If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Professional and Featured blogs :: Pat Brown, US Criminal Profiler
Page 1 of 5 • Share
Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 
If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 03.05.16 15:53
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
Pat Browns new blog post
This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue in a rational manner. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard.
A number of people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I had the audacity to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think it is possible Madeleine's body is buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.
So, what exactly is Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them. You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have.
My daughter is a detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department. And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care about the cases I have worked that involved children (and others)? Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is that.
Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him covering up for the police department so he can save his career? Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be helping any other murdered kids gets justice. You win some, you lose some.
The detectives I have worked with on cold cases usually agree with my detemination and admit, while I am in house, that I am right. We go out and have beer. Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not help them and they reshelve the screwed up case. That person and that family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them any more. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they are human, did their best, and they are constrained by training and reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of cases in police investigations.
Have you never heard of "The Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each other, have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces.
So, basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full and compete investigation in which everyone is a person-of-interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are not suspects, period.
So, IF the McCanns are guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court.
If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese.
So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.
As I have said before, my profile has been based on the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns should be top suspects and further investigation should confirm that they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one, can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and true investigation, if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction, we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent.
So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
Update:
Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.
1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
Pat Browns new blog post
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
This is going to be a very upsetting post for many of you and I am sure I am going to receive a whole bunch of unpleasant responses, but someone has to address this issue in a rational manner. It will be my last blog on the matter until we get the final determination from Scotland Yard.
A number of people are accusing me of "giving up on Madeleine and justice" because I stepped back from commenting after my post that I believed the Scotland Yard investigation was a whitewash. People were furious that I had the audacity to claim that a major police agency would not be on the up-and-up. The response was so nasty, that I decided to simply let things play out without comment. After all, it is not like my commentary at this point is going to get justice; I wrote a book and a whole bunch of blogs detailing the evidence, even a blog on where I think it is possible Madeleine's body is buried and I have not changed the course of events in the slightest. I don't see Scotland Yard or a mob of citizens digging up the barren area of Monte do Jose Mestre to see if her body really is buried there. I am enough of a realist to know that I am just one person, albeit a fairly visible one with profiling experience, but that doesn't mean my opinion can necessarily change the course of events; I am not even the ex-detective on the case who is David against a Goliath battling it out in a big court spectacle. So, since I have written my books and blogs, Scotland Yard is doing what they are doing and I am pretty sure I am not influencing them in the least.
So, what exactly is Scotland Yard doing? From the responses I have a received and from what I have read on boards and Facebook, a portion of you think the Scotland Yard review is a sham but a good portion of you think the last line of inquiry is the McCanns and they will soon arrest them. You believe the McCanns are in a cold sweat and all those police detectives who have worked this review/investigation would never be involved in a cover-up, that they would take all the evidence into account, that there never was a remit to only look at this case as an abduction and to exclude the McCanns as suspects. Some of you strongly believe that these police officers are dedicated to justice and they only think of the poor dead child - and not of their careers and politics of the department -- that their strong sense of fighting for the truth will dictate their behavior. I have to believe not a lot of you have spent much time with cops. I have.
My daughter is a detective. My brother-in-law who I lived with for four years was a cop. My son-in-law used to be a deputy in the sheriff's department. And I have worked with cops for two decades. Cops are caring human beings and cops are cynics. Pretty much the same as me: do I care about the cases I have worked that involved children (and others)? Absolutely. Do I want justice for them? Sure. Can I accept that the case is screwed and walk away? Sadly, yes. If you work in this field long enough, you have to be pretty tough or you are not going to last. You develop a realist attitude, somewhat cynical, likely you have a black sense of humor, and you do what you can and that is that.
Cops deal with so much they know how to turn off the waterworks; if they didn't, they would go nuts. The stuff a homicide detective sees sucks. He fights to make sure cases go to court and when there isn't enough evidence or one of his fellow detectives screws up or the ass of a prosecutor refuses to go to court because he is protecting his win record, what does he do? He accepts the bad outcome and does what he can for the next case. Would you call him covering up for the police department so he can save his career? Okay, but if he starts some big fiasco about a case, he won't be helping any other murdered kids gets justice. You win some, you lose some.
The detectives I have worked with on cold cases usually agree with my detemination and admit, while I am in house, that I am right. We go out and have beer. Then, I leave and the police tell the family and media I could not help them and they reshelve the screwed up case. That person and that family will never see justice. If you think those detectives who followed the wrong leads and lost time and evidence are going to admit I was right, tell the public that the department botched the case, you are out of your mind! All their careers would be over and they have families to feed. I have been stabbed in the back many a time over these cold cases and that is why I don't work them any more. I am instead working on training detectives so they do better work on fresh cases. I don't hold a grudge, I am not furious that they didn't get justice for a murdered child or adult; I know they are human, did their best, and they are constrained by training and reality and politics. And if you think I am going to go to the press every time and shout to the world that the department screwed up, I would never be able to work with a police agency again and then I will have wasted everything I have done to improve the closing of cases in police investigations.
Have you never heard of "The Thin Blue Line"? The police will hang together to support each other, have each other's backs because they are stuck within a system and the citizens really don't know what their world is like. If any British police supported Amaral, it is because they identify with him being screwed over. However, as you notice, if they did indeed support him, no one is giving their names or showing their faces.
So, basically, the detectives are going to do their job and investigate what they are told to investigate: they were either told to do a full and compete investigation in which everyone is a person-of-interest and no one has been excluded OR they are following a remit to investigate an abduction and only an abduction and the McCanns are not suspects, period.
So, IF the McCanns are guilty and had enough political influence to have control over the investigative remit, then the cops are going to do the job of the remit and search for an abductor. They will reach a conclusion that she was abducted and likely this is who did it although there is not enough to take said perpetrator or perpetrators to court.
If the McCanns are guilty and did not have enough political influence to assure them a review by Scotland Yard wouldn't end up biting them in the ass, they hardly would have stumped for a review of a case already shelved by the Portuguese.
So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.
As I have said before, my profile has been based on the known evidence and leads me to the determination that the McCanns should be top suspects and further investigation should confirm that they are guilty or find evidence that they are not. So, I for one, can accept that the McCanns could be innocent IF evidence comes to light to prove so (there are rare times when all the evidence points to a specific party but it turns out it its not them which is why you want to have as extremely convincing evidence before you go to court for prosecution). Therefore, if the McCanns did not politically manipulate the outcome of this investigation, if it is a tried and true investigation, if Scotland Yard determines it is an abduction, we have to conclude the McCanns are innocent.
So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
Update:
Since some people can't seem to understand what my post is about, I will simplify it.
1. If you believe the McCanns had no political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely innocent.
2. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit, then they are most likely guilty.
3. If you believe the McCanns had the political power to enforce a remit yet Scotland Yard after wasting three years looking for an abductor is now doing an about face and moving in on the McCanns, then there has either been a huge political upheaval in the UK or you are in the land of wishful thinking.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Guest 03.05.16 16:45
I don't understand how after nine years someone so involved still looks at this as so black and white. Astounding..
Guest- Guest
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Google.Gaspar.Statements 03.05.16 16:48
That final paragraph reminds me of DCI Redwood "Madeleine may be alive or she may be dead"MayMuse wrote:http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
Pat Browns new blog post
So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
I still think Dr Amaral will not let this drop. Thousands of pounds have been raised for him and if he didn't think he could do something about all this for Madeleine then surely he would have said 'Please don't raise money for me, it's a waste of time'. The fundraising wasn't just about getting justice for him, it was about him being free to get justice for Madeleine. He has said he has faith that the mystery will be resolved. I trust him.
Now where did I put my Prozac?
Google.Gaspar.Statements- Posts : 365
Activity : 701
Likes received : 238
Join date : 2013-05-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 03.05.16 17:07
If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent.
That's a lot of "Ifs"
That's a lot of "Ifs"
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by pennylane 03.05.16 17:26
I usually concur with Pat's take on things, but I'm not sure I understand what she's driving at this time. IF I may say so! 
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 03.05.16 17:32
And I may say so in agreement @Pennylane. It has simply "fuelled" the whole of recent events even more so IMO 
This is her last post on it apparently, although that has been said before. Don't get me wrong I admire those who are "in the know" and put their neck on the line to try and achieve some sense out of an injustice. This time it seems the "neck" is stretched too far!!!
This is her last post on it apparently, although that has been said before. Don't get me wrong I admire those who are "in the know" and put their neck on the line to try and achieve some sense out of an injustice. This time it seems the "neck" is stretched too far!!!____________________
“Basically, I’m just an ordinary, straightforward guy who’s the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet – if you’ll excuse the language.”
Robert Murat talking to David Jones, Daily Mail, 02 June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re;Scotland Yard Investigation,Remit?
by willowthewisp 03.05.16 17:42
Sorry if I sound somewhat cynical over the article from Pat Brown as she had been involved in investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported as missing by her parents and friends(tapas 7) 3 May 2007.Pat has spent along time on this case and respect must be paid for her dedication and has met people from this forum,Tony, Peter Mc,going to Prai da Luiz, trying to piece together events etc.
I wonder if Pat Brown has recently seen the news in the UK of how certain elements from certain UK Police Forces had been held accountable for their conduct over the Hillsborough disaster,Twenty Seven years of obfuscation/lies in that case and thought to have cost at least £100 Million pounds and the innocent relatives have yet to see some sort of Justice!
Add to this conundrum the costs of the unsolved murders of Daniel Morgan,( 10 March 1987,29 years),Jill Dando and the framing of Barry George and abandonded Trails court costs and still no guilty parties, thought to be in excess of over£600 Million to the UK tax payer?
One wonders if she would be so confident that "Operation Grange" is the real deal, if it were not so blatant as(Pat) has stipulated, that the Investigating Officers only have Jurisdiction over the "Official Remit" for its conclusions of who is accountable in any Trail in a Court of Law on criminal charges,in the Madeleine McCann case?
Scotland Yard are thought to be investigating a theory, that Three Burglars/paedophiles are some how responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the"Sardine munches" are not playing the game by letting them not reinterview these former suspects once again.
You have to wonder as to the reason why they now wish to reinterview, these person's,it wouldn't happen to involve the "Forensic Materials,DNA" evidence obtained from the Portugal PJ that SY could collate that DNA, with the already obtained DNA of the Three former suspects,much like Residues of Gun powder(Modus Operandi) Jill Dando case?
I wonder if Pat Brown has recently seen the news in the UK of how certain elements from certain UK Police Forces had been held accountable for their conduct over the Hillsborough disaster,Twenty Seven years of obfuscation/lies in that case and thought to have cost at least £100 Million pounds and the innocent relatives have yet to see some sort of Justice!
Add to this conundrum the costs of the unsolved murders of Daniel Morgan,( 10 March 1987,29 years),Jill Dando and the framing of Barry George and abandonded Trails court costs and still no guilty parties, thought to be in excess of over£600 Million to the UK tax payer?
One wonders if she would be so confident that "Operation Grange" is the real deal, if it were not so blatant as(Pat) has stipulated, that the Investigating Officers only have Jurisdiction over the "Official Remit" for its conclusions of who is accountable in any Trail in a Court of Law on criminal charges,in the Madeleine McCann case?
Scotland Yard are thought to be investigating a theory, that Three Burglars/paedophiles are some how responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the"Sardine munches" are not playing the game by letting them not reinterview these former suspects once again.
You have to wonder as to the reason why they now wish to reinterview, these person's,it wouldn't happen to involve the "Forensic Materials,DNA" evidence obtained from the Portugal PJ that SY could collate that DNA, with the already obtained DNA of the Three former suspects,much like Residues of Gun powder(Modus Operandi) Jill Dando case?
willowthewisp- Posts : 3392
Activity : 4912
Likes received : 1160
Join date : 2015-05-07
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Mirage 03.05.16 17:47
I read this out to someone familiar with the case asked their opinion. The answer: Well it's just rambling bollox.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by plebgate 03.05.16 17:49
Isn't it up to Pt. police to prove what happened to Maddie?Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:That final paragraph reminds me of DCI Redwood "Madeleine may be alive or she may be dead"MayMuse wrote:http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
Pat Browns new blog post
So, you can't have it both ways. Unless the political tide has massively turned and the McCanns are now being hung out to dry (which I find extremely unlikely), Scotland Yard can only be one of two things: a farce and the McCanns are guilty and are never go to be convicted of a crime or legitimate and the McCanns have been innocent all along.
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown
May 3, 2016
http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/if-scotland-yard-review-is-legitimate.html
I still think Dr Amaral will not let this drop. Thousands of pounds have been raised for him and if he didn't think he could do something about all this for Madeleine then surely he would have said 'Please don't raise money for me, it's a waste of time'. The fundraising wasn't just about getting justice for him, it was about him being free to get justice for Madeleine. He has said he has faith that the mystery will be resolved. I trust him.
Now where did I put my Prozac?
Whatever SY say on the matter wont really hold water as Pt. investigation could be re-opened at any time should new evidence come to light and this could well happen if Rocky A. sues certain people and they are questioned in a court of law.
plebgate- Posts : 6729
Activity : 8938
Likes received : 2123
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Mirage 03.05.16 18:00
Exactly Plebbers. PT have primacy. SY might have had a remit to gaze at their navels for the neck end of £14 million but accountability is the thing. Now accountability may not be the thing in USA but it is in Blighty - for the moment anyway.
The cases PB looks at may galvanise a U.S state or a couple of townships. This one is under a global spotlight. So the flim flam about "some you win, some you lose" is hardly relevant. It's not like a beer down the Dog and Duck is going to smooth this lot over.
Can you imagine presenting this quasi-philosophical cobblers to those Hillsborough families? They're made of sterner stuff, fortunately.
The cases PB looks at may galvanise a U.S state or a couple of townships. This one is under a global spotlight. So the flim flam about "some you win, some you lose" is hardly relevant. It's not like a beer down the Dog and Duck is going to smooth this lot over.
Can you imagine presenting this quasi-philosophical cobblers to those Hillsborough families? They're made of sterner stuff, fortunately.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Roidininki 03.05.16 18:00
Clearly the author is a realist .April28th wrote:I don't understand how after nine years someone so involved still looks at this as so black and white. Astounding..
Roidininki- Posts : 146
Activity : 197
Likes received : 51
Join date : 2016-02-20
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 03.05.16 18:11
Mirage wrote:I read this out to someone familiar with the case asked their opinion. The answer: Well it's just rambling bollox.
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by sonic72 03.05.16 18:41
This sounded like an interesting read until I saw it was written by Pat Brown. I used to like her writing, but she has contradicted herself so many times I can't take her seriously any more! I thought she had stopped writing about the Mccanns? Yet another contradiction.
sonic72- Posts : 342
Activity : 416
Likes received : 72
Join date : 2012-09-09
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by whatsupdoc 03.05.16 18:52
I don't take Pat Brown seriously any more. Another choosing the money on the TV $ofa.
The If...then is floored. eg If it rains tomorrow, then the world will end.
Cameron tells Mrs May who tells the police what to do. In this case it's look for an abductor. The lower ranks do what they are told.
This, I believe was the problem at Hillsborough where the lower ranks were told to be quiet and change their notes.
IMO Cameron has wasted time & money on a lead the McCanns gave him about an imaginary abductor and then ruins the DNA testing followed by closing FSS down.
Now what's that about couldn't organise a ****** in a brewery. Truth is, with Freemasons everywhere, he didn't want to solve anything.
Mr. Cameron, your advice about staying in the EU went straight in my blue bin.
I hope Portugal can be left to carry on with their own investigation and GA can begin to take the macs and the press to court.
Whatever the truth turns out to be , I'm 100% sure both the McCanns have been lying. They can never be innocent.
The If...then is floored. eg If it rains tomorrow, then the world will end.
Cameron tells Mrs May who tells the police what to do. In this case it's look for an abductor. The lower ranks do what they are told.
This, I believe was the problem at Hillsborough where the lower ranks were told to be quiet and change their notes.
IMO Cameron has wasted time & money on a lead the McCanns gave him about an imaginary abductor and then ruins the DNA testing followed by closing FSS down.
Now what's that about couldn't organise a ****** in a brewery. Truth is, with Freemasons everywhere, he didn't want to solve anything.
Mr. Cameron, your advice about staying in the EU went straight in my blue bin.
I hope Portugal can be left to carry on with their own investigation and GA can begin to take the macs and the press to court.
Whatever the truth turns out to be , I'm 100% sure both the McCanns have been lying. They can never be innocent.
whatsupdoc- Posts : 601
Activity : 953
Likes received : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by whatsupdoc 03.05.16 18:56
April28th wrote:I don't understand how after nine years someone so involved still looks at this as so black and white. Astounding..
I think the black and white are the tiles on the masonic hall floor.
whatsupdoc- Posts : 601
Activity : 953
Likes received : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Guest 03.05.16 19:07
Don't worry, I am the same. I will just stick with my own thoughts which to be honest, with all the stuff that has been flying about in recent weeks in the media, is difficult when my brain is so fried! Lolpennylane wrote:I usually concur with Pat's take on things, but I'm not sure I understand what she's driving at this time. IF I may say so!
Guest- Guest
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by jeanmonroe 03.05.16 19:36
There's my favourite 'small' word..................'If'
PB's 'article' even STARTS with.............'IF'
Well,
'IF' David P had told DC 1485 Ivor Messiah, of Leicestershire Police the 'few things' he, DP, considered 'pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth' (about the disappearance of a 3 years old child) WE MIGHT NOT ALL BE HERE TODAY!
Lots of 'ifs' in PB 'piece' but not many 'what ifs'
What if the McCan'ts and their friends have 'lied'?
What if PB is.......... 'wrong'?
What if KM had not 'jeopardised' the PJ investigation into her 'missing' daughter?
PB would definitely 'know' the answer to the question: 'What do you call people that don't co-operate with police investigations?'
(A: 'GUILTY!')
'IF' pigs could 'fly'................'bacon' would go up!
----------------------------------------
" Err in my opinion, you know, IF this was, IF there WAS any foul play bestowed on THEM" (McCanns)
RUSSELL JAMES O'BRIEN SIGNED Rogatory interview STATEMENT 08/04/08
and:
Person Interviewed: David PAYNE
Place of Interview: Force Headquarters,
Date of Interview: 11.04.08
"............you know because again this is something that we've talked about, you know, IF she (Madeleine) WAS abducted you know, ...."
PB's 'article' even STARTS with.............'IF'
Well,
'IF' David P had told DC 1485 Ivor Messiah, of Leicestershire Police the 'few things' he, DP, considered 'pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth' (about the disappearance of a 3 years old child) WE MIGHT NOT ALL BE HERE TODAY!
Lots of 'ifs' in PB 'piece' but not many 'what ifs'
What if the McCan'ts and their friends have 'lied'?
What if PB is.......... 'wrong'?
What if KM had not 'jeopardised' the PJ investigation into her 'missing' daughter?
PB would definitely 'know' the answer to the question: 'What do you call people that don't co-operate with police investigations?'
(A: 'GUILTY!')
'IF' pigs could 'fly'................'bacon' would go up!
----------------------------------------
" Err in my opinion, you know, IF this was, IF there WAS any foul play bestowed on THEM" (McCanns)
RUSSELL JAMES O'BRIEN SIGNED Rogatory interview STATEMENT 08/04/08
and:
Person Interviewed: David PAYNE
Place of Interview: Force Headquarters,
Date of Interview: 11.04.08
"............you know because again this is something that we've talked about, you know, IF she (Madeleine) WAS abducted you know, ...."
jeanmonroe- Posts : 5818
Activity : 7756
Likes received : 1674
Join date : 2013-02-07
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Tony Bennett 03.05.16 20:05
Pat Brown has written this:
"[The McCanns] ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome".
Much of what Pat said in her long article does boil down to that simple observation, with which I agree. And to be fair, she has called the Scotland Yard review-cum-investigation a farce from the start, when so many people believed it was a real investigation. Some of the comments made against her in another place for re-asserting her view, and the downright rudeness with which she has been attacked by some (not here) have been deplorable, like the comment made by juistice4maddie on Twitter.
Unless the McCanns were 110% certain that any review or investigation, no matter how long it took - whether a year, or 3 years, or 5 years, or more - would end up with some kind of an abduction tale at the end of it, they would never have dared ask for it.
And what do we have now?
>>> The tabloids recycling authorised leaks from Scotland Yard saying that three burglars done it, 'because they was all making 'phone calls to each other, innit?'
AND
>>> The McCanns echoing this saying 'it's the most credible theory yet'.
One good thing, of the very few, about this case - and the Hillsborough cover-up - is that fewer and fewer people, and with very good reason, believe senior police officers are people generally to be trusted. They are not.
I agree with Pat's use of the word 'farce' for Operation Grange, though I prefer my own term: 'expensive charade'.
We differ however on what happened to Madeleine - and when.
-------------------
April28th wrote: "I cannot understand why Pat Brown still looks at this so black-and-white"
REPLY: Do you really not see this?
Either Grange is genuine, or it is not.
Either £14 million has been wasted, or it hasn't.
Either the remit is to look only at an abduction, or it is not.
Either Madeleine was abducted, or she was not.
Either Madeleine died in Praia da Luz, or she did not.
Either the Smithman e-fits are genuine, or they are not.
And so on
"[The McCanns] ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome".
Much of what Pat said in her long article does boil down to that simple observation, with which I agree. And to be fair, she has called the Scotland Yard review-cum-investigation a farce from the start, when so many people believed it was a real investigation. Some of the comments made against her in another place for re-asserting her view, and the downright rudeness with which she has been attacked by some (not here) have been deplorable, like the comment made by juistice4maddie on Twitter.
Unless the McCanns were 110% certain that any review or investigation, no matter how long it took - whether a year, or 3 years, or 5 years, or more - would end up with some kind of an abduction tale at the end of it, they would never have dared ask for it.
And what do we have now?
>>> The tabloids recycling authorised leaks from Scotland Yard saying that three burglars done it, 'because they was all making 'phone calls to each other, innit?'
AND
>>> The McCanns echoing this saying 'it's the most credible theory yet'.
One good thing, of the very few, about this case - and the Hillsborough cover-up - is that fewer and fewer people, and with very good reason, believe senior police officers are people generally to be trusted. They are not.
I agree with Pat's use of the word 'farce' for Operation Grange, though I prefer my own term: 'expensive charade'.
We differ however on what happened to Madeleine - and when.
-------------------
April28th wrote: "I cannot understand why Pat Brown still looks at this so black-and-white"
REPLY: Do you really not see this?
Either Grange is genuine, or it is not.
Either £14 million has been wasted, or it hasn't.
Either the remit is to look only at an abduction, or it is not.
Either Madeleine was abducted, or she was not.
Either Madeleine died in Praia da Luz, or she did not.
Either the Smithman e-fits are genuine, or they are not.
And so on
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by ChippyM 03.05.16 20:21
Pat Brown seems to be writing random posts on this case just as Amaral has got his victory in court and as another poster said, she said she wasn't writing about this case anymore. This is not a personal attack but I ask where is the proof of the cold cases she worked, where is the proof of her experience apart from a few books that are her version of things she says she worked on? Where is the proof she is training detectives? I'm asking this because her logic jumps all over the place and doesn't really give her deductions any sense of professionalism. The police she worked with 'agreed she was right and they screwed things up?!'
I also think she has missed the more subtle reasoning behind why people are feeling more optimistic recently. It is not because they suddenly believe OP. Grange will suddenly do a 360 turn and start investigating the obvious. It is because people saw a victory for free speech and know that someone like Amaral will now be given a fair (or fairer) hearing. Public opinion and sympathy in this case was a great tool with which to control the media, maybe now it won't be.
Another subtlety is that there doesn't have to be only those 2 outcomes from Op. Grange, ie. If the 'worlds finest' police force say they couldn't solve it and it's such a great mystery, then that outcome is also beneficial for anyone wanting to cover up what might have happened. I'm surprised Pat hasn't observed through recent history, if a government wants to cover things up they just drag it out for years and years until many people forget about it. Sometimes it will rear it's head again years later but by then many of the people responsible will be dead and the story doesn't have the same impact on a fresh generation.
Generally I think Pat Brown doesn't like it when others don't agree with her asessments, if she made logical arguments it wouldn't be a problem.
I also think she has missed the more subtle reasoning behind why people are feeling more optimistic recently. It is not because they suddenly believe OP. Grange will suddenly do a 360 turn and start investigating the obvious. It is because people saw a victory for free speech and know that someone like Amaral will now be given a fair (or fairer) hearing. Public opinion and sympathy in this case was a great tool with which to control the media, maybe now it won't be.
Another subtlety is that there doesn't have to be only those 2 outcomes from Op. Grange, ie. If the 'worlds finest' police force say they couldn't solve it and it's such a great mystery, then that outcome is also beneficial for anyone wanting to cover up what might have happened. I'm surprised Pat hasn't observed through recent history, if a government wants to cover things up they just drag it out for years and years until many people forget about it. Sometimes it will rear it's head again years later but by then many of the people responsible will be dead and the story doesn't have the same impact on a fresh generation.
Generally I think Pat Brown doesn't like it when others don't agree with her asessments, if she made logical arguments it wouldn't be a problem.
ChippyM- Posts : 1334
Activity : 1817
Likes received : 467
Join date : 2013-06-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by whatsupdoc 03.05.16 20:47
If by Mr. Kipling. 
If Kate had answered the 48 questions
Kate hadn't been working so hard that she couldn't look for Madeleine
Kate hadn't been phoning everyone after only minutes into the search
Kate & Gerry looked after their children in a responsible manner
the McCanns hadn't set up a Fund
hadn't employed lawyers
the McCanns told the truth
Then I feel sure they would have had everyone helping to find Madeleine.
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/46473
If Kate had answered the 48 questions
Kate hadn't been working so hard that she couldn't look for Madeleine
Kate hadn't been phoning everyone after only minutes into the search
Kate & Gerry looked after their children in a responsible manner
the McCanns hadn't set up a Fund
hadn't employed lawyers
the McCanns told the truth
Then I feel sure they would have had everyone helping to find Madeleine.
http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems-and-poets/poems/detail/46473
whatsupdoc- Posts : 601
Activity : 953
Likes received : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Guest 03.05.16 21:10
Tony Bennett wrote:
April28th wrote: "I cannot understand why Pat Brown still looks at this so black-and-white"
REPLY: Do you really not see this?
Either Grange is genuine, or it is not.
Either £14 million has been wasted, or it hasn't.
Either the remit is to look only at an abduction, or it is not.
Either Madeleine was abducted, or she was not.
Either Madeleine died in Praia da Luz, or she did not.
Either the Smithman e-fits are genuine, or they are not.
And so on
More specifically, I meant her intimation that either the parents did something to her, or she was abducted. No grey areas. No room for considerations that they may know what happened to her and can't say, or wont say, etc etc.
She seems to in a very black and white sense imply that they did it or they didn't, no in betweens, no shades of grey. Total guilt or totally innocent. This is the reason terms like manslaughter, first degree murder, second degree murder etc etc exist, but this article seems to imply that she only thinks in absolutes.
There are so many rabbit holes in the case (you just listed a few). She can metaphorically fill them up and pretend they aren't there, but they are.
Guest- Guest
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Mirage 03.05.16 22:31
An excellent post, ChippyM. You have summed up my thoughts exactly.ChippyM wrote:Pat Brown seems to be writing random posts on this case just as Amaral has got his victory in court and as another poster said, she said she wasn't writing about this case anymore. This is not a personal attack but I ask where is the proof of the cold cases she worked, where is the proof of her experience apart from a few books that are her version of things she says she worked on? Where is the proof she is training detectives? I'm asking this because her logic jumps all over the place and doesn't really give her deductions any sense of professionalism. The police she worked with 'agreed she was right and they screwed things up?!'
I also think she has missed the more subtle reasoning behind why people are feeling more optimistic recently. It is not because they suddenly believe OP. Grange will suddenly do a 360 turn and start investigating the obvious. It is because people saw a victory for free speech and know that someone like Amaral will now be given a fair (or fairer) hearing. Public opinion and sympathy in this case was a great tool with which to control the media, maybe now it won't be.
Another subtlety is that there doesn't have to be only those 2 outcomes from Op. Grange, ie. If the 'worlds finest' police force say they couldn't solve it and it's such a great mystery, then that outcome is also beneficial for anyone wanting to cover up what might have happened. I'm surprised Pat hasn't observed through recent history, if a government wants to cover things up they just drag it out for years and years until many people forget about it. Sometimes it will rear it's head again years later but by then many of the people responsible will be dead and the story doesn't have the same impact on a fresh generation.
Generally I think Pat Brown doesn't like it when others don't agree with her asessments, if she made logical arguments it wouldn't be a problem.
I personally couldn't follow any thread of logic in PB's piece. In fact, it came over as an outburst. What has the fact that members of your family have careers in the police to do with anything? My uncle was a British vice consul but it doesn't give me some special insight into the diplomatic service.
And you have hit the nail on the head - what evidence is there of PB's work ? How are we to assess her expertise? Do we take her word for it?
Whilst she is, not to put too fine a point on it, sneering at those who have no knowledge of a cop's life, we, in this country are suffering a collapse of confidence in the police which no one can afford to ignore. Unless you want to settle for a sham democracy, that is.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by HelenMeg 03.05.16 22:46
For the Op Grange to have been given that remit in the first place i.e. to investigate an abduction etc then it must have been a farce or at least started out as a farce. Surely we must all agree on that?Tony Bennett wrote:Pat Brown has written this:
"[The McCanns] ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome".
Much of what Pat said in her long article does boil down to that simple observation, with which I agree. And to be fair, she has called the Scotland Yard review-cum-investigation a farce from the start, when so many people believed it was a real investigation. Some of the comments made against her in another place for re-asserting her view, and the downright rudeness with which she has been attacked by some (not here) have been deplorable, like the comment made by juistice4maddie on Twitter.
Unless the McCanns were 110% certain that any review or investigation, no matter how long it took - whether a year, or 3 years, or 5 years, or more - would end up with some kind of an abduction tale at the end of it, they would never have dared ask for it.
And what do we have now?
>>> The tabloids recycling authorised leaks from Scotland Yard saying that three burglars done it, 'because they was all making 'phone calls to each other, innit?'
AND
>>> The McCanns echoing this saying 'it's the most credible theory yet'.
One good thing, of the very few, about this case - and the Hillsborough cover-up - is that fewer and fewer people, and with very good reason, believe senior police officers are people generally to be trusted. They are not.
I agree with Pat's use of the word 'farce' for Operation Grange, though I prefer my own term: 'expensive charade'.
We differ however on what happened to Madeleine - and when.
-------------------
April28th wrote: "I cannot understand why Pat Brown still looks at this so black-and-white"
REPLY: Do you really not see this?
Either Grange is genuine, or it is not.
Either £14 million has been wasted, or it hasn't.
Either the remit is to look only at an abduction, or it is not.
Either Madeleine was abducted, or she was not.
Either Madeleine died in Praia da Luz, or she did not.
Either the Smithman e-fits are genuine, or they are not.
And so on
I feel it is wishful thinking to suppose the last lead to be investigated will involve investigating the Mc Canns. The only hopeful thing for me is that whoever is in charge of deciding the 'outcome' must realise that the eyes of the world are watching and that at some stage the truth will out.
HelenMeg- Posts : 1782
Activity : 2081
Likes received : 213
Join date : 2014-01-08
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 03.05.16 23:01
The World and his Wife are Watching: Does that mean the "powers that be" care?
Extremely doubtful, but in the words of KM & GM on the anniversary of their daughters disappearance, "There's always hope"?
Indeed Mr Cameron, I "hope" you are watching and I "hope" that you have read the petition & accompanying letter?
And I "hope" that you furnish the public with deserving answers for the truth for Madeleine.
"There's always hope"
Extremely doubtful, but in the words of KM & GM on the anniversary of their daughters disappearance, "There's always hope"?
Indeed Mr Cameron, I "hope" you are watching and I "hope" that you have read the petition & accompanying letter?
And I "hope" that you furnish the public with deserving answers for the truth for Madeleine.
"There's always hope"
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Richard IV 03.05.16 23:02
Who decided on the wording of the remit? Anyone know.
Richard IV- Posts : 552
Activity : 825
Likes received : 265
Join date : 2015-03-06
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by roy rovers 03.05.16 23:27
Is Operation Grange the Warren Commission of the Madeleine McCann case? The Warren Commission was set up by the US Government to investigate the assassination of JFK but its methodology and conclusions have been criticised since it reported and it has been accused of being a cover up. It gave the establishment the finding it required - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was not part of a wider conspiracy (the 'lone nut' theory).
IMO Operation Grange is not going to get to the truth and is a bit of a diversion. The truth will come out as more and more information enters the public domain - Goncalo Amaral, Richard Hall etc.. The genie is squeezing out of the bottle.
IMO Operation Grange is not going to get to the truth and is a bit of a diversion. The truth will come out as more and more information enters the public domain - Goncalo Amaral, Richard Hall etc.. The genie is squeezing out of the bottle.
roy rovers- Posts : 473
Activity : 538
Likes received : 51
Join date : 2012-03-04
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Mirage 03.05.16 23:51
I guess OG have a choice. Either they do it the hard way or... well, the less hard way. Either way, they've dug themselves into a massive hole that will require a block and tackle to get them out. It is clear they have become a total laughing stock right round the world and so they are going to have to do something. This three burglars lark. Where do they think they are going with that one? The PJ aren't wearing this. No one is. It is ludicrous. Straight out of the S&S book of how to make an utter plonker of yourself with unraveling-bandages-on-feet-man (camera pans to hapless suspect's feet). You really have to pinch yourself don't you? This stuff sends out the wrong message from Blighty altogether, as if these people have all escaped from a secure unit.
I think Redwood's team never got their hands on the forensic stuff they hoped to in PT. I remember the entourage went to the centre of excellence in forensic testing in Coimbra and by the look on Redwood's face when he came out, he didn't get near anywhere near the precious samples. They probably kept him behind a viewing screen if they had any sense. Ha ha. The Portuguese weren't going to fall for that FSS malarkey a second time.
I think Redwood's team never got their hands on the forensic stuff they hoped to in PT. I remember the entourage went to the centre of excellence in forensic testing in Coimbra and by the look on Redwood's face when he came out, he didn't get near anywhere near the precious samples. They probably kept him behind a viewing screen if they had any sense. Ha ha. The Portuguese weren't going to fall for that FSS malarkey a second time.
Mirage- Posts : 1905
Activity : 2711
Likes received : 764
Join date : 2013-02-01
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by Tony Bennett 04.05.16 0:04
Yes - Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell - answer given by way of a response to a Freedom of Information request, a few years back.Richard IV wrote:Who decided on the wording of the remit? Anyone know.
Of course, above him, who needed to approve his remit, were:
...his bosses at the Met
...the Home Secretary
...the Prime Minister
...the Prime Minister's riding companion, Rebekah Brooks
...and her boss, Rupert Murdoch
"We're all in this together'
____________________
Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"
Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Investigator
- Posts : 16926
Activity : 24792
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 77
Location : Shropshire
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MayMuse 04.05.16 0:38
Mmmm the "river" does run deep!?
MayMuse- Posts : 2033
Activity : 3472
Likes received : 1413
Join date : 2016-04-15
Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent
by MaryB 04.05.16 0:59
If they try and put the blame on some hapless pock marked burglar lurking in the stairwell they will be a laughing stock. Taken by person or persons unknown might be a bit better but it's still a fudge. And the world knows it.
MaryB- Posts : 204
Activity : 246
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2009-11-29
Page 1 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics» Scotland Yard freemason cops cover up deaths of innocent citizens
» MF's evidence to the Scotland Yard Review Team
» FoI Act Questions to Met re Scotland Yard Review Team
» Is Scotland Yard fit to carry out Madeleine McCann Review?
» Pat Brown: The Scotland Yard Review and Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case
» MF's evidence to the Scotland Yard Review Team
» FoI Act Questions to Met re Scotland Yard Review Team
» Is Scotland Yard fit to carry out Madeleine McCann Review?
» Pat Brown: The Scotland Yard Review and Ad Hominem Attacks in the Madeleine McCann Case
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Professional and Featured blogs :: Pat Brown, US Criminal Profiler
Page 1 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
