*NEW* - IS THERE A GOVERNMENT COVER-UP? And if so, why? - POLL ADDED (was: Why are they being protected?)

Phoebe wrote:Roy R. I'm having trouble following your thinking. Are you suggesting that Madeleine's parents planned to fake her abduction on that holiday for some reason, but she died, and they decided to abduct her corpse anyway? Why on earth would they plan a genuine "false abduction" as you call it?

Hi Phoebe, the name is Rob, not Roy,

I believe that a lot of the people in the resort that week were government or other linked agency actors and I believe that Madeleine was to be abducted in some politically inspired scam. Whether she was abducted or if something happened to her before this was possible is beyond my understanding but the British Secret Services were active on the ground according to the Portuguese Police.



My beliefs are my own, based on what I have read about this case and on my interpretation of other events that I have learned of or observed over the years.
A lot of government people spend as much time feathering their own and their benefactors nests as they do on state business. 
Every time a new law is passed someone is making money out of it. Setting up false fears that they can then offer protection from is a well known method of making gangsters rich. Many politicians  are "owned" by gangsters.

I chose number 2. I.m now 50/50 as to whether its just all one huge psy-op. Not saying she didnt exist but the media, most of all print media, have used the case to prop up their dying bottom-line. As proved by Tracey K, every single bloody day it seems! I do think there is a cover up, but can only choose one choice in poll. I was out on sat night and ended up at a party speaking to a rookie cop, aged 22 and decided to ask him his opinion. First of all he said I.m not a spokesman for the government you know, i said of course i know that, i just want your opinion as a policeman. He replied that he was only 12 when it happened so it doesnt really matter to him, i then asked him what would happen to me if he was called to my house and found i,d gone out leaving my kids alone etc and then cadaver dogs found scent in my house(he had no clue about the dogs, i told him to look into it). Well, he said, you would immediately be arrested and questioned. So what the bloody hell do Grange think they're trying to do all this time, if even a rookie who doesnt even remember MBM thinks that? Its beyond ridiculous now, it really is

Option 6 for me.
I don't even have 1% doubt. 
It is the only reason for me the Government and security agencies would cover this up. And if it involves VIPs from a very friendly country which could seriously affect relations (as, in my view, I believe to be the case), then even more reason for the cover up.
As for the swinging, I'm open to that possibility - maybe among the group in addition to the child abuse, but that was not the reason for the death. After all, if you are involved in such activities, what's a little swinging?
The death came about either directly or indirectly (again, in my view) from pre-arranged child abuse from a third party or parties.

The circumstantial truth is not being told, this is an absolute fact.
None of the people who are present and involved are telling the truth , this is an absolute fact.
The UK Police forces that would have been responsible for investigating the incident have said nothing, this is an absolute fact.
The BBC at the behest of the government ran 2 dedicated crimewatch episodes steering the public towards the abduction assertion, this is an absolute fact.
Lots more but from the above it is an absolute certainty that there is high level government involvement, reasons why are unknown.

I'm with suzy & phoebe. It was a sequence of events that took upon a life of its own - not some high level conspiracy, just a modern day phenomenon.

The McCanns put their version of the case out there to the UK media very early and, as a couple of photogenic professionals, were immediately given massive sympathy and support from the public. That prompted the populist Labour Government to jump on the bandwagon and in a very public show of support, they offered every assistance to the poor parents.

It fooled a lot of people at the time, with various celebrities and even the Pope getting involved - all tripping over themselves to be associated with the search for such a cute little infant.

Very early on the Portuguese police were ridiculed for their bumbling inefficiency and were blamed for the failure to find the culprits and that also went down well with a section of the xenophobic press & public. It was all fantastically newsworthy - even more so when the parents were implicated and for a while, the press turned on them. But there was not quite enough evidence to make the charges stick and as has been said above, by now the Portuguese had had their fill of the bad publicity and decided it was a British problem so the McCanns came home and the case was shelved.

The McCanns sued the papers who had to shell out massive compensation and they became untouchable. But the whole mystery was and continues to be hugely lucrative for the tabloids and faced with trying to keep on the inside of the story while being aware of the litigious alternative, they opted to follow the circus.

Operation Grange is just another example of how untouchable they have become. Theresa May & Cameron were pressured by the Sun into launching OG but the Met knew there was insufficient evidence to re-run the accusations that the parents were involved and have been scared off pursuing that route. It would have been professional suicide for the police leading the investigation to try and pin it on them without incontrovertible evidence - look what happened to Goncalo.

For me there was no planned cover-up - it's more likely that Madeleine died in an accident caused by the parents and they have got away with it. I am open to the idea that there was some sex involved either through swinging or abuse and that explains why the tapas 7 were spinning the same story.

But it defies belief that a top-level conspiracy would come up with such a ham-fisted cover up that has run for years and cost so much money. They would have buried the case before it ever became public knowledge.

I voted for the "swingers" in the poll and would have gone for the paedophile button except I don't think it was involving the establishment, it was just the group (maybe wider than 7) in the resort at the time.

Clarence Mitchell could be said to be a modern day phenomenon and he's part of the conspiracy!

The establishment wheels were in motion, long before the UK media got their act together.  Press coverage of any event, major or minor, is always a shambles during the early hours/days.  It's not unusual for the media to extensively cover breaking news, the McCann affair was no exception at that stage in the eyes of the world.

The unprecedented arrival of the British ambassador within hours of Madeleine's disappearance;  the subsequent prompt arrival of various representatives of UK organizations and legal pundits;  the secondment of a government media monitoring guru;  the support of a host of wealthy benefactors etc. doesn't to my mind suggest anything other than a high level cover-up.

Surely nobody can believe that Operation Grange was/is a legitimate inquiry/investigation into the disappearance of a three year old child?  There was/is nothing, nothing to indicate that they are a legitimate force - an illegitimate farce maybe!

Government agencies involved from Day One.

I believe this is a huge cover-up, led by the Blair/Brown conservative, New Labour government, carried on through the Camoron led Con-Dem alliance and which is still going on today in Maggie May's reign.

The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine on that holiday because the waters are so muddy, I don't think anyone can say exactly what happened, apart from those who were there. 
We all have theories, which deviate one way or another. But, here we have two pretty ordinary people, on holiday with some unremarkable friends, one child is "missing", probably dead, according to a British EDRV (Eddie), and nobody can question their flimsy, wavering, floundering, back-fitting story. 

I would ask, what hold do they have over somebody very important which warrants this level of protection. 

Scotland Yard are prepared to look like the Keystone Cops to protect this pair and their companions, years of building a reputation as among the worlds best police force, tossed aside looking for a two headed Smithman and re-interviewing bungling burglars stupid enough to enter through a door and leave by a widow.

And you still don't think there is a monumental cover up? C'mon! 

JRP wrote:
The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

Well said!  As you rightly point out, it's not just the Blair/Brown regime under scrutiny here, it's every successive government right up to present day Theresa May - indeed she's played a crucial role in the continuation of this facade.  Like ignoring the content of Get'emGoncalo's exemplary letter!

I just can't understand why some people can't see the wood for the trees.  I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse.  I've seen it said many a time, the McCann etc. risked their careers had they openly admitted neglect (they did by the way) and/or admitted responsibility for a tragic accident - that is nonsense!  No way would they be kicked out of the medical profession for such a reason - let's face it, they are under suspicion to this very day for their child's fate.  Professor Gerald McCann is safely ensconced in his profession, his wife is a named ambassador for a missing people charity - and that's under a cloud of suspicion?

At the risk of being repetative..



Woof! Woof! and thrice Woof!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Government agencies involved from Day One.

Perfect!  That deserves pride of place on the forum!

I love the Murdoch portrayed as octopus.

, areas

Verdi wrote:

JRP wrote:
The remit of operation grange was set by the Con-Dem government to look into the abduction, the Mc's welcomed it, not surprisingly as nobody would be looking at their role in Maddies demise. So surely that should tell you that successive governments, our police, both Leicester and Scotland Yard, and our media, have been colluding to shield the duo from any prosecution.

I know some think there isn't any governmental/establishment help, and it's all the duo's doing with all their wealth, but who had Amoral removed? I don't think the McDoctors had the power to do that; that move came from higher up the food chain.

Well said!  As you rightly point out, it's not just the Blair/Brown regime under scrutiny here, it's every successive government right up to present day Theresa May - indeed she's played a crucial role in the continuation of this facade.  Like ignoring the content of Get'emGoncalo's exemplary letter!

I just can't understand why some people can't see the wood for the trees.  I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse.  I've seen it said many a time, the McCann etc. risked their careers had they openly admitted neglect (they did by the way) and/or admitted responsibility for a tragic accident - that is nonsense!  No way would they be kicked out of the medical profession for such a reason - let's face it, they are under suspicion to this very day for their child's fate.  Professor Gerald McCann is safely ensconced in his profession, his wife is a named ambassador for a missing people charity - and that's under a cloud of suspicion?

At the risk of being repetative..



Woof! Woof! and thrice Woof!

Hi Verdi
If they as suspected had been giving their children prescription medecine and one of them died as a result then they may have faced a manslaughter charge. That in most countries carries a custodial sentence so they would have been struck off. I just cannot see how even the Medical profession have not railed against them. Why indeed have all those parents with a pact of silence to cover up their lies not had their children placed on an at risk register. The live in different areas and from my own experience Social Services who are responsible for watching out for vulnerable children at risk work at county level. I remeber overhearing a conversation in a Social Services office in 2008 and a few harsh words were said about the McCann style of parenting. Social Services tend not to be frightened of lawyers. There has to be something very big going on in the background to hold control of the agencies from the Top level of Government(s) down.

Surely it must be considered that if there were a  lengthy delay while the McCanns and friends dithered over what to do (in the scenario of say, accidental overdose) this would make it even more important to conceal the body. Time of death would easily be established at autopsy and a delay in reporting any accident, together with drugs in the system or marks of a slapping(or both) would raise questions as to how accidental such a death might have been. Think of the reputational damage this would do to doctors.

Pure speculation.  There is no evidence or intelligence to suggest that Madeleine died as a result of a drug overdose - so no, it mustn't be considered.

I repeat my words.. 


"I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse."

Verdi wrote:Pure speculation.  There is no evidence or intelligence to suggest that Madeleine died as a result of a drug overdose - so no, it mustn't be considered.

I repeat my words.. 


"I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse."

It is speculation, but then so is everything other than the dogs' alerts that a body had been in 5A and that Madeleine is no longer around. I do not claim it is so, only that this can't be disproved. If I had given medicine to my 3 year old which might have been a factor in her death eg. something not approved for under 6s like Dozol, Teedex, Calpol Night, Phenegran etc. I might be able to plead ignorance but it would be devastating for a medic. Worse still if it were a controlled drug not prescribed by her own G.P. Not that I am wedded to any theory, medication, physical, sexual abuse or a violent attack. We can only speculate on these.

Can't be disproved?  That like trying to prove a negative - you can't, you can however prove a positive!

I prefer to think of the many pointers identified by years of research and analysis undertaken by a number of dedicated CMoMM members and close associates, as critical thinking and/or reasoned argument - most definitely NOT foundless speculation.

A teaser just to add to your line of thinking.  Let's suppose Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion -  what would be the most logical way forward for the parent/s? 

a)   To claim their child found a bag of medication they had and helped herself, tragically died and then eventually move on with their lives?

 or

b)  To fake an abduction, dispose of a corpse, lie to the police and the world, hide their secret for the remainder of their days living under a cloud of suspicion?

I know what I would do.

NB:  'You' can only speculate on these - not 'we' can only speculate on these!  

Phoebe wrote:

Verdi wrote:Pure speculation.  There is no evidence or intelligence to suggest that Madeleine died as a result of a drug overdose - so no, it mustn't be considered.

I repeat my words.. 


"I can see any number of alternative escape routes for the McCanns and their friends had Madeleine's fate been a straightforward accident, by that I mean an accident that wouldn't necessitate concealment of a corpse."

It is speculation, but then so is everything other than the dogs' alerts that a body had been in 5A and that Madeleine is no longer around. I do not claim it is so, only that this can't be disproved. If I had given medicine to my 3 year old which might have been a factor in her death eg. something not approved for under 6s like Dozol, Teedex, Calpol Night, Phenegran etc. I might be able to plead ignorance but it would be devastating for a medic. Worse still if it were a controlled drug not prescribed by her own G.P. Not that I am wedded to any theory, medication, physical, sexual abuse or a violent attack. We can only speculate on these.

There is some much speculation in this case.IMO the most clearest evidence is the action of the 2 dogs,which indicates the presence of a corpse and blood in Apt 5a,outside 5a,and in the hire car.
Until the body is found and the cause of death can be determined, or someone confesses,all theories should be considered

I went for the final option, not because I think there is 'some other reason' but because I believe there was and continues to be a cover up and I'm not sure what the reason is. There's not an option for that!

All the out-of-season activity and seeming preparation getting various people to the resort prior to the last night, the msm's presience and the pre-prepared photos and yet the messing-up of the abduction scene, Jane Tanner's impossible sighting and 'Maddie's jammies' (to highlight just a few points from the many anomalies) just don't add up for me. So professional and 'top level' on the one hand, so bungling and amateur on the other. 

I don't know what to think about the reasons but I do firmly believe that there's one heck of a cover up otherwise they'd have been prosecuted years ago.

Whichever theory you attribute to what happened to Madeleine, it is evident to me that her body can never and will never be found. Acid, cremation, pigs.....I know not what but the Mccanns are so smug and the circus continues because they are clear in their own minds that, at the very worst they might be charged with negligence. And after so many years, in the eyes of any judge, their suffering will mean a suspended sentence and so their pathetic lives will carry on with no change.
Her body holds the clues to why the big wheels of the government and spook machine whirred into action so quickly in the days following her demise early in that holiday. It is my belief that such a cover up was necessary because of the ramifications to high level personnel and, as such, this cannot be swinging.
It is possibly medical (fuelled by the reluctance to release MBMs medical records) but my own gut feeling is paedophilia based on Gaspar testimony, the sheer number of "pretty little blond girls" on that holiday, the people at MW that week, the "make up photo", Masonic layers (a club for men after all) and other factors.
For so many people to be involved, it's BIG !!
All in my opinion of course

Verdi wrote:Can't be disproved?  That like trying to prove a negative - you can't, you can however prove a positive!

I prefer to think of the many pointers identified by years of research and analysis undertaken by a number of dedicated CMoMM members and close associates, as critical thinking and/or reasoned argument - most definitely NOT foundless speculation.

A teaser just to add to your line of thinking.  Let's suppose Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion -  what would be the most logical way forward for the parent/s? 

a)   To claim their child found a bag of medication they had and helped herself, tragically died and then eventually move on with their lives?

 or

b)  To fake an abduction, dispose of a corpse, lie to the police and the world, hide their secret for the remainder of their days living under a cloud of suspicion?

I know what I would do.

NB:  'You' can only speculate on these - not 'we' can only speculate on these!  

I think you have missed the main point of my initial post which was about possible DELAY in deciding to come clean, irrespective of how she died, and the effect any such delay would have on the final decision.

No, I haven't missed anything, I'm just going with the flow!

Would you build your castle without foundations on shifting sands - or would you lay your foundations on terra-firma?

Verdi wrote:No, I haven't missed anything, I'm just going with the flow!

Would you build your castle without foundations on shifting sands - or would you lay your foundations on terra-firma?

Most definitely terra-firma - sound, irrefutable, proof that the ground underneath was solid enough to support it. This would necessitate a sample of the actual soil and bedrock in question for testing. I would not be convinced by the informed opinion, at a remove, of any surveyer/engineer regardless of his credentials in building. That is why I would approach the proposed site with the attitude "it may well be sound, but there remains a possibility that it may not. Until I can get 100% assurance I will hold off erecting any castles". 

kaz wrote:There’s no doubt in my mind that there was and still is a cover up by Government Agencies. I suspected it all along but the defining moment for me was the O.G.’s belated  production of Tannerman. How neatly it provided Jane Tanner with a parachute and how ridiculous that this man had in all the years since the ‘abduction’ never thought to come forward. Tosh! Do they think we were born yesterday?
For me there can be no doubt that for some inexplicable reason the poor child’s body had to be disposed of. For it to have been examined after death would have led to questions being asked . The McCanns could easily have invented a story to minimise any suggestion of  negligence  rather than go for a full blown abduction saga. No, there had to be more to it than that. Madeleine’s body had a tale to tell. But what?
A couple of things that I can’t get my head around are:





If Madeleine died in the apartment surely it couldn’t have been as a result of sexual abuse ? The location just doesn’t make any sense. If she had been taken elsewhere to be abused and tragically died, there wouldn’t have been cadaver odour in the apartment, on Kate’s clothes and Cuddle Cat. You wouldn’t bring a dead body back to the apartment for disposal would you?

If there was a government cover up, why were the cadaver dogs sent in at the British Government’s  instigation ? Why incriminate someone you are trying to protect? Was Gerry’s cry of ‘paedophiles’ a warning shot  that he had knowledge of nefarious activities and knowledge of those involved……………………possibly high profile ? A way of saying, help us clear up our sorry mess or else? Did the government then send the cadaver dogs over  to prevent Gerry McCann  holding all the cards?  

Did the government know that the dogs were cadaver/ blood dogs, or was Gerry expecting search dogs to keep up the pretence of looking for a live child?

Cmaryholmes wrote:

kaz wrote:There’s no doubt in my mind that there was and still is a cover up by Government Agencies. I suspected it all along but the defining moment for me was the O.G.’s belated  production of Tannerman. How neatly it provided Jane Tanner with a parachute and how ridiculous that this man had in all the years since the ‘abduction’ never thought to come forward. Tosh! Do they think we were born yesterday?
For me there can be no doubt that for some inexplicable reason the poor child’s body had to be disposed of. For it to have been examined after death would have led to questions being asked . The McCanns could easily have invented a story to minimise any suggestion of  negligence  rather than go for a full blown abduction saga. No, there had to be more to it than that. Madeleine’s body had a tale to tell. But what?
A couple of things that I can’t get my head around are:





If Madeleine died in the apartment surely it couldn’t have been as a result of sexual abuse ? The location just doesn’t make any sense. If she had been taken elsewhere to be abused and tragically died, there wouldn’t have been cadaver odour in the apartment, on Kate’s clothes and Cuddle Cat. You wouldn’t bring a dead body back to the apartment for disposal would you?

If there was a government cover up, why were the cadaver dogs sent in at the British Government’s  instigation ? Why incriminate someone you are trying to protect? Was Gerry’s cry of ‘paedophiles’ a warning shot  that he had knowledge of nefarious activities and knowledge of those involved……………………possibly high profile ? A way of saying, help us clear up our sorry mess or else? Did the government then send the cadaver dogs over  to prevent Gerry McCann  holding all the cards?  

Did the government know that the dogs were cadaver/ blood dogs, or was Gerry expecting search dogs to keep up the pretence of looking for a live child?

The dogs were requested by the Portuguese police after Kate allegedly had a "dream" that Madeleine was dead. The government had nothing to do with this. The dogs were chosen because they have the best reputation in Europe if not the world.

Captain_Pugwash wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:

kaz wrote:There’s no doubt in my mind that there was and still is a cover up by Government Agencies. I suspected it all along but the defining moment for me was the O.G.’s belated  production of Tannerman. How neatly it provided Jane Tanner with a parachute and how ridiculous that this man had in all the years since the ‘abduction’ never thought to come forward. Tosh! Do they think we were born yesterday?
For me there can be no doubt that for some inexplicable reason the poor child’s body had to be disposed of. For it to have been examined after death would have led to questions being asked . The McCanns could easily have invented a story to minimise any suggestion of  negligence  rather than go for a full blown abduction saga. No, there had to be more to it than that. Madeleine’s body had a tale to tell. But what?
A couple of things that I can’t get my head around are:





If Madeleine died in the apartment surely it couldn’t have been as a result of sexual abuse ? The location just doesn’t make any sense. If she had been taken elsewhere to be abused and tragically died, there wouldn’t have been cadaver odour in the apartment, on Kate’s clothes and Cuddle Cat. You wouldn’t bring a dead body back to the apartment for disposal would you?

If there was a government cover up, why were the cadaver dogs sent in at the British Government’s  instigation ? Why incriminate someone you are trying to protect? Was Gerry’s cry of ‘paedophiles’ a warning shot  that he had knowledge of nefarious activities and knowledge of those involved……………………possibly high profile ? A way of saying, help us clear up our sorry mess or else? Did the government then send the cadaver dogs over  to prevent Gerry McCann  holding all the cards?  

Did the government know that the dogs were cadaver/ blood dogs, or was Gerry expecting search dogs to keep up the pretence of looking for a live child?

The dogs were requested by the Portuguese police after Kate allegedly had a "dream" that Madeleine was dead. The government had nothing to do with this. The dogs were chosen because they have the best reputation in Europe if not the world.

The relevant portion from Chapter 16 of Amaral's book is quoted below:
 
Quote:

HARRISON  also suggests that we use the skills of two totally remarkable dogs: the first an EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog), achieves outstanding performance in the detection of human cadaver odour; the second, a CSI dog (Crime Scene Investigation) is capable of smelling the tiniest trace of blood, knowing how to recognise its human origin. To convince us of their capability and the extraordinary work carried out by these very special detectives in the course of over 200 investigations, he screens a video for us, showing their training and their intervention on the ground.