Top level support rushed to help the McCanns?

by Ellie 15.03.17 13:03

I am new to this forum and all the marvellous research being done so please forgive my being naive. I am so glad so many intelligent people are being objective about this case concerning this poor child.
From the beginning, among the huge number of doubts that arose concerning the case, I could never understand why the McCanns had so many high profile people at their side, and so quickly. I wondered why the British institution was so concerned to keep Gerry and Kate McCann out of trouble and give them a platform to play the part of the distressed and bereft parents. incidentally they did not convince me with their acting. My reasons for this are the same as those you have already described.
But I am mystified as to why they are looked after so carefully. I don't remember Ben Needham's family being given this kind of support. Am I being stupid? I don't mind you pointing it out if I am, but I can't come up with a reason except that, for some peculiar reason the "top brass" (whatever that is) are scared of the McCanns, probably Gerry, as if he has some hold over them. If this is the case, then surely he has to watch his back. With two people who became concerned about the case, each having met a strangely unexpected and unlikely self-inflicted death, Gerry may not feel too safe. His being some kind of threat to the Status Quo and thus needing to be carried safely out of trouble, is the only reason I can come up with. Or do they just have friends in high places? But if that is why they are afforded such individual help then it is immoral and so wrong. Ben Needham and all missing children, deserve the same support as do the families.
Thanks again all of you for the support you are giving me. I get depression and had been feeling that the so called highly advanced and civilised world I should feel grateful to live in was not somehow all that it pretends to be. There are a lot of things that don't make sense and Madeleine's disappearance is certainly one of them.
Thanks again.
Ellie.

by JulieC 15.03.17 13:24

Hi Ellie,

I feel the same as you and I'm pleased to have found this forum too.

There is an enormous amount of information to read and take in. It's a tough task just navigating round it all.

I think they certainly have friends in very high places. Isn't Gerry highly placed in the Masons too? That may have a lot to do with it IMO. Not much else makes sense to me.

Have a look at the film's by Richard Hall, especially the Embedded Confessions, very interesting.

by whatsupdoc 15.03.17 14:26

Gerry and John called in some favours and the rest is history. Gerry is in the masons as is Gordon Brown.

eta This is my opinion from several sources showing pictures that I have seen.

by **Jill Havern** 15.03.17 14:37

There is a sticky thread in each section of the forum, which I hope helps!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13715-navigating-the-cmomm-forum

by Guest 15.03.17 14:41

whatsupdoc wrote:Gerry and John called in some favours and the rest is history. Gerry is in the masons as is Gordon Brown.

We don't know that.

I haven't seen any strong evidence for a Masonic connection.

by Phoebe 15.03.17 14:55

I was in Bulgaria on 4/5/07 and from almost first light the Madeleine abduction story by the parents dominated the TV news with Sky covering it live non-stop as if it were the only thing happening in the world. It was literally all we saw on English speaking channels available. My gut feeling is that this caused the U.K. government to feel it had to be seen to be helping- hence the ambassadors, British police, Mitchell etc. The media image of caring government was a welcome distraction from its short-comings Once they had pinned their colours to the McCann mast I think they were snookered. They couldn't be seen to have been taken in or to have backed the wrong horse and so it kept going and has snowballed ever since. Influential people, and wealthy supporters came on board the McCann ship and made it even more awkward to withdraw support. Along the way favours were probably called in too. I think the McCann's immediate control of the story through the media and the international nature of the story through their travels to "raise awareness of the abduction" are crucial factors.

by Guest 15.03.17 15:56

I don't know the answer to this Ellie but I think that right from the beginning, Gerry Mccann was on the phone networking and he managed to drown out all dissenting voices. He also whipped up hysteria. Also, because of the 'neglected issue' a lot of people were probably scared to speak out or question for fear of being considered judgmental.

by Phoebe 15.03.17 23:36

I'm fascinated by this evening's Mail Online which is leading with a story that the "workshy" future king of England is carrying on inappropriately with a "mystery woman" at a ski resort. Whether one approves of the monarchy or not, isn't it surprising that the Mail feels absolutely free to castigate the future king (with all his powerful connections) yet nothing negative can be printed about two N.H.S doctors.

by Guest 15.03.17 23:37

What's_up_doc? wrote:I don't know the answer to this Ellie but I think that right from the beginning, Gerry Mccann was on the phone networking and he managed to drown out all dissenting voices. He also whipped up hysteria. Also, because of the 'neglected issue' a lot of people were probably scared to speak out or question for fear of being considered judgmental.

Gerry McCann managed to drown out all dissenting voices? What exactly does that mean - what dissenting voices was he drowning from the beginning by phone networking?

What hysteria did 'he' whip up?

The 'neglected issue' - what neglected issue? What people were scared to speak out - scared to speak out about what, judgmental about what?

Again you are not making any sense.

by Guest 16.03.17 7:13

Verdi wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:I don't know the answer to this Ellie but I think that right from the beginning, Gerry Mccann was on the phone networking and he managed to drown out all dissenting voices. He also whipped up hysteria. Also, because of the 'neglected issue' a lot of people were probably scared to speak out or question for fear of being considered judgmental.
Gerry McCann managed to drown out all dissenting voices? What exactly does that mean - what dissenting voices was he drowning from the beginning by phone networking?

What hysteria did 'he' whip up?

The 'neglected issue' - what neglected issue? What people were scared to speak out - scared to speak out about what, judgmental about what?

Again you are not making any sense.

Well it was just a thought really and not one I put too much thought into to be honest. The fact that Gerry spent the night his daughter disappeared and a great deal of the subsequent days, weeks on the phone was what I referred to. I think the response of the media was orchestrated by Gerry and you have said yourself that there are still people close to the McCanns who Patrol the Internet on their behalf.

The drowning out was really metaphorical - it was assumed by the mainstream media that the version of events presented to them very early on was true and because of the sheer volume of overwhelming support the McCanns received in the early days I think anyone who challenged their narrative would have been drowned out. I think there was a journalist at a press conference who did try to challenge but her voice was lost in the crowd. I think the media was and is often hysterical and the reaction is too emotional and not rational in my opinion. The facts were never established and the narrative was presented as a fait accompli in my opinion. The 'neglect issue' I referred to is really the only issue it seems the British media has been willing to discuss - was it okay to leave the children whilst the parents dined out?All other discussion shut down by the litigious McCanns and lazy journalism.

Most people on this forum think (I'm guessing here from what I've observed) think that this neglect issue is a red herring or at least an aspect of the case which has been given a disproportionate amount of attention and detracts from the real issues. I definitely don't think people are scared to speak out about neglect - far from it - I'm sure Loose Women and other members of the chatteratti could bang on about this all day without any fear of litigation! Also, it requires zero research and little effort and its a chance to take the moral high ground and appear virtuous. Job done! Hope this is slightly more coherent!

by MrsC 16.03.17 8:22

Phoebe wrote:I'm fascinated by this evening's Mail Online which is leading with a story that the "workshy" future king of England is carrying on inappropriately with a "mystery woman" at a ski resort. Whether one approves of the monarchy or not, isn't it surprising that the Mail feels absolutely free to castigate the future king (with all his powerful connections) yet nothing negative can be printed about two N.H.S doctors.

Excellent point and once again it boils down to the question 'WHY'? thinking

by Mirage 16.03.17 9:05

The answer lies in two testimonies that have been resolutely unspoken by OG. One canine. One human.

In my opinion.

by Joss 17.03.17 2:11

If the McCann's had of been treated as the criminals that they both are for neglecting to take proper care of their children as is the responsibility of a parent to do by law, and with their eldest child coming to grief because of their negligence, perhaps this case would of been solved in Portugal long ago. The crime was committed in a foreign country & the UK should of let it run its legal course seeing it was in Portugal's jurisdiction. Same as any other foreigner that commits a crime abroad. The Govt. of their own country can plead for clemency in a death penalty case, but whether successful or not is another thing. It has happened with drug dealers importing drugs into foreign countries where if caught the perpetrators are arrested and dealt with in that country and there usually isn't much that can be done for the person from their own country. I know here in Australia where that has happened and the criminals were put to death because of the laws in that country and there was really nothing the Aus. Govt. could do.
And as far as i know child neglect is a crime in westernised countries, and why the McCann's weren't held to account but instead treated like victims and mollycoddled by the UK Govt. is indeed a mystery.

by kaz 17.03.17 12:11

Phoebe wrote:I'm fascinated by this evening's Mail Online which is leading with a story that the "workshy" future king of England is carrying on inappropriately with a "mystery woman" at a ski resort. Whether one approves of the monarchy or not, isn't it surprising that the Mail feels absolutely free to castigate the future king (with all his powerful connections) yet nothing negative can be printed about two N.H.S doctors.

I really do think you have to be very careful here before accepting this ‘story’ at face value. The whole point of the MSM is to deflect and lead us down paths where we always end up asking the wrong question. There is a reason behind EVERYTHING the MSM writes . The question isn’t ,’’ Why shouldn’t Wills have a bit of fun with the opposite sex ? ‘’ It’s another question entirely. Don’t be fooled.

by jeanmonroe 17.03.17 15:36

https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/crime-expert-claims-madeleine-mccann-died-in-her-holiday-apartment-bc-5361159687001

With 'video'

Can someone 'grab it'?

by winslow boy 18.03.17 21:27

"With two people who became concerned about the case, each having met a strangely unexpected and unlikely self-inflicted death, Gerry may not feel too safe.

That happening would more than likely happen to Ka$% I would imagine with "I'm sorry it was all me, Ge&^$ knew nothing about it,." Faked suicide note IMO as the conjecture of statements point the finger at her for a reason. Does she not realise this, Plan B. I would be very scared now. If such elements were involved.

by pieface 23.03.17 19:54

John Reid.
He was Home Secretary when Maddie went missing.
He is a former chairman of Celtic Football Club.
Gerry McCann is a former employee of the aforementioned club.

by NickE 23.03.17 21:32

Is there any known connection between the Liecester east MP Keith Waz and Gerry McCann.?

Keith Vaz worked as a junior minister in Derry Irvine’s’ Lord Chancellor’s Department.

Derry Irvine has very close links to the security services
Keith Vaz is close to Tony Blair, Theresa May and police chief Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Top level support rushed to help the McCanns? %2521%2521%2521%2521%2BTheresa-May-MP-with-Keith-Vaz-MP

Top level support rushed to help the McCanns? %2521%2521%2521%2521%2BTheresa-May-MP-with-Keith-Vaz-MP

by petunia 23.03.17 22:07

Why would Gerry need to be carried out to safety??

by Guest 24.03.17 0:57

Ellie wrote: With two people who became concerned about the case, each having met a strangely unexpected and unlikely self-inflicted death, Gerry may not feel too safe.

Can you explain this please?

by Ellie 30.03.17 22:37

Ellie here, i appreciate your responses many thanks. The reference to Gerry not feeling too safe was rather cynical but had some truth in that many people, myself included, are very upset by the two deaths of the people who became interested in what happened to Madeleine. If Gerry has to be looked after for some bizarre reason, say by MI5, then he has to be careful to do what they say, considering how easily the "difficult" people have been dealt with. I was probably going out on a rather wide and convoluted whim though.
My main question is how did the top level help arrive so quickly? There is very sound evidence that Interpol had been to the flat before the local Police arrived and Interpol are based in Lisbon which I think is up to 2 hours away. This means they had advanced notice before Kate gave the shout.

by Ellie 30.03.17 22:43

Ellie here, I just wanted to say to @Verdi that it wasn't me answering you above. I don't know yet how this forum works but i appreciate your answer, thanks!

by whatsupdoc 30.03.17 22:46

Ellie wrote:Ellie here, i appreciate your responses many thanks. The reference to Gerry not feeling too safe was rather cynical but had some truth in that many people, myself included, are very upset by the two deaths of the people who became interested in what happened to Madeleine. If Gerry has to be looked after for some bizarre reason, say by MI5, then he has to be careful to do what they say, considering how easily the "difficult" people have been dealt with. I was probably going out on a rather wide and convoluted whim though.
My main question is how did the top level help arrive so quickly? There is very sound evidence that Interpol had been to the flat before the local Police arrived and Interpol are based in Lisbon which I think is up to 2 hours away. This means they had advanced notice before Kate gave the shout.

I , also , have read that a local saw police arrive around 2200 on May 3rd 2007 and leave PdL a few minutes later. I don't know where the police came from and who they were.

I would think the PJ know the answers.

by Sam S 31.03.17 13:10

In my own opinion, the reason that they received such prompt and very, very high level support is that the good doctors are not the ones that are really being protected.

by Cmaryholmes 31.03.17 13:31

Sam S wrote:In my own opinion, the reason that they received such prompt and very, very high level support is that the good doctors are not the ones that are really being protected.

Got to be correct, Sam, it is more than the fear of being sued that keeps the mainstream media quiet. Huge news organisations have the resources to fight libel suits. They are protecting someone. Finding out who and why is the key to opening this case wide open. IMO