary (or her Media Office).

3. This summary will be released on the type of news day where it's a good opportunity to 'bury bad news'.

4. The media won't question the summary and the public won't be able to question it either.

5. I believe the above will happen between now and February next year.

6. Those behind this 'Final Narrative' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann will hope that this will conclude 'The Madeleine McCann Affair' - forever.

In my humble opion the summation of it all is in Tony's 4th point.

The media already do not question the latest acts by SY and will settle for the Madeleine cannot be found scenario.

Meanwhile the fate of Madeliene will always remain in the air in the minds of the public. Based more on hope ( not necessarily a bad thing) than actuaility.

The ' search ' for Madeleine can be kept on in perpituity because until she is found there can be no settled fact establishing whether she is dead or alive. No credible evidence of abduction and no credible evidence of death.

The thing remains ( to use blacksmith's " as it stands " words ) that until further irrefutable and informative evidence emerges nothing can happen to take the investigation further forward.

My opinion is that SY, despite highlighting the Smith family sighting and dismissing the Tannerman sighting, are no longer in search of even the Smithman otherwise they would be searching the area where the Smith family spotted the man and child. Everywhere but there.

It's a bit cynical but the investigation is being carried out in a cynical manner so I'll join in the cynicism by saying that the Smith man sighting will be in the same category as the Tannerman sighting with the exception that SY have not figured out how to dismiss the Smithman from the investigation yet. But eventually they will.

If they can't think of a reason to dismiss it from the public mind it will just be ignored. As if Crimewatch never happened and the promised Irish style Crimewatch which never happened also.

I wouldn't agree with all that Tony Bennet is saying but the orientation is clear.

Reshelving of the investigation.

Nothing more can be done.

by jhansigirl 15.07.14 23:14

Baldrick wrote:
missmar1 wrote:
Varriott wrote:This thread has really hit a nerve. Why is SY promoting narratives at all? The proof that they are doing this is that multiple media outlets print the same stories at the same time. Surely they should be solving a crime with their considerable resources. I don't know what's worse - a police force that seems to exist to spin fairy tales (in my opinion) or a press that slavishly follows them and prints their "leaks" without questioning their veracity. The evidence from the original investigation is in the public domain, after all. I want to have faith in SY, but it's their perpetually promotion of ridiculous theories that makes me doubt them completely. If they have evidence, by all means arrest someone. If they don't, they should stop leaking fairy tales.

I really hope SY is doing its job - to find out what happened to a little girl who, imo, was not special or any different to any other child who goes missing under suspicious circumstances.....but it seems SY are treating this case as a "Special" one .

WHY a special case ? Madeleine's parents are not special people ? Imo, they acted like a selfish pair who preferred to leave their kids all alone while they went off for a good time with their friends. For that selfish act, they have received special kid glove treatment.

WHY are the Mccann's fawned over ? They conduct tv and magazine interviews, but they are not famous - they are infamous for leaving their children all alone and one disappeared.

So why all the fussing and fawning over these people who left their children ? Gerry Mccann even stated " The situation Madeleine found herself in "

Any parent would know a 3 year old cannot choose their "situation" imo, it was a situation her parents actions put her in and not the other way around, and how have they been treated for their actions ? The Mccann's have been treated like mini celebs by the UK media and the likes of Lorraine Kelly....even SY seem to show the utmost respect when dealing with the Mccann's .

All my opinion only.

No I don't believe the Mccanns are special people. That is why I don't believe the pink one was sent to help them. IMO he was sent to make sure no other peoples names were dropped by the Maccs and friends in the return for help.

Totally agree with everything you have written.

by maebee 15.07.14 23:23

All of the above makes for depressing reading. In order for the SY/Government whitewash to happen, TM will have to be told to finally STFU. I can't see this happening. If I were on Redwood's team I'd be thinking that the Mcs are way too shaky to be brought into an agreement to stay silent forever. There's always the chance/fear that one of the T& will grow a pair and sing. My glass is still half-full.

by petunia 15.07.14 23:55

Maybe one of the Pact have told their "good friends" the mccanns to bugger off in a nice sort of way or maybe they meant to tell them but they forgot because of other commitments.

by Woofer 15.07.14 23:55

@ Baldrick - " I don't believe the pink one was sent to help them."

Agreed. He was sent to control them IMO.

At the time his job was to control what comes out in the media - he was merely seconded by the establishment to control what comes out of the McCann`s mouths IMO.

by joel27 16.07.14 8:32

I cannot agree with Tonys theory, though he is probably right on a few aspects OG will be shelved and I guess the date is about right. Whatever I think and the view I have there is not enough evidence to get a conviction against anyone. Unless someone comes forward and admits they lied, which currently looks unlikey, I dont see where it can go. Its changed the storyline brought into focus a number of old suspect or suspects and opened up the timeframe, but its not found anything new of any significance. It needs to be closed down soon from both a cost and manpower need. Its failed if the aim was to clear the McCanns as some think, it has not and cannot in my opinion. Where I think Tony is wrong is that it was one big scam with lots of people involved from the BBC, OG, TM and Uncle Tom Cobley an all, in some great high level cover up, or clearence of the McCanns. I still think that some of the OG statements are for public consumptuion , the McCanns are not suspects for instance. The outcry lead by LK or others if they had would have been louder than those of us with differing views. To compare it to the cover ups on say Stephen Lawrence , Hillsborough and others which were about protecting the police is wrong. Its depressing as depressing as the current case of Summer Rogers- Ratcliffe .

Do I see hope in any of it, maybe I am wrong there is some, and forums like this and others help. Maybe the saying beware the hand that feeds you is one that needs to be considered by some a revengful media pack is not a pretty sight

by Baldrick 16.07.14 9:21

Woofer wrote:If all your suggestions are correct Tony, it can only mean that something evil and someone extremely high profile is up to their necks in this and has to be protected.

Agree on this. But I think the people with involvement were only protected because of what they know about other people higher up the chain, if this makes sense.

Ex MP Possibly or someone who could really damage the government , media or both.

I do hold out some hope though with the investigation into the alleged abuse involving certain MPs

by joyce1938 16.07.14 10:16

This maybe wrong thread but I would like to sat today I heard some more news of cthe met ,did not do well for the Lawrence case . A police that has just retired is now soeaking about they did not to seem to go into this case ,and took years to pu 1 or 2 in prison and were supposed to be getting onto another 1 ir 2 that were guilty ,now decided not to get on with it ,just allow it to remain as it is ,how many years is this now . I hope someone hear might have heard it last night ,talking about the met and how this policeman realized they did not want to joyce1938 I have not explained it too well .But if its true ,then what we felt about mbm will easily slip into the past ,no more case to answer.

by joel27 16.07.14 16:19

Joyce the Lawrence case more particularly the way the police handled is about the racism and corruption that prevailed in the police at the time. Even more the cover up of this at all levels within the police.

by margaret 16.07.14 17:43

joel27 wrote:Joyce the Lawrence case more particularly the way the police handled is about the racism and corruption that prevailed in the police at the time. Even more the cover up of this at all levels within the police.

But what is good about it is that the officer involved in the investigation is speaking out against it. Add all the officers in OP Grange to the list of people involved in the requirement for a whitewash in maddies case and l believe it's impossible. There isn't enough money to pay them all and why would they all keep quiet? For the Queen or governments sake?

by Synes 16.07.14 17:50

Maybe those officers involved were hand picked for the job...all areas have a 'watch list' of persons of interest in the force, no payment necessary just some leverage

by margaret 16.07.14 18:12

Synes wrote:Maybe those officers involved were hand picked for the job...all areas have a 'watch list' of persons of interest in the force, no payment necessary just some leverage

Leverage can disappear. I think it's nigh on impossible myself to get all involved in this case to keep quiet about a whitewash.

On retirement from interesting jobs some people write a memoir. I would imagine if anyone involved in the SY investigation wrote a book it would be of great interest, it would be dynamite if there was some scandal to add to it.

The Internet is too powerful a tool now, if we didn't have it l doubt some people in Westminster would be worrying or stepping down from their jobs....

by comperedna 16.07.14 18:22

It seems to me now that both police forces are merely going through the motions. Indeed, the PJ may be doing nothing at all. It is likely that there is not enough evidence to convict anybody, and it is... to coin a phrase... 'utterly ludicrous' that anyone close to Madeleine and there on the night in question is not being considered... only peripheral oddballs. This is a wicked waste of money. It brings the Met into serious disrepute. They cannot stand many more scandals. Surely it is best for them to pull out now with a: 'we did our best, but there is not enough evidence etc'. WHY did they re-open the case merely to fart about like this? If they thought they could find a patsy (dead) and put the case to bed once and for all... and make it stick... they were stupidly misguided.

by TheTruthWillOut 16.07.14 19:09

comperedna wrote:It seems to me now that both police forces are merely going through the motions. Indeed, the PJ may be doing nothing at all. It is likely that there is not enough evidence to convict anybody, and it is... to coin a phrase... 'utterly ludicrous' that anyone close to Madeleine and there on the night in question is not being considered... only peripheral oddballs. This is a wicked waste of money. It brings the Met into serious disrepute. They cannot stand many more scandals. Surely it is best for them to pull out now with a: 'we did our best, but there is not enough evidence etc'. WHY did they re-open the case merely to fart about like this? If they thought they could find a patsy (dead) and put the case to bed once and for all... and make it stick... they were stupidly misguided.

I don't believe it comes down to evidence, but more whether the CPS/Portugal equivalent can secure a conviction. Take the conviction of David Gilroy in the Suzanne Pilley murder (albeit a Scottish case).

A completely circumstantial case with no physical evidence whatsoever and I would argue less "evidence" than in the McCann case. The difference is the connections/lawyers/being doctors etc.. IMO.

As for your last sentence, either SY/Met will confirm many peoples belief they're corrupt to the core, or we're all wrong and someone else (none of the Tapas 9) did it.....?

by jeanmonroe 17.07.14 15:51

Should forum go 'easy' on DCI Redwood?
------------------------------------------------------------------

DCI (same rank as DCI Redwood at OG) Clive Driscoll, ('removed' from Lambeth children's homes abuse investigation)

But got SL 'convictions'

DCI Driscoll: "there is no doubt that there were mistakes made in this investigation (SL) and there is much debate about whether those mistakes were corruption mistakes or incompetent mistakes"

Interviewer: "In your view were most of the 'mistakes' down to incompetence or is there something more SINISTER?"

DCI Driscoll: "the difference between incompetence and corruption is a bit like a bad tackle at football, the person who knows is the person who made the tackle, you know, i could be incompetent all day long if you want."

Interviewer "What's your sense?"

DCI Driscoll: "My sense was i couldn't work certain things out, there were certain incidents, there were certain inquiries, which didn't appear to be progressed, there were certain, um, PARTS of 'the investigation' THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME AT ALL, but i never investigated whether that was corruption or is it incompetent"

Interviewer: "But what does corruption look like?"

DCI Driscoll: "Question i've asked myself many times, what is corruption, i mean is corruption going behind a pub somewhere and getting an envelope full of 50 quid notes and thats corruption, or is corruption that you don't go down a certain path, you don't follow a certain inquiry, and therefore YOU MAKE SOMEONE VERY HAPPY THAT YOU HAVEN'T FOLLOWED THAT INQUIRY and therefore your next promotion is easier for you? Your CV looks a bit more glamourous by the time you finish your career and at the end of your pension you could have earnt considerably more than what you'd ever stuff in an envelope so what is corruption? And, my concern is the result for the grieving family or the victim or for justice is exactly the same, it's that justice has been thwarted and that can't happen at any costs, because the reality is that is the rule of law. It's part of our freedom"

So should we cut DCI Redwood some 'slack'?

Hmmm, let me think thinking

Er............NAHHHH!

He's a highly paid, experienced, elite detective, who should ONLY be focussing on finding out what 'happened' to a 'missing' defenceless child, Madeleine Beth McCann, and be getting JUSTICE for, free of fear or favour, no matter who's 'door' it leads to..

Because her OWN parents are doing absolutely 'diddly squat' to 'find' her!

I wonder what the entire McCann 'family' and the Healy 'family' actually DID today to 'find' their 'missing', terribly missed, family member, Madeleine?

(RHETORICAL!)

by Bishop Brennan 17.07.14 16:07

AR's most recent round-table, different strand, all lines review of the McCann case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

big grin

by jeanmonroe 17.07.14 16:22

Bishop Brennan wrote:AR's most recent round-table, different strand, all lines review of the McCann case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Elephant, in the room, 'sponsored' and 'appearing', with the kind permission of...... ~~STOP~~ THE McCANN CIRCUS!

by Guest 17.07.14 16:29

I wonder, what can be gained from all these assumptions, that the police investigation, or both investigations, are corrupted? What good does that do at this point?
If there's a genuine investigation ongoing, and why wouldn't that be the case, or not, in both instances the public is not going to be informed with the honest details of what has been found out by now.

by Sonmi-451 17.07.14 17:12

jeanmonroe wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:AR's most recent round-table, different strand, all lines review of the McCann case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Elephant, in the room, 'sponsored' and 'appearing', with the kind permission of...... ~~STOP~~ THE McCANN CIRCUS!

Oh dear... no doubt yet another TM photo that's going to be over analysed and that will generate all sorts of photoshopping claims!! For the umpteenth time: I work on a daily basis tinkering with digital photos and can see no evidence whatsoever of malicious tinkering...

by MrsC 17.07.14 17:26

Sonmi-451 wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:AR's most recent round-table, different strand, all lines review of the McCann case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Elephant, in the room, 'sponsored' and 'appearing', with the kind permission of...... ~~STOP~~ THE McCANN CIRCUS!

Oh dear... no doubt yet another TM photo that's going to be over analysed and that will generate all sorts of photoshopping claims!! For the umpteenth time: I work on a daily basis tinkering with digital photos and can see no evidence whatsoever of malicious tinkering...

Oh, come on, please! Surely you can see they have cut and paste a flying saucer onto the ceiling?

by jeanmonroe 17.07.14 17:29

MarcoG wrote:I wonder, what can be gained from all these assumptions, that the police investigation, or both investigations, are corrupted? What good does that do at this point?
If there's a genuine investigation ongoing, and why wouldn't that be the case, or not, in both instances the public is not going to be informed with the honest details of what has been found out by now.

My earlier post relates what happened to a real live DCI employed by the Metropolitan Police.

The Met have had numerous 'cover ups' exposed just in the last year!

If an 'inquiry/investigation' is TOLD, by 'senior ogfficers' not to go 'down that path' THAT IS CORRUPTION!

Operation Grange?

THREE YEARS, 38 'dedicated' Cops and staff, almost £9 MILLION of UK taxpayers money, and not a 'sniff' of ANYTHING?

Supposing DCI Redwood HAS said to BHH, "we think the McCanns might actually be involved, as there is no clear evidence to eliminate them, in Madeleine's 'disappearance''

What do you think Big Boss BHH's 'reply' to that MIGHT be?

'er, don't go down THAT path, DCI Redwood'?

It happened to DCI Driscoll's, 'investigations' into possible abuse in Lambeth childrens homes, didn't it?

eta: I'd like to think that BHH's 'reply', to DCI Redwood's possible 'theory', about possible 'involvement' by T9, would be "Get them all in, all the T9 and JW, and re-interview them, under caution, and get them to explain the contradictions and discrepancies in their sworn statements'

"And get DP to fully explain the 'few things he KNOWS are pertinet and relevent to establish the material truth, about Madeleine's 'disappearance' which he didn't tell to the Leicester Police"

i'd LIKE to think BHH would do that, but then i remember him backing his officers '100%' (why would they lie?) in the Plebgate affair, and one of his 30 year career, 100% 'backed' officers is now serving a 12 month prison sentence for lying!

And 3 more of his 100% 'backed' officers have been sacked, by the organisation HE 'leads'!

Latest topics