Risk and reward - The very high stakes in the Madeleine McCann cover-up

by Bob Dallius 23.05.17 10:49

Morning all,

This is my first post here, but I've been following this excellent forum for a while and I'm a long-time fan of Richard D Hall.
I just figured I'd throw my thoughts into the arena.

Whenever I come across a conspiracy like this (and this is the dictionary definition of a conspiracy, not a disparaging remark like the MSM would have you believe) - I immediately think:-

- How big a risk is there of being found out?
- How big are the potential rewards of not being found out?

The narrative and supporting lies which have been told in this case were so flimsy from the off ("the window was jemmied!", "we only left the toddlers unsupervised for a few hours...!") that immediately the risk of exposure was high.
From there the amount of real heavyweight powers that muscled in increased the risk exponentially - Get'em's list of names today highlighted this fact to me.

Over time this risk of exposure has only increased.

In terms of the rewards, the McCann's have raised millions for their "not-a-charity" - but for the likes of Blair, Brown, Clarence Mitchell, Carter-Ruck et al, the rewards are less clear to define.
While the damage caused to them personally if the truth ever came out, would be nothing less than catastrophic!

The only conclusion I can imagine in this case, is that it all supports the theory that there is a secret in the middle of this and that keeping this secret hidden IS the reward for these people.

Now, just think for a moment how huge and terrible this secret must be for all of these powerful people to keep this pretence up and keep ploughing resources in - for all this time...!

And it would be remiss of me if I didn't mention that the victim in this was Madeleine, justice for her must take a back seat to keep this secret from ever being exposed.

Those are some of my thoughts, I'd appreciate yours.

Bob

==============

An excellent and very thought-provoking first post here - thank you - A Moderator

by Phoebe 23.05.17 12:18

Hi Bob and welome. smilie

IMO the rewards and risks are clear. If the McCanns had been found in anyway responsible for Madeleine's death they would have possibly faced charges, and a possible prison sentence which could have ruined their reputations and careers. They have avoided this, part 1 of their reward. They raised millions through the fund and suing newspapers and became tragic celebrities, mixing with the great and good and allowing Kate to quit work, Part 2 of their reward. Carter-Ruck have been on a nice little earner - obvious reward and free advertising (not that they really needed it) That's their reward. Clarence was unsure of his job after Blair left. He got one from the McCs which paid nicely and boosted his career profile. That's his reward. Blair and Brown portrayed themselves as the caring face of politics, helping stricken Brits abroad while simultaneously protecting the reputation of gov. N.H.S. employees who were looking bad internationally. That was their initial reward. With such unequivocal support from the British top powers at the beginning, withdrawing now would leave the establishment looking extremely stupid. That is their risk and extracting themselves while saving face is the task of Op. Grange. If the latter succeeds that will be their reward for wasting so much tax-payers money. All I.M.O. of course.

by Fliptop 23.05.17 13:48

From the governments standpoint I'd go along with Blair &Co simply seeing a high profile telegenic situation that was just their cup of tea, hence the deployment of Clarence Mitchell to look after their interests. From Mitchell's perspective I'd agree he was Blair's man and had no future when Brown took over a few weeks later, so jumping ship to the McCanns was probably a move taken after his self interest was dialled into the equation. As for Mr Brown, I would hazard a guess that his original involvement may well have been a sympathetic response to the tragic loss of his own daughter a few years earlier, rather than some political or Masonic intrigue.

by kaz 23.05.17 14:55

Fliptop wrote:From the governments standpoint I'd go along with Blair &Co simply seeing a high profile telegenic situation that was just their cup of tea, hence the deployment of Clarence Mitchell to look after their interests. From Mitchell's perspective I'd agree he was Blair's man and had no future when Brown took over a few weeks later, so jumping ship to the McCanns was probably a move taken after his self interest was dialled into the equation. As for Mr Brown, I would hazard a guess that his original involvement may well have been a sympathetic response to the tragic loss of his own daughter a few years earlier, rather than some political or Masonic intrigue.

Can't really go with your assessment here Fliptop . Presumably those in charge of the country are reasonably intelligent ( though I do have my doubts sometimes) I'm no brain of Britain but even on day one my doubts surfaced at the news of a three year old being abducted in the Algarve. An intelligent person like Blair would surely not get too involved on a personal level in the early stages to protect his own credibility should foul play be later revealed. As for Brown , again, I just don't see it. His loss and the McCanns' loss are not remotely similar. Even if intervention was requested from a McCann relative based on Nationality and acquaintance surely it would have been more prudent for Gordon Brown to wait for further developments ? So why?
Undoubtedly there is some big secret that transcends money acquisition ( most of the bit part players are already rich ) , power and in steady employment. It's a secret that stretches its tentacles throughout Society particularly the upper echelons and there is definitely a vested interest in keeping it under wraps. Could it be that if we Plebs knew too much about it , the world and the way it is all set up would be revealed to be distinctly unnerving ? No conspiracy theory here just an observation that the more the powerful cover up, the bigger the stakes have to be. I can imagine that the McCanns aren't too popular amongst the shakers and movers of this world . They have given us a glimpse into a shadowy world and the knowledge that we're going nowhere until we find out the truth must keep them awake at night.

by roy rovers 23.05.17 15:51

Hi Bob
Welcome etc.
Interesting post but I'm not sure I agree. IMHO there wasn't a single risk / reward assessment. It was a developing situation and we need to factor in how matters developed over time. At first an abduction story might have seemed like a risk worth taking (in order to salvage careers and avoid prison for the sake of the twins) if there had been (for example) a drug related death. As matters developed it became just to risky for the T9 to backtrack.
I favour the 'cock up' rather than the 'conspiracy' theory of history.

by kaz 23.05.17 16:32

roy rovers wrote:Hi Bob
Welcome etc.
Interesting post but I'm not sure I agree. IMHO there wasn't a single risk / reward assessment. It was a developing situation and we need to factor in how matters developed over time. At first an abduction story might have seemed like a risk worth taking (in order to salvage careers and avoid prison for the sake of the twins) if there had been (for example) a drug related death. As matters developed it became just to risky for the T9 to backtrack.
I favour the 'cock up' rather than the 'conspiracy' theory of history.

Quite possible but couldn't a drug related death have been passed off as an accident? A little girl mistakes drugs for Smarties ? The full blown abduction scenario seems like a hammer to crack a nut to me. Why the cover up by people who should know better? Why were they so willing to assist the McCanns ?

by Phoebe 23.05.17 16:46

A State-endorsed cover-up doesn't necessarily mean some dastardly secret shared by the powers of the State and the accused/suspected. In Ireland the State cover-up of the disappearance of 6yr old Mary Boyle continues to this day after forty years. Most here believe what is being covered up is the initial police reluctance to allow for a full investigation after political representations on behalf of the then prime suspect. To expose this now would bring the police force and politicians into disrepute so the cover-up continues.

by Bob Dallius 23.05.17 20:16

Some very interesting, and most welcome, opinions there.
Thank you.

For the record, I'm not going to be rubbishing other people's points one-by-one, even they differ from my own.
However... winkwink

only joking.

I approached this thread from the point of view that this wasn't just a plan, hurriedly thrown together around the tapas table in a blind panic.
I share the view that the tragedy occurred a few days beforehand. Phone calls were made, powerful people made decisions, "agents" and "assets" were deployed (Robert Murat) and an elaborate cover-up plan was put in place - before the 3rd of May.
It's fair to say I lean towards the "conspiracy" rather than the "cock-up".

The rewards for the McCanns in playing their parts is clear - not going to jail and lots of money to boot. I totally agree, they had no choice.

But I highly doubt the likes of Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck would see this escapade as a "nice little earner" - if all goes south and the truth revealed, £150,000 and a large legal bill would barely cover the potential damage.

And that's really the question isn't it?
If the McCanns came to you asking for you to be complicit in the cover-up and appear in countless interviews continuing the narrative year on year - would you?
What if the truth came out?
What would you stand to lose?

The fact that we're having this discussion here, on this forum, strongly suggests to me that the people involved in this case really need to be conducting "Risk Assessments".

Bob

by Liz Eagles 23.05.17 20:26

Here's a little tip Bob, never pre-explain your reasoning before delivering a heap of nothingness. It raises the hackles of those on the forum who are truly here to seek justice for Madeleine McCann.