Re: The Shutters

by jd 10.09.11 11:14

tigger wrote:
Arrogant, narcisistic people are rarely intelligent. These two also seem rather immature, stamping their little feet and shouting when they are questioned.
Perhaps Gerry messing with the shutters was to get al least some fingerprints on them so that the alleged ones from the burglar would not be missed.
In the bewk the shutters figure again and can be opened from outside.They're very unwilling to let go of them.
From time to time they do have some amusement value, sometimes they remind me of Wallace and Grommit, the way they're sitting in interviews.

Quite simply, get the McCanns to show us how to open these kind of shutters from the outside without ripping them apart and causing big permanent damage.....its impossible

by littlepixie 10.09.11 17:08

I am staying in a remote finca in Spain. When I arrived last Saturday I was given a security lecture by the property owner who has lived here 24 years. She instructed me to lower every shutter when going out and her words were "because They are IMPOSSIBLE" to break into.

Us Brits who are not used to these shutters were taken in with the lie that the shutters on 5a had been "jemmied" and that Maddie had been abucted through them, but anyone living in a Country that uses these shutters must have known straight away that it was BIG FAT lie, that only a Brit would believe.

by lj 10.09.11 17:42

I had these in the Netherlands as anti-theft protection and got a nice discount on my insurance for the same reason.

Where I live now they are called hurricane shutters, because in case of a hurricane they give more protection that boarding up.

I guess it would take a tormenta McCann to have them easily opened. Yeah right. They are really not that smart to make up such bad stories.

by **PeterMac** 10.09.11 18:19

Gradually people are begining to realise why they refused to return for a re-construction.
" So can you just show us the view you had of the apartment from the bar ? Thank you.
Could you now show us exactly where you were standing in the narrow lane when JT came past... Fine, thank you
And JT could you now walk past to demonstrate to us how they could not possibly have noticed you... Ah, yes. Quite.
Could you now show us how you opened the shutters from the outside. Oh, I see !
Would you be good enough to get into that nice shiny Police van waiting outside. You have the right to remain silent, ..... "

by jd 10.09.11 18:24

They are build sturdy and very strong and my Spanish friends would think nothing of having these shutters closed with the window behind open when going out, they are this secure and impossible to open from the outside. they are also good protectors of the strong sunlight too

by **PeterMac** 10.09.11 18:41

jd wrote:They are built sturdy and very strong and my Spanish friends would think nothing of having these shutters closed with the window behind open when going out, they are this secure and impossible to open from the outside. they are also good protectors of the strong sunlight too

And the sound every evening and every morning of them being closed and opened on a complex is shattering. It is a sort of ritual that everyone does at a particular time. As you say, in the summer it also happens at 3pm and 6pm for the siesta. It is as regular as Church bells being rung out across the town, or the local cockerel crowing at dawn. After a bit you stop noticing, - unless it is at the wrong time !

by jd 10.09.11 18:48

PeterMac wrote:
jd wrote:They are built sturdy and very strong and my Spanish friends would think nothing of having these shutters closed with the window behind open when going out, they are this secure and impossible to open from the outside. they are also good protectors of the strong sunlight too
And the sound every evening and every morning of them being closed and opened on a complex is shattering. It is a sort of ritual that everyone does at a particular time. As you say, in the summer it also happens at 3pm and 6pm for the siesta. It is as regular as Church bells being rung out across the town, or the local cockerel crowing at dawn. After a bit you stop noticing, - unless it is at the wrong time !

I tried every trick in the book to close those damn shutters as quietly as possible, you are so right the sound of them in a complex is shattering...imagine what the sound would be like if they were being ripped open from the outside!!

by Guest 10.09.11 19:36

lj wrote:I had these in the Netherlands as anti-theft protection and got a nice discount on my insurance for the same reason.

Where I live now they are called hurricane shutters, because in case of a hurricane they give more protection that boarding up.

I guess it would take a tormenta McCann to have them easily opened. Yeah right. They are really not that smart to make up such bad stories.

If it happened like they said, shutters & windows opening from outside without leaving a print or a mark why were Mark Warner & apt owner sued by the McCanns? I have it on good authority that they like lawsuits..

by **PeterMac** 10.09.11 22:36

I think, like one or two other things in this story, we can conclude ...

The shutters were NOT forced open. Jemmied, broken, opened from outside, or anything else.

And when we have all accepted that, we can examine the statements about the shutters, and can draw the proper conclusions from what was said, and from what was reported to have been said .

And then we can move on to the next piece of "evidence".

SY will be doing this as we speak. They are not fools.

by jd 11.09.11 3:07

PeterMac wrote:I think, like one or two other things in this story, we can conclude ...

The shutters were NOT forced open. Jemmied, broken, opened from outside, or anything else.

And when we have all accepted that, we can examine the statements about the shutters, and can draw the proper conclusions from what was said, and from what was reported to have been said .

And then we can move on to the next piece of "evidence".

SY will be doing this as we speak. They are not fools.

its not conclude, it is a fact that the shutters were NOT forced open. Jemmied, broken, opened from outside, or anything else. if they were we would have seen ripped up shutters as this is the only way to open them from the outside

by Gillyspot 11.09.11 3:38

And then remember once the "abductor" had forced/jemmied/broken the shutters open he had to contend with a locked window (openable only from the INSIDE). Hmm (Abductor- why not use the unlocked patio door that the mccanns conveniently left for you)?

by jd 10.01.12 22:44

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

01 May 2010 ? Sandra Felgueiras interviews McCanns in Portugal (April/May 2010)

KM Well, I remember that night very well. Well, I ran. I said, "Madeleine's gone. Someone's taken her."

SF Portuguese introduction

SF When you got into the apartment at 10pm and you didnt see Madeleine, you just ran shouting that she was missing. Weren't you afraid to leave Sean and Amelie behind? What crossed your mind?

KM Well first of all, I didn't just walk in and notice she'd gone. It was the fact that the door was open to the bedroom quite wide. When I went to close the door, it slammed and that's when I noticed that Madeleine was there. And then I thought had she wandered through to our bed, so I went through to our room and she wasn't there and then I went back in again. And ermm... And then I just literally flew round the apartment, once I realised that the window was open and the shutter was up. I flew round the apartment and I just flew. I don't know, I don't... You know, I just ran out, I mean, I knew I could be there in seconds and I just screamed as soon as I saw the table. I screamed.

SF Now when you look back, you realise it could be, could have been dangerous for Sean and Amelie to let them behind? No?

GM I don't think that's right and certainly in medical training, the first thing you get taught in an emergency situation is to call for help. That's part of, that gets drummed into you. laugh

SF So it was a natural reaction?

GM No, err... Its one of the things that should be considered for us but I think most people would react like that.

SF Did it ever cross your mind, Madeleine wouldn't be able to cross the door just looking after you, alone?

KM If I can just explain what I found. The shutters which had been down all week and when I went in and there was a gust that blew the curtains open, that's when I noticed that the shutter had been pulled up.

SF So you have no doubts, she was taken from the bed?

KM No doubts. A three-year old would not be able to do that.

GM If you are saying, "Is it theoretically possible that Madeleine left the apartment, then yes. Do we believe it and do we think she was capable of leaving the apartment the way it was found and by which exit did she leave, then absolutely not.

So there we have it: kate left the twins because anyone would have reacted the same, as its the first thing you are taught in an emergency is to call for help.....Ah I see now...right...erm....ok then

And we have kate flying around and detailing everything about the shutters being opened in May 2010, when we know this is not true and there was no evidence of a break in and they have since admitted

And why did they give an interview to Sandra when on 23 Aug 2007 they were going to sue her alleging she implied Kate could have murdered her daughter. Something that was never proved by the mccanns. I suspect Sandra got too close to the truth as the ones that do they want to sue

Back to Piers Morgan interview with the McCanns May 2011

Gerry: The first thing that went straight through my head and I think -- it was just disbelief. I said, she can't be there, she can't be there. And I was running to the apartment with Kate. And I've checked. And she said, I've checked, I've checked, she's not there.

"And I ran into the bedroom. And I found it just as Kate described. And when I saw that window pushed wide open and the shutter up, which we'd left down the whole week, it was horrible. And I -- lowered the shutter and I went through the front door. And I was able to lift the shutter from outside which –"

If the shutters had been down all week then presumably the window was also closed and locked all week, this is hinted at with Gerry’s explanation that he noticed the window was (apparently) wide open when he went into the children’s bedroom. It’s all very well saying that the shutters can be lifted from the outside but the ‘abductor’ would have to contend with the window, yet there was no sign of a break in. Neither Gerry nor Kate offer any explanation for that anomaly...they skip over what they can’t explain in their usual fashion.
Another oddity – only Kate’s fingerprints were found by forensics, not Gerry’s. If his fingerprints were not on the shutters then his explanation can only be a fabrication.

Piers gets down the nitty-gritty’s of the ‘no evidence of an intruder’:

Piers: Do you know that yet? Do you know -- is there any evidence how this person came in the room?

Gerry: I mean no doubt, there are a number of options. And --

Piers: No, actual evidence. There's nothing they could find to say this is unequivocally how this person came in?

Gerry: No. I mean, it's possible they came through the window. They could have come through the patio doors, although that was in sight of where we were dining. So I think that's probably less likely. For all we know, they could have had a key, you know, lots of people stayed in that apartment over years to the front door --

Lots of ‘could haves’ but (by Gerry’s admission) still no evidence to suggest there was ever an intruder in apartment 5a.

So we’re back to the abduction scenario only being the word of the McCann couple and the single sighting by one person – Jane Tanner, their friend – but no evidence.

by Liz Eagles 11.01.12 0:12

According to FP's rogatory statement when the police arrived they turned on the light in the kids' bedroom. So based on that information it suggests perhaps KM turned the light on in her whizz around the apartment and then turned it off or someone else in the apartment during the chaos thought it was a good idea to turn the light off (so as not to wake up the eerily quiet twins who didn't wake up with all the wailing perhaps). Why you wouldn't switch every light on in the apartment and scream your head off beggars belief. I don't think I'd have needed medical training Gerry to teach me how to scream for help given that my daughter was missing. I don't think I'd have run down to the Tapas bar and left my other kids alone but then that's what most people find difficult to understand.

by jd 11.01.12 9:26

Philomena McCann talks to Sky News 05 May 2007

Philomena says she has spoken to Gerry ''several times'' and she is still recounting the 'abductor through the window' scenario, when she says ''It is obvious that someone, with malicious intent, went through that window.'' Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns' spokesman, is eventually forced to admit that "There was no evidence of a break-in". Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa, spokesman for the investigation, has confided in British former Chief Inspector Albert Kirby that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with

When Ian Woods asks: ''Is there a temptation for them to get out and try and search themselves...'' Philomena replies: ''Yeah, well, I mean for Gerry and Kate they want to get out there, they want to search everything, they want to leave nothing unturned.'' - Yet Kate later admits, in the McCanns first interview with Jane Hill from the BBC, that she never actually did any physical searching. There are also no reports that Gerry ever searched beyond the first few immediate hours after Madeleine's disappearance.

Kate has made no official police statement related to the external searches (or, indeed, any events after the moment she entered the apartment at 10pm), other than, on 4th May, to echo Gerry's statement of the same day. This is, in itself, not surprising given it is clear that she did not participate in any external searches that night.

On 4th May, she describes how 'the group' searched in various locations - although, like Gerry, claims no direct involvement.

On 10th May, Kate was not interviewed.

On 6th September, Kate's statement only describes events up to the point where she enters the apartment at 10pm. The interview was suspended, as it was late, with the intention that it 'be continued on the next morning'. The next day, Kate declined to answer any questions.

Now wheres that page in the bewk where kate says how she jumped through hedges & hills searching that night

by rainbow-fairy 11.01.12 10:22

Two questions.
1)Aren't the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open, wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has happened EVERY time...

by jd 11.01.12 10:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:Two questions.
1)Aren't the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open, wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has happened EVERY time...

1) Yes....I know this first hand and have tested them myself. You would need something like a hydraulic jack to open from the outside and this would not only be extremely noisy but would cause substantial 'permanent' damage to the shutters. There was no damage to the shutters whatsoever

2) Yes

And if the apartment was being watched like we are led to believe, then any abductor would have seen them go in and out from the unlocked patio door....so this is how anyone would go in, why would they smash shutters with a huge risk of being caught when they can slip in quietly through the unlocked patio doors. And the mccanns could not see the apartment from the Tapas bar because there was a plastic covering around the restaurant to keep out the cold so being there you would know they could not see properly if at all....Plus its was dark and they were drunk

by russiandoll 11.01.12 14:28

rainbow-fairy wrote:Two questions.
1)Aren't
the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the
apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window
notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open,
wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the
bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has
happened EVERY time...

q2 of course the door would have slammed shut well before 10pm if the abduction had taken place at the time alleged.

and I never got why the shutters were down anyway. The weather was very cool at night[ remember Kate's extra layers]. There was a window that locked for security and curtains to close to keep out light. No need for shutters to be down. So why did Kate and some others in the group keep them closed all week? McCanns can't argue security, not when they left a patio door unlocked every evening.

by **Nina** 11.01.12 17:56

russiandoll wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Two questions.
1)Aren't
the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the
apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window
notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open,
wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the
bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has
happened EVERY time...

q2 of course the door would have slammed shut well before 10pm if the abduction had taken place at the time alleged.

and I never got why the shutters were down anyway. The weather was very cool at night[ remember Kate's extra layers]. There was a window that locked for security and curtains to close to keep out light. No need for shutters to be down. So why did Kate and some others in the group keep them closed all week? McCanns can't argue security, not when they left a patio door unlocked every evening.

Hi, you ask why leave shutters down.

They help to keep heat in or cold out. They muffle sound. They hide any silhouettes when the lights are on at night. They are a security against break ins [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . If you are either lazy or in a rush to get out to enjoy yourself maybe forgot or couldn't be bothered to raise and lower every day. They are noisy so maybe didn't want to annoy the neighbours.

Just a few, take your pick. We have shutters and these are some of the reasons I sometimes don't raise or lower every day.

by rainbow-fairy 11.01.12 18:01

Thank you, jd, for answering both my questions in the affirmative.
So, right off the bat, we have not one but TWO demonstrably false statements about the shutters and access to the apartment. So why would anyone believe a word they say?
Yet these two have the brass neck to try and sue everyone who dares to say they disbelieve the abduction fairytale! Un-be-lievable...

russiandoll, thank you for your answer also. Just to say I don't believe, not for one minute, that they EVER left those apartments unlocked.

by russiandoll 11.01.12 19:11

Nina wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Two questions.
1)Aren't
the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the
apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window
notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open,
wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the
bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has
happened EVERY time...

q2 of course the door would have slammed shut well before 10pm if the abduction had taken place at the time alleged.

and I never got why the shutters were down anyway. The weather was very cool at night[ remember Kate's extra layers]. There was a window that locked for security and curtains to close to keep out light. No need for shutters to be down. So why did Kate and some others in the group keep them closed all week? McCanns can't argue security, not when they left a patio door unlocked every evening.

Hi, you ask why leave shutters down.

They help to keep heat in or cold out. They muffle sound. They hide any silhouettes when the lights are on at night. They are a security against break ins [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . If you are either lazy or in a rush to get out to enjoy yourself maybe forgot or couldn't be bothered to raise and lower every day. They are noisy so maybe didn't want to annoy the neighbours.

Just a few, take your pick. We have shutters and these are some of the reasons I sometimes don't raise or lower every day.

I have put some of this in bold. It makes no sense for security if they claim to have regularly, including 3 May evening ,left patio door unlocked.
Weather not valid either, as it does not appear that mild to cool nights would need the shutters down .
It does not make sense does it according to their version of events, is what I was getting at?
AND YES....SO VERY NOISY THAT FOLKS IN NEIGHBOURING APARTMENTS WOULD HAVE HEARD THE DIN OF AN ABDUCTOR FORCING THEM ESP IF NOISY WHEN OPERATED NORMALLY!

by **Nina** 11.01.12 19:16

russiandoll wrote:
Nina wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Two questions.
1)Aren't
the shutters ONLY able to be raised by the pull cord INSIDE the
apartment (hence no entry possible from outside, 60x60cm window
notwithstanding!)
2)IF the window AND bedroom door were open,
wouldn't it be the case that the MINUTE the patio doors were opened, the
bedroom door would slam? I've experimented with this at home and it has
happened EVERY time...

q2 of course the door would have slammed shut well before 10pm if the abduction had taken place at the time alleged.

and I never got why the shutters were down anyway. The weather was very cool at night[ remember Kate's extra layers]. There was a window that locked for security and curtains to close to keep out light. No need for shutters to be down. So why did Kate and some others in the group keep them closed all week? McCanns can't argue security, not when they left a patio door unlocked every evening.

Hi, you ask why leave shutters down.

They help to keep heat in or cold out. They muffle sound. They hide any silhouettes when the lights are on at night. They are a security against break ins [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] . If you are either lazy or in a rush to get out to enjoy yourself maybe forgot or couldn't be bothered to raise and lower every day. They are noisy so maybe didn't want to annoy the neighbours.

Just a few, take your pick. We have shutters and these are some of the reasons I sometimes don't raise or lower every day.

I have put some of this in bold. It makes no sense for security if they claim to have regularly, including 3 May evening ,left patio door unlocked.
Weather not valid either, as it does not appear that mild to cool nights would need the shutters down .
It does not make sense does it according to their version of events, is what I was getting at?
AND YES....SO VERY NOISY THAT FOLKS IN NEIGHBOURING APARTMENTS WOULD HAVE HEARD THE DIN OF AN ABDUCTOR FORCING THEM ESP IF NOISY WHEN OPERATED NORMALLY!

Whoops Russiandoll, I wasn't trying to annoy you so no need to shout at me. I was merely as a shuttered home owner trying to give some reasons why I would leave shutters down.

by russiandoll 11.01.12 19:46

capitals only used to highlight something I thought important.
I now understand you were looking at this issue from your point of view[ makes perfect sense].....I was highlighting why it makes no sense from the point of view of the McCann story![ no sense= not true]

by **Nina** 11.01.12 20:08

russiandoll wrote:capitals only used to highlight something I thought important.
I now understand you were looking at this issue from your point of view[ makes perfect sense].....I was highlighting why it makes no sense from the point of view of the McCann story![ no sense= not true]

Exactly Russiandoll. those are reasons innocent reasons for keeping the shutters down, except two which could be less innocent, noise and silhouette maybe?

Glad you weren't shouting at me [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by beejay 12.01.12 17:02

I've just re-read this thread and to my mind, it highlights again that the checking-on-children story was a complete sham.

I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but the fact that all the McCann relatives back in the UK immediately put out the same bogus version of forced entry into a locked apartment to all the media shows that Kate & Gerry were desperate to convey the message that they were not negligent. I think this is the underlying theme behind all their early actions - they were engaged in a cover-up because they were scared stiff that they might be prosecuted or tabloid-bashed as bad parents who were responsible for the abduction of their child.

This is also the glue that holds together all the Tapas 9 because the others were also just as culpable for leaving their kids unattended while they went out at night and they all feared the same treatment so they contrived a story to try to prove that they were being responsible, carrying out regular checks and making out that the restaurant was in sight of the flats etc.

I'm not so convinced that they actually did cover-up the unexplained death of Madeleine in the apartment. Maybe they did but it's difficult to imagine how such a pretence could hold up and I think, on balance, they or one of the Tapas 7 would have broken by now. The McCanns have somehow managed to emerge as saints and modern day icons of loving parents and they play the role of wronged victims very well. But I bet the guilt is with them constantly and all that they do now is to try to maintain this facade. I don't believe for a moment that they think Madeleine is still alive.

I can't explain the dogs and other mystifying aspects of the case but no-one on here (so far as I have found) has yet been able to construct a genuinely plausible theory as to what happened to Madeleine - how she died and how they managed to dispose of her body without detection. Some of the other outlandish theories about freemasons and people in high places don't wash frankly and far too much energy is wasted on these red herrings on the forum.

I think it's enough that the McCanns should be represented for what they are - disgraced parents who lost their child through their own negligence and self-serving indulgence who cared more about their own image and standing in society than the poor tot who they abandoned each night. That can surely be proved but I doubt very much that they will ever be brought to book for more than that. It sickens me that the press and the media in general in this country project them as blameless and put them on a pedestal so they can lecture us all on parenthood and my focus would be on changing these utterly reprehensible perceptions.

Thankfully, whenever the McCanns resurface and a newspaper prints another glorifying article on them, the comments section is overwhelmingly negative and this suggests that the British people are not as gullible as the press imagine us to be.

I'm not trying to be provocative towards any posters on this forum, these are merely my own thoughts and ramblings and I do not make any judgements on other people's profoundly held convictions perhaps, as I've intimated, with the exception of the more fanciful concepts.

by russiandoll 12.01.12 17:27

Do you believe, then, that Madeleine was abducted as claimed? I infer from your post that you believe the children were left alone, were not checked as claimed, and that the child was taken by a stranger.
I am not being argumentative, but wondering what you think happened to her.

by beejay 12.01.12 20:36

russiandoll wrote:Do you believe, then, that Madeleine was abducted as claimed? I infer from your post that you believe the children were left alone, were not checked as claimed, and that the child was taken by a stranger.
I am not being argumentative, but wondering what you think happened to her.

The straight answer is I don't know, I have an open mind. Like many people who have intermittently followed the case I have wavered from one theory to another but I have never managed to convince myself that there is a synopsis out there that fits all the circumstances.

What I do have is a set of beliefs on one side and some areas that I discount on the other. I do believe, therefore, that the children were left alone while the parents went out each night and that they exaggerated the checks. I think they panicked when something happened to Madeleine and spun a tale to disguise the fact that they were out partying when they should have been looking after their tots. I reckon there is a very good chance that all the children were systematically sedated so the children would not wake up and spoil their adult time - which is another element in the glue that cemented them together. Their conflicting and ever-changing testimonies are a product of this spin, it's not easy to tell lies as part of a group and it's human nature to embellish a lie so some of them kept digging bigger holes. They attempted to reduce the time available for whatever happened to Madeleine to a minimum so it would look like they were being responsible and were simply unfortunate. In the process they built a schedule full of holes that we have all picked to pieces.

I don't believe that there was any planning involved in Madeleine's disappearance. It just happened. I don't subscribe to the view that they were assisted in covering up her disappearance through friends in high places or a secret society. They just happened to be photogenic, middle class, professionals and part of the middle England that produced good copy for the readership of our useless press.

I think that the McCanns know a hell of a lot more about what happened to Madeleine than they have revealed. I also think they are nasty, vindictive and calculating but they are not murderers. I reckon Amaral would have found the truth if he had been allowed more time and they were saved when they were allowed to fly home because politically, it was easier for the case to be dropped.

If someone can fill in the gaps I would be eternally grateful but I doubt we will ever know the real truth. I just hope that enough emerges to discredit them so they do not continue their relentless march to sainthood.

by rainbow-fairy 12.01.12 22:11

Beejay, I don't wish to seem impolite or in your words 'provocative', but can I respectfully ask you why you find the idea of protection, by freemasons or others, as being 'outlandish'? They are not an urban myth, they exist and one of their obligations is to 'cover the crime of fellow masons, even if perjury results'.
Frankly, I find it more outlandish that the McCanns have been left alone for the reasons you have intimated - that they are middle class and photogenic. What tosh! That group have friends in high places, and IMO have serious s**t on some of them too...
You say you think Amaral would've solved it 'had he been allowed to carry on' and that the shelving was political, so what is that if not a cover-up, damage limitation at minimum. You can't have it both ways!
If anyone is in any doubt that the McCanns are protected, they only have to look to the Leveson Inquiry - Kate lied under oath and perjured herself. 99% of the population just wouldn't get away with that and you have to ask - WHY?
I for one have never seen a plausible abduction theory, indeed there is no independent evidence. Plenty exists that points to death and concealment, OTOH...

by Liz Eagles 12.01.12 22:24

rainbow-fairy wrote:Beejay, I don't wish to seem impolite or in your words 'provocative', but can I respectfully ask you why you find the idea of protection, by freemasons or others, as being 'outlandish'? They are not an urban myth, they exist and one of their obligations is to 'cover the crime of fellow masons, even if perjury results'.
Frankly, I find it more outlandish that the McCanns have been left alone for the reasons you have intimated - that they are middle class and photogenic. What tosh! That group have friends in high places, and IMO have serious s**t on some of them too...
You say you think Amaral would've solved it 'had he been allowed to carry on' and that the shelving was political, so what is that if not a cover-up, damage limitation at minimum. You can't have it both ways!
If anyone is in any doubt that the McCanns are protected, they only have to look to the Leveson Inquiry - Kate lied under oath and perjured herself. 99% of the population just wouldn't get away with that and you have to ask - WHY?
I for one have never seen a plausible abduction theory, indeed there is no independent evidence. Plenty exists that points to death and concealment, OTOH...

That is perfect Rainbow, however I think the Mc's aren't so clever and now that protection is dictating their lives. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever. I find the whole case disgusting but they are definitely out of their depth imo with the machine that drives them. I can only hope they find the courage to tell the truth. I pray they will do that no matter the consequences.

by beejay 12.01.12 23:34

rainbow-fairy wrote:Beejay, I don't wish to seem impolite or in your words 'provocative', but can I respectfully ask you why you find the idea of protection, by freemasons or others, as being 'outlandish'? They are not an urban myth, they exist and one of their obligations is to 'cover the crime of fellow masons, even if perjury results'.
Frankly, I find it more outlandish that the McCanns have been left alone for the reasons you have intimated - that they are middle class and photogenic. What tosh! That group have friends in high places, and IMO have serious s**t on some of them too...
You say you think Amaral would've solved it 'had he been allowed to carry on' and that the shelving was political, so what is that if not a cover-up, damage limitation at minimum. You can't have it both ways!
If anyone is in any doubt that the McCanns are protected, they only have to look to the Leveson Inquiry - Kate lied under oath and perjured herself. 99% of the population just wouldn't get away with that and you have to ask - WHY?
I for one have never seen a plausible abduction theory, indeed there is no independent evidence. Plenty exists that points to death and concealment, OTOH...

Rainbow, you are entitled to your opinion but no, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. The McCanns have played the system extremely well and as I said earlier, they have reached iconic celebrity status and can get away with things. For you to be right and they are being "protected" would have to involve the entire press corps for starters which I do believe is improbable. With friends like C-R no-one is going to print allegations about Kate telling lies under oath but that doesn't mean there is a secret society behind them and personally I don't buy that.

by jd 13.01.12 0:53

deejay wrote: Rainbow, you are entitled to your opinion but no, I don't believe in conspiracy theories. The McCanns have played the system extremely well and as I said earlier, they have reached iconic celebrity status and can get away with things. For you to be right and they are being "protected" would have to involve the entire press corps for starters which I do believe is improbable. With friends like C-R no-one is going to print allegations about Kate telling lies under oath but that doesn't mean there is a secret society behind them and personally I don't buy that.

I agree with you here to a certain extent, yes they have played the system well (with a big helping hand from others guiding them) and they have reached that status to get away with things. But considering they literally have every one in a position of power pandering at their feet & to their every whim when you only have to read the facts & complete contradictions to their story to see clearly and logically they are lying, then yes they are being 'protected'...why would these people in position of power behave like they do otherwise

As for the press, all the reporters and the like are dead scared of their own careers and livelihoods to earn money to pay the rent and food for their families, so they may not be 'part of' the protection but their grave fears means they will corporate.

The same stories that appeared in the British press were also in the Portuguese press but the mccanns never once tried to sue the Portuguese press, why?....because in the UK they could sue for 10 x 100,000's but in Portugual the same would only gain them a mere £3000. The point being apart from the obvious financially gain, if they are truly this upset what is in the press then they would go for both not just the UK but they didn't do this, they went for the money as they always do....they never behave nor take action with the distress that they bleat to the UK media they are under.....follow the money trail