Re: Forensic linguistics -

by **tigger** 18.01.12 18:53

I rather thought it was the rogatory interview, all of them are well worth reading. Not for information but amusement. You know. Well, I expect, you know. errm, You know - these errrm interviews, were, were, errrm, I think, you know, around April 2008.

by Praia 18.01.12 19:38

Tigger the RI are VERY useful. We can see what statement's they change from the May 07 ones. It shows collusion and what "story" they had decided to stick too, to many to mention but eg in May DW saw nobody when she and the Payne's went to dinner, nobody came looking for them. Oops, MO went to hurry them along and listen at the window of 5A. The check's never happened but they obviously had to cover MO absence from the table at nine o clock.
Where they change their answer's from May 07 means their answer's covered an important part of the story.
The PJ prepared the QUESTION'S carefully so we need to look at the possible reasoning behind them.

by **tigger** 18.01.12 20:33

[quote="Praia"]Tigger the RI are VERY useful. We can see what statement's they change from the May 07 ones. It shows collusion and what "story" they had decided to stick too, to many to mention but eg in May DW saw nobody when she and the Payne's went to dinner, nobody came looking for them. Oops, MO went to hurry them along and listen at the window of 5A. The check's never happened but they obviously had to cover MO absence from the table at nine o clock.
Where they change their answer's from May 07 means their answer's covered an important part of the story.
The PJ prepared the QUESTION'S carefully so we need to look at the possible reasoning behind them.[/quote

You're right of course, what was most amusing about the T7 were the three timelines, the two hammered out on the 3rd evidently didn't work, so I think DP cobbled one together which ran to three typewritten sheets which he copied out for each of the T7. They were surprised when the PJ didn't let them use this crib sheet at the 7/5 interviews. All along the PJ didn't play the role they'd hoped, the sardine munching drunks. Tut, tut.
It actually infuriates me every time I think of it, superior Doctors, chavs the lot of them! None of them would be out of place in Eastenders.

by Advocatus 19.01.12 6:15

Great thread tigger! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

"tigger" With kind permission from the poster on MM I'm copying this here. It is just one example of many where the McCanns seemingly let the truth shine through. Sticking to a lie is very hard to do, the brain often refuses to cooperate.

Below is relevant to the Vanity Fair interview - in 2007 I believe.

Re: 'Disposing of a child's body' Gerry McCann

Wintabells wrote:
“But I can’t talk to you about the details of what happened. I live under threat from the Portuguese—if I do talk—of two years’ imprisonment.” He smiles grimly. “It seems to be the same sentence as disposing of a child’s body.”

Sorry to bang on about this, but I think he slipped up here.

Gerry may as well be saying 'Look. Two years in prison, is what I'm trying to avoid - so telling you anything about the case is going to result in me going to prison for breaking judicial secrecy - so at that rate, I may as well tell you the truth about the part I played'.

Agreed! But they DID get around all the Judicial Secrecy by having Clarrie and the whole CLAN talk to the controlled and docile media on their behalf! As we all know. And Portugal did NOTHING ABOUT IT! I'm sorry to say but Portugal is riddled with masons too, and I have some photographic proof of cops within the PJ doing the old masonic funny handshake fandango. Recent photos, which you will probably all have seen. But onwards.

And I believe he knew he'd made a slip up. 'It seems' sounds like an attempt to water down what would have been the original thought in his head ... 'It's the same sentence as disposing of a child's body'. And the expression, 'smiles grimly' is doubtless inaccurate. How does one smile grimly?

Very good point. But Gerry manages it, see below!!! LOL, Gerry does it all the time. His face is like plasticine, play dough, he is clearly showing all the signs of a psychopath (hey, only a psychopath would make the following comment:

In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)

Due to this 'condition', psychopaths can't seem to hide anything. Inwardly (possibly/allegedly) he wants to scream, I think, YIPPEE! We've got away with it! ("Although we miss Maddie, we understand nothing lasts forever." - "They've got nothing on us!" - "Ask the dogs Sandra.")

Outwardly (possibly/allegedly)he knows he must remain a mask. Here's one bizarre photo, smiling grimly, or at least not knowing what to do. Psychopaths are never quite sure, so they copy what they others are doing, or what normal people WOULD do in the same situation, and invariably they get it wrong:

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

Here's another, smiling grimly...:

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

And another, half-way:

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

And another, half-way:

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

And another!!! (half way, not quite sure what to do...this one is almost a secret kiss to Leveson [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] )

Sorry, just a little levity there! with the last one [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

have we ever seen Gerry smile grimly? No.

I think sort of, see above. Well, he's afraid to be photographed smiling at all. So what comes out is anyone's guess. He is faking everything, apart from his lapses (some of which *may* be cunningly faked too), which is what this excellent thread is all about!

He smiled at the irony of his situation. He's looking at 2 years for breaking judicial secrecy (ie. revealing the pack of lies he's told the police to the Vanity Fair interviewer)

Trouble is, Portugal seems to be manyana-land, nobody seems to want to crack the whip, so contempt of court for the McCanns is something of a joke. Anything they want said, gets said, by the clan, mysterious 'advisors', Clarence etc etc etc. No comebacks.

...and he's looking at 2 years for revealing the truth.

In his interview with Ian Woods Gerry's makes a similar kind of comment [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

GMcC: If we did we wouldn’t tell you [laughs]

This moment in his Vanity Fair inteview, as far as I'm concerned, is the most revealing moment of them all. The unconscious mind cannot be supressed. My theory goes like this: Whatever happened to change Madeleine from a living child to a 'body' was not his doing. Disposal, however, was.
unquote

Great! Wintabells, I hadn't come across that one yet, or missed it. On a par with 'there's no evidence to implicate us in Madeleine's death' .
But I agree 100% with your analysis, forensic linguistics, in fact, why should that information be hanging around in his brain?
It was hanging around in his brain because (possibly/allegedly) some corrupt officer from either CEOP or the LP gave him all the CEOP manuals! Gerry was BONING UP on all kinds of normally totally off-limits Police stuff.

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

"Evenin' all.

Yes the manuals, courtesy of whom I wonder, a corrupt (possibly/allegedly) CEOP or the corrupt (possibly/allegedly) Leicester plod? Takes your pick.

As you say, apart from not wanting to be in the same room as the wee XXX, I don't think I would trust myself to be so.

Regarding
your two choices of thought, it has to be the former because quite
frankly he's had enough XXX' rope to rig the Cuttty Sark and still
have enough left over for a bondage session.

We must never even think of considering that the wee man and the position he finds himself in today is by one of chance.

The
position he finds himself in is due to one thing only, corruption (possibly/allegedly). I
don't know how high up it starts, nor do I know at what level it
finishes, but what I do know is Leicester plod (possibly/allegedly)is smack bang in the
middle of it.

I get tired of drawing the same conclusion, LP are
either so XXX stupid that they can't see what's going on, or
they're so XXX (possibly/allegedly)bent they don't want to see what's going on.

It's why, unless some private enterprise nails them with irrefutable evidence, that I think they will get away with it.

Can
you imagine what the LP and this case would look like to an outside
police force? stroll on! they'd take one look at Leicester plod and say,
are you so XXX stupid that you can't see what's going on, or are
you so XXX (possibly/allegedly)bent you don't want to see what's going on.

But that, judging by what has come to pass so far, ain't going to happen.

Drive
on McCanns, no matter that you've XXX XXXXXXXXXXX, taken the XXX out of everything and everybody, Leicester XXX plod will continue to ignore what must be apparent to five year
old, just as they will continue to sit on their fat (possibly/allegedly)corrupt XXX XXX and carry on in the manner that which they have become accustomed,
the one they have so clearly demonstrated, past and present."

It wasn't relevant to an abducted girl which should have been foremost in his mind. No, it was a big slip-up.

tigger

Ahh yes, the camera does not lie. Or the microphone. (possibly/allegedly)

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

by Guest 19.01.12 9:56

Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

by russiandoll 19.01.12 14:18

To be fair to Gerry [ yes, it is difficult] but more importantly to be accurate when quoting, his remark did not compare his reaction to discovering his child had vanished to the feeling he would have if he found out he was overdrawn at the bank

here is your quote advocatus :

In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)

and here is the interview with Ian Woods from Sky News :
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you
as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a
week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could
not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength
come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and
what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so
much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we
discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but,
you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to
get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the
scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The
response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us
thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to
focus on what we really needed to focus on.
Please take care when attributing words to the couple that were not said, it makes this forum look silly and gives ammunition to those who criticise our debates.

by Advocatus 19.01.12 16:27

russiandoll wrote:To be fair to Gerry [ yes, it is difficult] but more importantly to be accurate when quoting, his remark did not compare his reaction to discovering his child had vanished to the feeling he would have if he found out he was overdrawn at the bank

here is your quote advocatus :
In 2007, Dr Gerald McCann was asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied:

“It was like being told you were overdrawn on your student loan”.)
and here is the interview with Ian Woods from Sky News :
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you
as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a
week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could
not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength
come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and
what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so
much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we
discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but,
you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to
get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the
scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The
response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us
thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to
focus on what we really needed to focus on.
Please take care when attributing words to the couple that were not said, it makes this forum look silly and gives ammunition to those who criticise our debates.

Hi,

I agree it is very important to be accurate, see my sig line! lol4

I'm a afraid I got the quote from the MF 163 questions booklet and the MF 50 questions booklet...

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

q86

[color:f6ef=000000]In
2007, Dr Gerald
McCann was asked to
comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been abducted,
and replied: “It was like
being told you were
overdrawn on your student loan”. In what ways is the abduction of your
child comparable with finding
yourself overdrawn on a
student loan?

q40

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

39.
On 24 August 2007, Gerry McCann, in a Scottish TV interview, said: “In
fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so
much rumour about what did and didn’t happen, it’s actually very
difficult, if you’re reading the newspapers, watching TV, to know what
is true and what’s not”.

40.
Asked to comment on his reaction at learning that Madeleine had been
abducted, Dr Gerald McCann said: “It was like being told you were
overdrawn on your student loan”.

41.
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ spokesman, said in September 2007:
“There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may
or may not have found”

lol4

Now looks like sig line may be annacurate too! lol4

[color:f6ef=000000]

by Advocatus 19.01.12 16:37

Stella wrote:Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

I had to brace myself, count to 100, and have a very stiff drink before using all those XXXs~~~!!! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

AS an aside I recently read the lead Detective's resignation letter, he hit all the road blocks that Goncala seems to have too, as you say it was all totally corrupt at the upper levels:

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

in case it gets WHOOSHED here it is:

August 6, 1998

Chief Beckner,

On June 22, I submitted a letter to Chief Koby, requesting a leave of
absence from the Boulder Police Department. In response to persistent
speculation as to why I chose to leave the Ramsey investigation, this
letter explains more fully those reasons. Although my concerns were well
known for some time, I tried to be gracious in my departure, addressing
only health concerns. However, after a month of soul searching and
reflection, I feel I must now set the record straight.

The primary reason I chose to leave is my belief that the district
attorney's office continues to mishandle the Ramsey case. I had been
troubled for many months with many aspects of the investigation. Albeit
an uphill battle of a case to begin with, it became a nearly impossible
investigation because of the political alliances, philosophical
differences, and professional egos that blocked progress in more ways,
and on more occasions, than I can detail in this memorandum. I and
others voiced these concerns repeatedly. In the interest of hoping
justice would be served, we tolerated it, except for those closed door
sessions when detectives protested in frustration, where fists hit the
table, where detectives demanded that the right things be done. The
wrong things were done, and made it a manner of simple principle that I
could not continue to participate as it stood with the district
attorney's office. As an organization, we remained silent, when we
should have shouted.

The Boulder Police Department took a handful of detectives days after
the murder, and handed us this case. As one of those five primary
detectives, we tackled it for a year and a half. We conducted an
exhaustive investigation, followed the evidence where it led us, and
were faithfully and professionally committed to this case. Although not
perfect, cases rarely are. During eighteen months on the Ramsey
investigation, my colleagues and I worked the case night and day, and in
spite of tied hands. On June 1-2, 1998, we crunched thirty thousand
pages of investigation to its essence, and put our cards on the
table, delivering the case in a formal presentation to the district
attorney's office. We stood confident in our work. Very shortly
thereafter, though, the detectives who know this case better than anyone
were advised by the district attorney's office that we would not be
participating as grand jury advisory witnesses.

The very entity with whom we shared our investigative case file to see
justice sought, I felt, was betraying this case. We were never afforded
true prosecutorial support. There was never a consolidation of
resources. All legal opportunities were not made available. How were we
expected to "solve" this case when the district attorney's office was
crippling us with their positions? I believe they were, literally,
facilitating the escape of justice. During this investigation, consider
the following:

During the investigation detectives would discover, collect, and bring
evidence to the district attorney's office, only to have it summarily
dismissed or rationalized as insignificant. The most elementary of
investigative efforts, such as obtaining telephone and credit card
records, were met without support, search warrants denied. The
significant opinions of nationalexperts were casually dismissed or
ignored by the district attorney's office, even the experienced FBI were
waved aside.

Those who chose not to cooperate were never compelled before a grand
jury early in this case, as detectives suggested only weeks after the
murder, while information and memories were fresh.

An informant, for reasons his own, came to detectives about conduct
occurring inside the district attorneys office, including allegations of
a plan intended only to destroy a man's career. We carefully listened.
With that knowledge, the department did nothing. Other than to alert the
accused, and in the process burn the two detectives [who captured that
exchange on an undercover wire, incidentally] who came forth with this
information. One of the results of that internal whistleblowing was
witnessing Detective Commander Eller, who also could not tolerate what
was occurring, lose his career and reputation undeservedly; scapegoated
in a manner which only heightened my concerns. It did not take much
inferential reasoning to realize that any dissidents were readily
silenced.

In a departure from protocol, police reports, physical evidence, and
investigative information was shared with Ramsey defense attorneys, all
of this in the district attorney's office "spirit of cooperation". I
served a search warrant, only to find later defense attorneys were
simply given copies of the evidence it yielded.

An FBI agent, whom I didn't even know, quietly tipped me off about what
the DA's office was doing behind our backs, conducting investigation the
police department was wholly unaware of.

I was advised not to speak to certain witnesses, and all but dissuaded
from pursuing particular investigative efforts. Polygraphs were
acceptable for some subjects, but others seemed immune from such
requests.

Innocent people were not "cleared", publicly or otherwise, even when it
was unmistakably the right thing to do, as reputations and lives were
destroyed.

Some in the district attorney's office, to this day, pursue weak,
defenseless, and innocent people in shameless tactics that one couldn't
believe more bizarre if it were made up.

I was told by one in the district attorney's office about being unable
to"break" a particular police officer from his resolute accounts of
events he had witnessed. In my opinion, this was not trial preparation,
this was an attempt to derail months of hard work.

I was repeatedly reminded by some in the district attorney's office just
how powerful and talented and resourceful particular defense attorneys
were. How could decisions be made this way?

There is evidence that was critical to the investigation, that to this
day has never been collected, because neither search warrants nor other
means were supported to do so. Not to mention evidence which still sits
today, untested in the laboratory, as differences continue about how to
proceed.

While investigative efforts were rebuffed, my search warrant affidavits
and attempts to gather evidence in the murder investigation of a six
year old child were met with refusals and, instead, the suggestion that
we "ask the permission of the Ramseys" before proceeding. And just
before conducting the Ramsey interviews, I thought it inconceivable I
was being lectured on "building trust".

These are but a few of the many examples of why I chose to leave. Having
to convince, to plead at times, to a district attorney's office to
assist us in the murder of a little girl, by way of the most basic of
investigative requests, was simply absurd.

When my detective partner and I had to literally hand search tens of
thousands of receipts, because we didn't have a search warrant to assist
us otherwise, we did so. But we lost tremendous opportunities to make
progress, to seek justice, and to know the truth. Auspicious timing and
strategy could have made a difference. When the might of the criminal
justice system should have brought all it had to bear on this
investigation, and didn't, we remained silent. We were trying to deliver
a murder case with hands tied behind our backs. It was difficult, and
our frustrations understandable. It was an assignment without chance of
success. Politics seemed to trump justice.

Even "outsiders" quickly assessed the situation, as the FBI politely
noted early on: "the government isn't in charge of this investigation."
As the nation watched, appropriately anticipating a fitting response to
the murder of the most innocent of victims, I stood bothered as to what
occurred behind the scenes. Those inside this case knew what was going
on. Eighteen months gave us a unique perspective.

We learned to ignore the campaign of misinformation in which we were
said to be bumbling along, or else just pursuing one or two suspects in
some ruthless vendetta. Much of what appeared in the press was
orchestrated by particular sources wishing to discredit the Boulder
Police Department. We watched the media spun, while we were prohibited
from exercising First Amendment rights. As disappointment and
frustration pervaded, detectives would remark to one another, "if it
reaches a particular point, I'm walking away."

But we would always tolerate it "just one more time." Last year, when we
discovered hidden cameras inside the Ramsey house, only to realize the
detectives had been unwittingly
videotaped, this should have rocked the police
department off its foundation. Instead, we
allowed that, too, to pass without challenge.

The detectives' enthusiasm became simply
resigned frustration, acquiescing to that
which should never have been tolerated. In the
media blitz, the pressure of the whole world
watching, important decisions seemed to be
premised on "how it would play" publicly.

Among at least a few of the detectives,
"there's something wrong here" became a catch
phrase. I witnessed others having to make
decisions which impacted their lives and
careers, watched the soul searching that
occurred as the ultimate questions were
pondered. As it goes, "evils that befall the
world are not nearly so often caused by bad
men, as they are by good men who are silent
when an opinion must be voiced." Although
several good men in the police department
shouted loudly behind closed doors, the
organization stood deafeningly silent at what
continued to occur unchallenged.

Last Spring, you, too, seemed at a loss.
I was taken aback when I was reminded of what
happened to Commander Eller when he stuck his
neck out. When reminded how politically
powerful the DA was. When reminded of the
hundreds of other cases the department had to
file with this district attorney's office, and
that this was but one case. And finally, when
I was asked, "what do you want done? The
system burned down?", it struck me dumb. But
when you conceded that there were those
inside the DA's office we had to simply
accept as "defense witnesses", and when we
were reduced to simply recording our
objections for "documentation purposes" -- I
knew I was not going to participate in this
much longer.

I believe the district attorney's office
is thoroughly compromised. When we were told
by one in the district attorney's office,
months before we had even completed our
investigation, that this case "is not
prosecutable," we shook our heads in
disbelief. A lot could have been forgiven, the
lesser transgressions ignored, for the right
things done. Instead, those in the district
attorney's office encouraged us to allow them
to "work their magic" (which I never fully
understood. Did that "magic" include sharing
our case file information with the defense
attorneys, dragging feet in evidence
collection, or believing that two decades of
used-car-dealing-style-plea-bargaining was
somehow going to solve this case?). Right and
wrong is just that. Some of these issues were
not shades of gray. Decision should have been
made as such. Whether a suspect a penniless
indigent with a public defender, or otherwise.

As contrasted by my experiences in
Georgia, for example, where my warrant
affidavits were met with a sense of support
and an obligation to the victim. Having worked
with able prosecutors in other jurisdictions,
having worked cases where justice was
aggressively sought, I have familiarity with
these prosecution professionals who hold a
strong sense of justice. And then, from
Georgia, the Great Lakes, the East Coast, the
South, I would return to Boulder, to again be
thoroughly demoralized.

We delayed and ignored, for far too long,
that which was "right", in deference of
maintaining this dysfunctional relationship
with the district attorney's office. This
wasn't a runaway train that couldn't be
stopped. Some of us bit our tongues as the
public was told of this "renewed cooperation"
between the police department and the district
attorney's office -- this at the very time the
detectives and those in the district
attorney's office weren't even on speaking
terms, the same time you had to act as a
liaison between the two agencies because the
detectives couldn't tolerate it. I was quite
frankly surprised, as you remarked on this
camaraderie, that there had not yet been a
fistfight.

In Boulder, where the politics, policies,
and pervasive thought has held for years, a
criminal justice system designed to deal with
such an event was not in place. Instead, we
had an institution that when needed most,
buckled. The system was paralyzed, as to this
day one continues to get away with murder.

Will there be a real attempt at justice?
I may be among the last to find out. The
department assigned me some of the most
sensitive and critical assignments in the
Ramsey case, including search warrants and
affidavits, the Atlanta projects, the
interviews of the Ramseys, and many other
sensitive assignments I won't mention. I
criss-crossed the country, conducting
interviews and investigation, pursuing
pedophiles and drifters, chasing and
discarding leads. I submitted over 250
investigative reports for this case alone. I'd
have been happy to assist the grand jury. But
the detectives, who know this case better than
anyone, were told we would not be allowed as
grand jury advisory witnesses, as is common
place. If a grand jury is convened, the
records will be sealed, and we will not
witness what goes on inside such a proceeding.

What part of the case gets presented, what
doesn't?

District Attorney Hunter's continued
reference to a "runaway" grand jury is also
puzzling. Is he afraid that he cannot control
the outcome? Why would one not simply present
evidence to jurors, and let the jury decide?

Perhaps the DA is hoping for a voluntary
confession one day. What's needed, though, is
an effective district attorney to conduct the
inquiry, not a remorseful killer.

The district attorney's office should be
the ethical and judicial compass for the
community, ensuring that justice is served --
or at least, sought. Instead, our DA has
becoming a spinning compass for the media. The
perpetuating inference continues that justice
is somehow just around the corner. I do not
see that occurring, as the two year
anniversary of this murder approaches.

It is my belief the district attorney's
office has effectively crippled this case. The
time for intervention is now. It is difficult
to imagine a more compelling situation for the
appointment of an entirely independent
prosecution team to be introduced into this
matter, who would oversee an attempt at
righting this case.

* * * * *

Unmistakably and worst of all, we have
failed a little girl named Jon Benet. Six
years old. Many good people, decent, innocent
citizens, are forever bound by the murder of
this child. There is a tremendous obligation
to them. But an infinitely greater obligation
to her, as she rests in a small cemetery far
away from this anomaly of a place called
Boulder.

A distant second stands the second
tragedy -- the failure of the system in
Boulder. Ask the mistreated prosecution
witnesses in this investigation, who
cooperated for months, who now refuse to talk
until a special prosecutor is established. Ask
former detectives who have quietly tendered
their shields in disheartenment. Ask all those
innocent people personally affected by this
case, who have had their lives upset because
of the arbitrary label of "suspect" being
attached. Ask the cops who cannot speak out
because they still wear a badge. The list is
long.

I know that to speak out brings its own
issues. But as you also know, there are others
who are as disheartened as I am, who are
biting their tongues, searching their
consciences. I know what may occur -- I may be
portrayed as frustrated, disgruntled. Not so.

I have had an exemplary and decorated thirteen
year career as a police officer and detective.

I didn't want to challenge the system. In no
way do I wish to harm this case or subvert the
long and arduous work that has been done. I
only wish to speak up and ask for assistance
in making a change. I want justice for a child
who was killed in her home on Christmas night.

This case has defined many aspects of all
our lives, and will continue to do so for all
of our days. My colleagues put their hearts
and souls into this case, and I will take some
satisfaction that it was the detective team
who showed tremendous efforts and loyalties to
seeking justice for this victim. Many
sacrifices were made. Families. Marriages. In
the latter months of the investigation, I was
diagnosed with a disease which will require a
lifetime of medication. Although my health
declined, I was resolved to see the case
through to a satisfactory closure. I did that
on June 1-2. And on June 22, I requested a
leave of absence, without mention of what
transpired in our department since Christmas
1996.

What I witnessed for two years of my life
was so fundamentally flawed, it reduced me to
tears. Everything the badge ever meant to me
was so foundationally shaken, one should never
have to sell one's soul as a prerequisite to
wear it. On June 26, after leaving the
investigation for the last time, and leaving
the city of Boulder, I wept as I drove home,
removing my detectives shield and placing it
on the seat beside me, later putting it in a
desk drawer at home, knowing I could never put
it back on.

There is some consolation that a greater
justice awaits the person who committed these
acts, independent of this system we call
"justice." A greater justice awaits. Of that,
at least, we can be confident.

As a now infamous author, panicked in the
night, once penned, "use that good southern
common sense of yours." I will do just that.

Originally from a small southern town where
this would never have been tolerated, where
respect for law and order and traditions were
instilled in me, I will take that murderous
author's out-of-context advice. And use my
good southern common sense to put this case
into the perspective it necessitates -- a
precious child was murdered. There needs to be
some consequence to that.

Regretfully, I tender this letter, and my
police career, a calling which I loved. I do
this because I cannot continue to sanction by
my silence what has occurred in this case. It
was never a fair playing field, the "game" was
simply unacceptable anymore. And that's what
makes this all so painful. The detectives
never had a chance. If ever there were a
case, and if ever there were a victim, who
truly meant something to the detectives
pursuing the truth, this is it. If not this
case, what case? Until such time an
independent prosecutor is appointed to oversee
this case, I will not be a part of this. What
went on was simply wrong.

I recalled a favorite passage recently,
Atticus Finch speaking to his daughter: "Just
remember that one thing does not abide by
majority rule, Scout -- it's your conscience."

At thirty-six years old, I thought my
life's passion as a police officer was carved
in stone. I realize that although I may have
to trade my badge for a carpenter's hammer, I
will do so with a clear conscience. It is with
a heavy heart that I offer my resignation from
the Boulder Police Department, in protest of
this continuing travesty.

[Signed]

Detective Steve Thomas #638
Detective Division
Boulder Police Department
August 6, 1998

by jd 19.01.12 16:37

Ian Woods from Sky News :
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a week or so where you looked as if you were almost broken and who could not understand that?

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

by Guest 20.01.12 8:31

Advocatus wrote:
Stella wrote:Great control there Advocatus, it really is much appreciated.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

As for other Police forces, the PJ are no different to the Boulder Police, where JonBenet Ramsey is concerned. Steve Thomas and his team wanted to nail them, but was prevented. Goncalo Amaral and his team wanted to nail the T9, but they were also prevented. It's what goes on in the upper echelons, is where the rot sits.

I had to brace myself, count to 100, and have a very stiff drink before using all those XXXs~~~!!!

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

AS an aside I recently read the lead Detective's resignation letter, he hit all the road blocks that Goncala seems to have too, as you say it was all totally corrupt at the upper levels:

Yes, thank you for that letter, I must get back into that case again at some point, the parallels are quite chilling. Reading that, you could not help but think of Goncalo Amaral and Lenny Harper and knowing what I do about JonBenet, I'm sick of hearing about paedophilia and politics in the same sentence. I might need to follow your tac with the counting and something strong soon. But not this time of the morning. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by sijm 20.01.12 14:32

Upon reading Kate's diary, I was more than alarmed when reading one of her entries 20th June 2007, at that time Gerry had been on a trip to London, incidentlaly there was an awful lot of publicity surrounded that trip,

1,His wallet was stollen.

2. The saving of a mans life when Gerry administered medical help on the plane to a man who had collapsed.

3. The third incident was when Kate picked up Gerry from the airport and a guy laid down in the middle of the road they were driving on, Kate says the guy recognised Gerry and her straight away, Oh really! Even when he was so drunk? So, was this why he laid down if front of their car, because he knew them?

By the way fearless Gerry on his own and in a foreign country takes a total stranger, who (appears?) paralytic drunk back to this drunks appartment, let along the controversy surrounding the family at that time of who was involved in Madeleine's disappearance, this guy could have been the abductor wanting to look into the pained faces of the McCanns, after he had fulfilled his sick roll 20th of June 2007?

Did Gerry ever tell the police about this guy and where the guys appartrment was, he should have, this man should be eliminated from the investigation?

Also begs a question, With all that publicity surrounding that one trip, could it have been a good alibi for some movement that had taken place at that time?

It appears this time June 20-22nd June was the most stressful time for the Kate as it shows in her diary entry that follows when alone with her thoughts she telephoned Ricardo.

"I want to speak to someone now. But its to late, I changed my mind and sent a text message to Ricardo. I don't know if it was a sensible idea, but I feell annoyed" (This was the time that Kate told Ricardo about Madeleine being on a hill)

If Madeliene's remains are ever found on or in that hill, could this be a case of psycholinguistics kicking in, perceived as an involuntary control, such as in having knowledge of something or as in being conscious of the extent of a problem , being aware of a wrongdoing?

Almost like a subconscious admission of guilt by the slip of the tongue maybe, (Madleine is on a slab on the hill)

by jd 20.01.12 14:55

I wonder if the "drunk" was doing his masonic calling to gerry?

by **tigger** 20.01.12 15:07

sijm wrote: quote
It appears this time June 20-22nd June was the most stressful time for the Kate as it shows in her diary entry that follows when alone with her thoughts she telephoned Ricardo. unquote

Very interesting sijm! I went into those two amazing day in some detail, quite some time ago.
1. saving a man's life on the plane. - the man was never interviewed, never heard of again, no media at all, no name, no incident report on the flight (which is mandatory) and it appeared the only authority for this story was Gerry himself in his blogs.
2. Gerry had his wallet stolen in two different places and this was relayed to the public via the usual source: philomena.
3. Gerry was picked up at the airport by in Portugal by (I think) Michael Wright and Kate. Near the church I believe they saw a drunk in the road, stopped the car, picked him up and took him to his apartment. Kate said: 'We've all been there.' (speak for yourself Healy). Now one poster thought and possibly the PJ too, that this was a cover in case they were seen visiting a certain apartment nearby.
It is known that the PJ had an interest in an apartment block near the church.

But your observation, that Kate was very stressed around that time- I wonder if was that the time Maddie was buried? (the hill, imo being quite far away).
So now we have not just Gerry having a rather busy time, but Kate being on her own phoning the police whilst Gerry is away.
Looks as if pressure was building and things weren't going their way. It was clearly necessary to lose the credit cards for a period of time.
The drunk might have been a cover, it's just saving the life of this guy no-one ever heard of before, during or since that's still a mystery.

by jd 20.01.12 15:24

What I don't understand about the credit cards is the PJ financial check shows he did not have any credit cards

There is a coverup of some sort for feeding the public he had credit cards stolen he never apparently owned..mmmmm

"saving a man's life on the plane. - the man was never interviewed, never heard of again, no media at all, no name, no incident report on the flight (which is mandatory) and it appeared the only authority for this story was Gerry himself in ~~his~~ the American blogs"....so true

by sijm 20.01.12 15:55

Hi Tigger

Am I right in thinking that GM was seen near Downing Street on that trip?

Could Gerry have been filling the empty coffers from hidden sources and with luck had it returned full of cash?

Could the drunk have been a payoff for services rendered when he got back, such as moving A to B?

All I know is I do not beleive in visons, just the brain untangling what activity it has experienced.

Kate stated when she and MO went for a run not long after Madeleine disappeared, a dog had attacked her shin and again when she went running on her own one day, she stated she found herself surrounded by dogs.

All dogs are prone to have a sensitive noses, not only forensically trained dogs that are trained to a very high standard,so could this have been an indication them trainers had fresh DNA on them?

by jd 20.01.12 16:05

Kate stated when she and MO went for a run not long after Madeleine disappeared, a dog had attacked her shin and again when she went running on her own one day, she stated she found herself surrounded by dogs.

All dogs are prone to have a sensitive noses, not only forensically trained dogs that are trained to a very high standard,so could this have been an indication them trainers had fresh DNA on them?

Good point!

And I reckon the drunk was a Kiwi...and they knew it!!!

by **tigger** 20.01.12 17:03

jd wrote:What I don't understand about the credit cards is the PJ financial check shows he did not have any credit cards

There is a coverup of some sort for feeding the public he had credit cards stolen he never apparently owned..mmmmm

"saving a man's life on the plane. - the man was never interviewed, never heard of again, no media at all, no name, no incident report on the flight (which is mandatory) and it appeared the only authority for this story was Gerry himself in ~~his~~ the American blogs"....so true

I think the PJ were told they didn't have credit cards and the information - like Maddie's health records - wasn't forthcoming from the UK. Not the PJ's fault, I doubt whether they believed what they were told.

Incidentally, probably the wrong thread, but here is an old 14 min. part of Yes Minister - shows how it's done and always has been done.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Oh, features a chancellor who is a pervert and a foreign secretary who's committed fraud. Well I never!

by rainbow-fairy 21.01.12 12:02

jd wrote:What I don't understand about the credit cards is the PJ financial check shows he did not have any credit cards

There is a coverup of some sort for feeding the public he had credit cards stolen he never apparently owned..mmmmm

"saving a man's life on the plane. - the man was never interviewed, never heard of again, no media at all, no name, no incident report on the flight (which is mandatory) and it appeared the only authority for this story was Gerry himself in ~~his~~ the American blogs"....so true

Didn't I read that there was an ambulance waiting on the tarmac for the flight? I have often wondered if Gerry was bringing ~~someone~~ something home, and ~~someone~~ something was taken away for 'disposal'... just thinking out loud...

by **tigger** 21.01.12 13:05

rainbow-fairy wrote:
jd wrote:What I don't understand about the credit cards is the PJ financial check shows he did not have any credit cards

There is a coverup of some sort for feeding the public he had credit cards stolen he never apparently owned..mmmmm

"saving a man's life on the plane. - the man was never interviewed, never heard of again, no media at all, no name, no incident report on the flight (which is mandatory) and it appeared the only authority for this story was Gerry himself in ~~his~~ the American blogs"....so true
Didn't I read that there was an ambulance waiting on the tarmac for the flight? I have often wondered if Gerry was bringing ~~someone~~ something home, and ~~someone~~ something was taken away for 'disposal'... just thinking out loud...

As far as that goes, I'm not for such risky and public transports. In any case, they couldn't care less imo.
People have championed the inflatable poster truck, the truck that brought all their stuff home in September, certainly not the first time this idea cropped up.
I just think that Gerry was after some publicity, I think it was dying down, perhaps an old chap got a bit asthmatic and Gerry loosened his tie. As I said, there is absolutely nothing to corroborate it. Had any kind of emergency really happened, (I did read that the airport and the flight log was checked a long time ago, nothing in the log, no ambulance waiting) newspapers would have picked it up for news. So why didn't that happen? Imo because it didn't happen. Any newspaper would have run with it, interviewed the man. Only found in the blog.
Gerry was also alone when his wallet got stolen - twice! (no press anywhere). Only got minor mention in papers so had to be enhanced by Philomena.
Useful info dispersed via the blog: credit cards now kosher - anything irregular can be blamed on thief.
The following night with the drunk in the road, - I do think that is interesting. Only found in the blog.
If a body had to be transported to the UK, which I very much doubt, the people who could arrange a complicated ruse like this, could easily find another means of far more discreet transport.
It just didn't happen at all. Don't forget how much Gerry likes to be in the limelight, nr.1!

Besides

by Guest 21.01.12 13:08

I think the student loan analogy is very strang and at best a really poor analogy.... but quite interesting linguistically speaking as it gives an insight into the workings of the brain... to explain feelings using a financial analogy is quite an interesting choice and I think gives an indication of priorities in his mind. Surprising when it's such early days after the disappearance, a matter of only a few weeks.

If he is searching through his life experience for a moment in time when he was distraught and comes up with being poor as a student, then maybe that is an indication that to him it was the worst moment in his life and financial health is right up there in his priorities...

Interview with Ian Woods from Sky News on 25 may 2007 :
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you
as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a
week or so where you looked as if you were almost brokenbroke?? and who could
not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength
come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and
what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so
much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we
discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank bank??. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but,
you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to
get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the
scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The
response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us
thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to
focus on what we really needed to focus on.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **tigger** 21.01.12 13:28

Stewie wrote:I think the student loan analogy is very strang and at best a really poor analogy.... but quite interesting linguistically speaking as it gives an insight into the workings of the brain... to explain feelings using a financial analogy is quite an interesting choice and I think gives an indication of priorities in his mind. Surprising when it's such early days after the disappearance, a matter of only a few weeks.

If he is searching through his life experience for a moment in time when he was distraught and comes up with being poor as a student, then maybe that is an indication that to him it was the worst moment in his life and financial health is right up there in his priorities...

Interview with Ian Woods from Sky News on 25 may 2007 :
IW: I think that everyone has just been incredibly impressed with you
as a couple and how you’ve dealt with this. There was a period after a
week or so where you looked as if you were almost brokenbroke?? and who could
not understand that? And then there seemed to be a sort of a strength
come from somewhere. Is that a fair point? Is that what happened and
what brought it about?

KMcC: I think that’s definitely true, isn’t it [looks at Gerry and sighs]

GMcC: Certainly, you know, at the end of that first week there was so
much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a period where we
discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and there was just nothing left in the tank bank??. Also, I think, physically and mentally we were shattered but,
you know, as we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to
get back into the black and we’d also worked tirelessly behind the
scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team. The
response with the fund which was really driven by offers rather than us
thinking we needed it. And once these were in place then it helped us to
focus on what we really needed to focus on.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So what he is saying is essentially:
that losing a loved child is as bad as going over your overdraft limit.
getting back on an even keel - refers to balancing (money) again
started to get back in the black - still with the money here - wasn't it Clarrie who said all we needed to do is put money in an envelope and address it to Kate and Gerry, Rothley and it would get there?
putting support mechanisms and a legal team in place was essential - otherwise they could not search for their child - they could only focus on the search (presumably) once they had money to do so. Clearly rubbish but Gerry must have been studying the jargon.
Taken as a whole, it could quite easily refer to a business which had hit a rough patch. Not a word needs to be changed.

by Cristobell 21.01.12 15:33

When Kate was called in for questioning and declared an Arguido, in that short period before Gerry was himself called in, the news reported that Gerry would stand by her. For me this was a 'wtf' moment - a moment where I thought, perhaps they were putting plan B into action, something along the lines of the alleged deal offered by the PJ. It also also served to detach Gerry from any crime, self preservation and all that.

In linguistics, when someone says something extraordinary, the opposite can be true. For example when someone says, 'with respect', you know they are about to insult you. Unfortunately I can't find the exact commentary, not even on the McCann files, and wonder if anyone else recalls this?

by jd 21.01.12 16:45

Cristobell wrote:When Kate was called in for questioning and declared an Arguido, in that short period before Gerry was himself called in, the news reported that Gerry would stand by her. For me this was a 'wtf' moment - a moment where I thought, perhaps they were putting plan B into action, something along the lines of the alleged deal offered by the PJ. It also also served to detach Gerry from any crime, self preservation and all that.

In linguistics, when someone says something extraordinary, the opposite can be true. For example when someone says, 'with respect', you know they are about to insult you. Unfortunately I can't find the exact commentary, not even on the McCann files, and wonder if anyone else recalls this?

At this same time, philomena mccann was telling Martin Brunt that kate was going to be arrested for killing Maddie which Brunt was reporting on TV, quoting his source as philomena mccann. There is a video of it on youtube...unless its whooshed

by Praia 21.01.12 17:00

Cristobell you are right, I don't remember the exact words. They were lining up for Healy to take the fall. I think TM expected
Healy to be charged on the second day. Philomena certainly sounded as if she did.

by Guest 21.01.12 17:04

Well her lawyer seemed to think so, this from KM's book (taken from the scrolling headline at the top of forum)......

... Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: "If you were Portuguese, this would be enough to put you in prison.".....

by Praia 21.01.12 17:24

Yup! people here were sure she would be charged and speculating whether she would be up in court, which town etc. The media did too. Good old political pressure!

by Cristobell 21.01.12 18:20

Many thanks for your replies Candyfloss and Praia - may I ask Praia, do you live in Portugal?

I actually found Gerry's statement at that time quite callous, I am not entirely sure why, but it seemed disloyal.

To be fair, the acting skills of both of them has never been up to much, no real show of emotion, they wouldn't last 5 minutes on Eastenders, but this detachment was something else. Up until that event, they were on a roll, basking in the limelight, and issuing proclamations under the cloak of Pope Benedict and doing daily walkabouts for the legions of paparazzi. Being named as suspects didn't do them any good at all. I think that is the only time I have seen Gerry looking truly devastated.

by Guest 21.01.12 20:22

I can't find the Sky news report about Kate to be charged in connection with Madeleine's disappearance but here's a brief clip of Philomena saying that the police tried to get her to confess.

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

by Guest 21.01.12 20:28

Jean wrote:I can't find the Sky news report about Kate to be charged in connection with Madeleine's disappearance but here's a brief clip of Philomena saying that the police tried to get her to confess.

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

This is the one Jean, announcing in advance she is going to be charged. Funny how the Leveson inquiry says Portuguese police leaked info when it seems leaks came from family and also the PR Justine if I remember right, I think she said on Panorama they were tweeting info out of the police station.

by sijm 22.01.12 13:17

Hello Stewie.

Regarding that inteview with Woods from Sky News and when Gerry goes off on one stating as below.

"You know, we gradually got more on an even keel and we started to get back into the black and we'd also worked tirelessly behind the scenes to put support mechanisms in place including our legal team".

Could GM have been giving out a coded message that funds were low?

As to putting a legal team in place, Why seek a legal team so early as in May, had they been warned they were going to be charged or did they know deep down they would be prime suspects even with all their support team in place (tapas 7)?

Listening to that terminology relating to a student loan, it begs the questions, Had GM over borrowed on all those medical loans to be able to study and take further exams to become a specialist on Nuclear Medicine after all, did'nt he become a medical monitor for the Nuclear Industry and was on the Government bank roll already, maybe even had a n accountset up through which he was paid?

I read that MP's even have a expenses card, perhaps this goes for all Government employees, one would need no personal finances just a Government expenses card, maybe this explains the lack of credit cards for the McCanns?

Is it true he was near Downing street on that trip to London on June 19-20th ?

Were'nt they due to move to new accommodation in June bet that would have needed extra cash injection, not to be taken from that yet to be established Madeleine Fund, by the way wonder if anyone has a conscience, when drawing money little Madeline's Fund?

I would like to ask, where was Madeleine on the 50th day balloon celebration that was paid for by the Sun Newspaper?

Had Maddie gone to the dogs near that time so to speak, not a nice thought but a reallity, remember the dogs sniffing at Kate's new shoes.

If Maddie had been out there on that cliff like Krugel stated, no doubt the packs will sniff out anything, so whoever put Madeleine out there must have known that?