Re: New DCI

by j.rob 09.12.14 13:01

aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.

You're so rude. Why?

by kinell 09.12.14 13:09

aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.

Why am I daft?

What is the difference between Pat Brown and PeterMac going to PDL to do the same thing?

by Liz Eagles 09.12.14 13:14

kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.
Why am I daft?

What is the difference between Pat Brown and PeterMac going to PDL to do the same thing?

I don't know...ask them.

by kinell 09.12.14 13:17

aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.
Why am I daft?

What is the difference between Pat Brown and PeterMac going to PDL to do the same thing?
I don't know...ask them.

No, I'm asking you. You slated Pat Brown for going but called me daft for asking if you thought the same about PeterMac.

Take more water with it.

by Liz Eagles 09.12.14 13:21

kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.
Why am I daft?

What is the difference between Pat Brown and PeterMac going to PDL to do the same thing?
I don't know...ask them.
No, I'm asking you. You slated Pat Brown for going but called me daft for asking if you thought the same about PeterMac.

Take more water with it.

A tad over emotional methinks there Kinell. I'm sure you're familiar with the terminology 'don't be daft' and understand its meaning.

Oh well, another thread turned into aggressive behaviour.

by Brian Griffin 09.12.14 13:22

by kinell 09.12.14 13:25

aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:
kinell wrote:
aquila wrote:What Pat Brown thinks is of no consequence to me. Pat Brown wouldn't have been remotely interested in this case had she not wanted to further her own career/profile....in the USA.

PB went to Portugal via UK for a week. Well that's about a couple of thousand dollars invested in getting onto US mainstream (gossip) television which is peanuts.

I have no problem with Pat Brown's opinions but that's all they are. A week or so on a 'mission' in Portugal to look at shutters and the surrounding area proves nothing other than to say 'I was there, I had a look and this is my opinion'.

This is one of those posts that makes me think I'd better fetch me coat.
Pat Brown also met up with PeterMac to look at the shutters and surrounding area.

Are you saying PeterMac only went to PDL on a 'mission' and to further his own profile?
Don't be daft.
Why am I daft?

What is the difference between Pat Brown and PeterMac going to PDL to do the same thing?
I don't know...ask them.
No, I'm asking you. You slated Pat Brown for going but called me daft for asking if you thought the same about PeterMac.

Take more water with it.
A tad over emotional methinks there Kinell. I'm sure you're familiar with the terminology 'don't be daft' and understand its meaning.

Oh well, another thread turned into aggressive behaviour.

More like you forgot Pat went with PeterMac and now you're embarrassed. I can't think of any other reason why you won't elaborate on the views you stated in your own post.

by Gaggzy 09.12.14 13:28

Brian Griffin wrote:

Just thought I'd send the dogs in, after all, they are SO RELIABLE.

by Liz Eagles 09.12.14 13:32

Gaggzy wrote:
Brian Griffin wrote:

Just thought I'd send the dogs in, after all, they are SO RELIABLE.

Yay!

by deafoldbat 09.12.14 14:21

How disappointing - I have been sending a link to this discussion to friends to encourage them to follow the case but don't want them to see this sort of personal 'diversion' from the real business in hand.

duh

by plebgate 09.12.14 16:06

I haven't read PB's blogs so cannot comment, but as PeterM is retired, he has no career to further. If that is aquila's opinion then fair enough. I too hope this is not going to derail the thread. Keep sending your links DOBat. smilie

by utahagen 09.12.14 16:23

Bishop Brennan,

Thank you for posting the link to Pat Brown's reaction to the latest development in this case. PB wrote:"...[the belief that] the new DCI on the case who is taking over Andy Redwood's position on the case, is going to bust this thing wide open and it is making me shake my head...No way."

I think Pat Brown is smart and sincere. but I think she's dead wrong about this. First of all, I do NOT think the new DCI is going to "bust the thing wide open". I posit that there has been a part of the investigation by SY that has been deliberately hidden from the public and that the new DCI is taking over at the point where SY is preparing to finish the REAL (i.e., hidden) part of the investigation. This is the condign time for there to be a change in command because the new DCI can say, "SY has worked diligently to come to the following finding about what happened to Madeleine McCann...XYZ...and I'll now be leading as we work with Portugal to bring the perps to justice through the proper legal channels."

Again, I respect Pat Brown, but I am not disheartened by her latest post because I have never been convinced there's a whitewash and I don't think the new DCI is going to go off in a new direction. Rather, I believe the new DCI has been put there because SY is ready to reveal what they really have come to conclude about what happened to Madeleine. Further, even if I had believed before now that there is a whitewash, this latest development would make me second-guess that belief. Anyone who reads thoroughly about this case -- and the new DCI certainly has done so -- can see that the bogeyman-stole-away-into-the-night-with-Madeleine is preposterous. TO believe that the new DCI would willingly take over this case and participate in a whitewash that other people kicked off seven years ago is just too much. I simply don't believe it. This new DCI has a reputation for intelligence, tenacity, and integrity; there's no reason she would try to obscure the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann, which is that the parents had some direct involvement in her disappearance.

by Joss 09.12.14 16:25

My personal opinion is this case will to the public eye never be solved, because it was set up and covered up that way right from the start. We have been told the McC's are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance. I think if there was any hope of the investigation to ever charge & convict them of this crime, they would not have had the level of support they have had to date by the higher ups. All the media spin is just distraction. The McC's are well protected and we have well enough seen that playing out. I think if the McC's are losing sleep about anything at all it would be their not winning that cool million in the ensuing outcome of Mr. Amaral's trial in February or whenever it will come to its conclusion.

by Joss 09.12.14 16:33

I think the only reason the new DCI is on this case is because Redwood is retiring shortly. I recall reading the spin when Redwood was first appointed this case that "a new set of eyes" will help solve the case too, but that never happened in what ?3 years and millions of dollars later. How many more years and how much more money are they going to throw into this while there are kids out there starving, and people living in abject poverty.

by canada12 09.12.14 16:57

Who wanted a new investigation? Yes, that's right, Kate and Gerry.
Whose fault is it that it's cost the UK taxpayers millions and millions of pounds...?
Yes, that's right...Kate and Gerry!
I think it would be a short step indeed to link one with the other. Without Kate and Gerry making all sorts of noises about having a new investigation, a case could be made that no new investigation would have been ordered. Millions of pounds saved.
An astute politician...or an astute newspaper editor...might pick up on that.

by deafoldbat 09.12.14 17:09

Joss wrote:My personal opinion is this case will to the public eye never be solved, because it was set up and covered up that way right from the start. We have been told the McC's are not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance. I think if there was any hope of the investigation to ever charge & convict them of this crime, they would not have had the level of support they have had to date by the higher ups. All the media spin is just distraction. The McC's are well protected and we have well enough seen that playing out. I think if the McC's are losing sleep about anything at all it would be their not winning that cool million in the ensuing outcome of Mr. Amaral's trial in February or whenever it will come to its conclusion.

by notlongnow 10.12.14 0:07

If this is a whitewash,why take over 3 years to do it?
It could have been done within a year or so.

by roy rovers 10.12.14 0:24

If it was a whitewash they'd have wound it down now with AR's departure. On the investigation within an investigation idea when AR said 'We are working on the basis of two possibilities here. One is that Madeleine is still alive; and the second that she is sadly dead.' maybe he was alluding to not one investigation looking at two possibilities but two investigations with the second one now coming into view. Just a thought.

by jeanmonroe 10.12.14 1:13

Anyone care to 'guess' what OG/DCI Wall will be 'doing' in Portugal next February, about the time, just days before or during, the libel case final 'verdict' is 'due'?

by Liz Eagles 10.12.14 1:27

jeanmonroe wrote:Anyone care to 'guess' what OG/DCI Wall will be 'doing' in Portugal next February, about the time, just days before or during, the libel case final 'verdict' is 'due'?

It's becoming akin to synchronised swimming.

by Joss 10.12.14 3:33

notlongnow wrote:If this is a whitewash,why take over 3 years to do it?
It could have been done within a year or so.

If i had to guess my bet would be that all the players from the top down in this case are playing the game, the McC's being no exception of course. What this game is exactly has been the subject of much speculation and in other words from the start of this case until now there have been some very convincing theories as to the why of it all, from interconnected paedophiles to microchipping agendas to burglars dunnit, (as if) etc.
Some very so called powerful people involved. Maybe they all have some serious dirt on each other, so the beat goes on until they call it quits, or someone becomes a whistleblower connected to this case.
Although if the U.K has regular media articles on this case, then i don't think apart from the media in the U.K. and in Portugal there is really any other MSM still interested in any updates in their news articles on anything McCann.
Much more other important stuff to print about what's going on in the world right now.

by Bishop Brennan 10.12.14 5:51

notlongnow wrote:If this is a whitewash,why take over 3 years to do it?
It could have been done within a year or so.

Good question. One possible explanation for the delay is the 'libel' trial. If the McCanns are to be exonerated by a whitewash, you cannot risk a Portuguese Court subsequently finding in favour of Amaral and his theory that the parents were responsible for hiding Maddie's body. It would get good media coverage and be seen as the final word on the matter.

OG has therefore been forced to keep this farce going because of all the long delays to the libel trial. They need that trial to finish - the verdict doesn't matter so much - it's the TIMING that counts. Even if the McCanns lose, the SY final report (whitewash) will come after it and can be used to discredit the 'libel' verdict.

It's one of the main reasons that SY activity is continually scheduled at the same time as 'libel trial' events - they need to minimise the media coverage of any bad news from the 'libel' court. If this truly is just a whitewash, then we should see the whitewash being concluded very quickly after the final 'libel' verdict.

Just a theory - and I hope it's wrong.

by Carrry On Doctor 10.12.14 7:35

utahagen wrote:Bishop Brennan,

Thank you for posting the link to Pat Brown's reaction to the latest development in this case. PB wrote:"...[the belief that] the new DCI on the case who is taking over Andy Redwood's position on the case, is going to bust this thing wide open and it is making me shake my head...No way."

I think Pat Brown is smart and sincere. but I think she's dead wrong about this. First of all, I do NOT think the new DCI is going to "bust the thing wide open". I posit that there has been a part of the investigation by SY that has been deliberately hidden from the public and that the new DCI is taking over at the point where SY is preparing to finish the REAL (i.e., hidden) part of the investigation. This is the condign time for there to be a change in command because the new DCI can say, "SY has worked diligently to come to the following finding about what happened to Madeleine McCann...XYZ...and I'll now be leading as we work with Portugal to bring the perps to justice through the proper legal channels."

Again, I respect Pat Brown, but I am not disheartened by her latest post because I have never been convinced there's a whitewash and I don't think the new DCI is going to go off in a new direction. Rather, I believe the new DCI has been put there because SY is ready to reveal what they really have come to conclude about what happened to Madeleine. Further, even if I had believed before now that there is a whitewash, this latest development would make me second-guess that belief. Anyone who reads thoroughly about this case -- and the new DCI certainly has done so -- can see that the bogeyman-stole-away-into-the-night-with-Madeleine is preposterous. TO believe that the new DCI would willingly take over this case and participate in a whitewash that other people kicked off seven years ago is just too much. I simply don't believe it. This new DCI has a reputation for intelligence, tenacity, and integrity; there's no reason she would try to obscure the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann, which is that the parents had some direct involvement in her disappearance.

Great post above. I too have a lot of respect for Pat but I don't agree with her on this.

There is still a long way to go until a trial and verdict, and so I don't read anything into AR stepping down now. As a long serving officer he is entitled to his retirement, and possibly significant recognition and a handsome pay day in the future. I wonder will S&S do his book ?

No whitewash for me. I do however believe there is political intervention for timing given the general election next year.

Time will of course tell.

IMO

by Brian Griffin 10.12.14 8:54

But wouldn't a whitewash only work if the McCanns agreed to it? Some people theorise that the McCanns must have some kind of leverage, or friends in high places, to be able to act as they do, so even if the police wanted to close the case, they'd just say, "There is no evidence that Madeleine is dead" and the investigation would just go on and on and on. I can see their need to have increased police activity to draw media attention away from the trial but I don't see the case closing down anytime soon.

In my opinion.

by mouse 10.12.14 9:31

Bishop Brennan wrote:
notlongnow wrote:If this is a whitewash,why take over 3 years to do it?
It could have been done within a year or so.

Good question. One possible explanation for the delay is the 'libel' trial. If the McCanns are to be exonerated by a whitewash, you cannot risk a Portuguese Court subsequently finding in favour of Amaral and his theory that the parents were responsible for hiding Maddie's body. It would get good media coverage and be seen as the final word on the matter.

OG has therefore been forced to keep this farce going because of all the long delays to the libel trial. They need that trial to finish - the verdict doesn't matter so much - it's the TIMING that counts. Even if the McCanns lose, the SY final report (whitewash) will come after it and can be used to discredit the 'libel' verdict.

It's one of the main reasons that SY activity is continually scheduled at the same time as 'libel trial' events - they need to minimise the media coverage of any bad news from the 'libel' court. If this truly is just a whitewash, then we should see the whitewash being concluded very quickly after the final 'libel' verdict.

Just a theory - and I hope it's wrong.

Sadly - I'm with you bish. I too would love to be wrong, but until a certain couple and their pals are actually called in to be questioned again - then white wash is the only way I see it. And for the reasons we all, I believe, have some idea about.

OG appears to be looking everywhere but, always has been. Some will say that SY are working behind the scenes blah, blah, but for how long?....How many more years?...This is costing the tax payer millions!!! But - if they aren't whitewashing - prove it new lady cop and call em all in. Don't fath around any longer - get to the very root of where it all began - and question her nearest and dearest. Stop writing them off the suspect list and stop talking about parents who left 3 kids under 4 in a holiday apt. on their own in such a sympathetic gushing tone. We don't buy it!!!

Sady though, I don't hold out much hope the for the new lady in charge - it looks to me like another PR Job, -put a woman (a softer more caring image) out there to take the flack for any difficult questions, thus letting old Andy retire without the case ending unsolved on his watch. It happens all the time - hand a tricky situation over to someone who is maybe more disposable to the force/company. I mean, we often see women pushed out to face the press when a company's reputation is in danger. It may look like a promotion, and as an add-on they've ticked the female in management box, but then watch her career come to an end.

I bet there wasn't a very long queue for AR's position. And I have to say she didn't have a very confidant or happy face on her yesterday.
I actually feel a bit sorry for her. For now anyway.