The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™️ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Why Risk the Cover-Up?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 25.02.12 11:43

Morning everyone!
This topic has come about primarily as a result of a conversation I had with my 12 year old son this morning. His answer to why Maddie disappeared was 'The parents killed her'. I replied to him that whilst it is by no means certain they killed her, there must be very pertinent reasons why her body had to 'disappear'. All available evidence, common sense, forensic linguistics, body language analysis all rule out abduction. Such vanishingly small odds as to be irrelevant.
So, my thinking is this? WHY could she not be surrendered?

For the 'abduction scenario' to have a chance of working, the McCanns HAD to publicly admit to child neglect. A risky strategy indeed - the general public are not very forgiving of parents who pop next door for five minutes whilst the children are asleep, let alone the McCanns story.
Which then leads us to - what they had to GAIN was higher than they stood to LOSE. Or, turned on its head, what they were prepared to ADMIT was obviously far more palatable than the TRUTH...

What could be less palatable than neglect?
1)Sedation
2)Physical abuse
3)Sexual abuse

If we plump for 1)Sedation/overdose, would this need the cover-up involved? I would say, no. If it was proven, as suggested, that Madeleine was 'difficult' I think this story could've been turned for sympathy. 'Tragic Couple Accidentally Over-Sedate Difficult Daughter' etc etc. Certainly not out of the bounds of possibility, nor public forgiveness.
No's 2, and 3, however, are different. You could NEVER spin abuse into sympathy. I would think bruises, or even breaks, could be easier explained away - fighting with other children etc etc.
The only option out of the 3 that works for me is no 3. Sexual abuse / paedophilia. Publicly unforgivable, and no way of covering up, or blaming others. If she died as a result of over-enthusiastic 'activities' the signs would be unmissable. Its highly likely there would be DNA traces from the abuser(s). All in all, the option I go for. When taken in conjunction with the Gaspar statements, the date of the holiday, photographs released, intervention of Gordon Brown / FO (as matter of National Security) the signs become bigger, brighter and difficult to miss.

Obviously, and added angle is the 'Fund' - body = no 'fund'.

My conclusion is this; initially a cover-up of No.3, then fund.

Would love some additional thoughts on this, thanks.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by Kololi on 25.02.12 11:57

I hate to be the one to ask but why would the fact that some doctor had sexually abused a child become a matter of national security?

I do not for one moment think child sex abuse is contained to the working class but that theory, if ever proven to be correct, would mean that the Blairs, the Browns and a whole host of others either condoned such behaviour or valued some favour they owed somebody over the life of a child. I can't buy that. If sexual abuse had been involved I actually do not think the national security issue would have been relevant and justice might have been served.
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by AskTheDogsSandra on 25.02.12 12:11

Why would the abduction of Madeleine McCann be a matter of national security?
avatar
AskTheDogsSandra

Posts : 132
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 25.02.12 12:13

Kololi wrote:I hate to be the one to ask but why would the fact that some doctor had sexually abused a child become a matter of national security?

I do not for one moment think child sex abuse is contained to the working class but that theory, if ever proven to be correct, would mean that the Blair's, the Browns and a whole host of others either condoned such behaviour or valued some favour they owed somebody over the life of a child. I can't buy that. If sexual abuse had been involved I actually do not think the national security issue would have been relevant and justice might have been served.
Bingo Kololi - and your words not mine! Your bit in bold is exactly what I believe happened. Why can't you 'buy' that? Blair is notorious for lying and cover-ups. Iraq for starters. But you never heard of Dunblane? There is much evidence to show Nu-Labour were riddled with paedophiles.
But really, this isn't what I meant - do you REALLY think they would surrender her if she'd been fiddled with? Please - can't decide if you're delightfully sweetly naïve or something else...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 25.02.12 12:25

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:Why would the abduction of Madeleine McCann be a matter of national security?
Exactly. Why??? It makes no sense - BUT - Brown stated it to be so. Ask what reasons there could be?
Hypothetically speaking, an 'elite' ring of paedophiles, 'disaster' strikes, if you don't act decisively and quickly, the whole sorry tale leaks out... Several of the elected government proven to be beasts - what would that do for National Security, especially if that 'elite' ring spread into the EU?
The government would fall, the country would be in absolute disarray. Why do you think the papers are so keen to perpetuate the (totally false) myth that child abusers are all scruffy weirdo's loitering around school gates - they are not but it serves a purpose. 'Look over there, not over here'. The upper echelons are absolutely riddled with them.

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by happychick on 25.02.12 12:41

Sarah Payne was abducted by a paedophile and killed as were Holly and Jessica and I don't recall Gordon Brown saying those real abductions were a matter of national security.

So maybe it's not paedophilia that needs to be covered up? Maybe it's because Madeleine was special in some way?

Or maybe there was a member of the government who was in Praia da Luz who participated in whatever they were all "in to" and that's why it became a matter of national security?

Maybe working out what the national security means we will get closer to the truth?
avatar
happychick

Posts : 403
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by tigger on 25.02.12 12:41

Kololi wrote:I hate to be the one to ask but why would the fact that some doctor had sexually abused a child become a matter of national security?

I do not for one moment think child sex abuse is contained to the working class but that theory, if ever proven to be correct, would mean that the Blairs, the Browns and a whole host of others either condoned such behaviour or valued some favour they owed somebody over the life of a child. I can't buy that. If sexual abuse had been involved I actually do not think the national security issue would have been relevant and justice might have been served.

I think both theories can be true at the same time. That's why the signals are so confusing.
There is a lot of circumstantial and direct evidence to do with paedophilia in this case.
The photographs of Maddie wearing make-up (not just the blue eyeshadow one - lots and lots of others) the grown-up smile and clothes, especially the symbolically used ice-cream (v.popular with paedos).
The Cat nr. 19303 in the name go G.P McCann.
The Gaspar statement.
Yvonne Martin who knew DP from somewhere.
The descriptions of Maddie given by e.g. Jon Corner, DP and her parents.

Then we have the unusual combination of people staying in PdL and OC that week (industrialists, financiers, doctors) . It may well have been an informal meeting of interested parties in - my money is on this - the feasibility of setting up a microchipping organisation.
Imo the abduction was the idea ONLY of the parties closely concerned, it looks as if it was a surprise to a number of notables who left in a hurry. In fact it probably put the microchipping deal - if that's what it was - back by a decade. But there was lots of money in such a scheme, can you imagine? So whoever was privy to the outline deal, stood to make many millions.

So we might have a situation where a lost child would be fantastically useful in achieving microchipping and for other reasons it might also be very useful to 'lose' this child. A win win situation they may have thought.

Please read the excerpt of the report of 2006 below:
http://thedisclosureproject-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/06/agenda-microchip-one-generation-is-all.html

I think Gerry was thinking of the abduction scenario in the bus. In 'business' situations he's in his elements, people listening to him, nr. 1!
When I saw him standing in front of the easel with 'the wider agenda' chalked on it, it seemed to me that this was a man who had been waiting a long time and now finally in charge of his brilliant plan.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by happychick on 25.02.12 12:44

tigger, if that's true then it must Madeleine had to die if Gerry was thinking about the abduction on the bus on the way there.

Or maybe the McCanns planted the cadaver odour so that people wouldn't search for a hidden Madeleine?

But then there's the bodily fluids in the car....
avatar
happychick

Posts : 403
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by tigger on 25.02.12 12:47

happychick wrote:tigger, if that's true then it must Madeleine had to die if Gerry was thinking about the abduction on the bus on the way there.

Or maybe the McCanns planted the cadaver odour so that people wouldn't search for a hidden Madeleine?

But then there's the bodily fluids in the car....

There was way too much in place too early for Madeleine to have died by accident, only my opinion of course!

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 25.02.12 13:25

happychick wrote:Sarah Payne was abducted by a paedophile and killed as were Holly and Jessica and I don't recall Gordon Brown saying those real abductions were a matter of national security.

So maybe it's not paedophilia that needs to be covered up? Maybe it's because Madeleine was special in some way?

Or maybe there was a member of the government who was in Praia da Luz who participated in whatever they were all "in to" and that's why it became a matter of national security?


Maybe working out what the national security means we will get closer to the truth?
happychick - bit in bold - exactly. Then when you add your first sentences - "Sarah Payne was abducted by a paedophile and killed as were Holly and Jessica and I don't recall Gordon Brown saying those real abductions were a matter of national security." Then your bit in bold makes sense, surely?
Sarah Payne was abducted and killed by Roy Whiting, on his own.
Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman killed by Ian Huntley, on his own.
Ben Needham's disappearance did not garner the government 'support' that Maddies has. Nor has public money been given for a 'review' of that case.
This special attention ALONE tells us there are serious reasons for the assistance the McCanns have received. There were a number of drs, influential individuals (Weinberger), the relative of Margaret Hodge (who helped to hush up the Islington child abuse scandal) and more individuals besides. The McCanns painted themselves as innocents alone abroad, but this is far from the truth. Isn't Gerry acquainted with Gordon Brown's brother?
So. My theory is this. A group of people, with the same proclivities, doing whatever they do. Disaster strikes. A post-mortem in Portugal would have revealed all. Names would get dragged in that they didn't want dragged in. So, 'abduction' happens to counteract this. It all explains why such help was given to a pair of Drs, who really are nobodies? Celeb support beyond their wildest dreams...
Anybody who seriously thinks such cover-ups can't happen must be living in cloud cuckoo land. Wasn't it the Queen or Prince Phillip who said 'Dark forces are at work in this country'?
Many are happy to believe that the Catholic Church covered up systematic abuse for years, yet say the government couldn't/wouldn't? It can, does and has happened and will happen again...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by tigger on 25.02.12 14:20

Well, anyone high up in government will want to make sure there's a cushy number waiting for them when they are jettisoned.
This is entirely my opinion, but GB seems to have such a high opinion of himself, that were he closely associated with say for the sake of argument a nation or worldwide scheme for microchipping, so close to the hearts and minds of our rulers, he would certainly consider this disaster a matter of national security. The nation may not care much about GB, but he doesn't count that.
I am so sure that he is the key figure in the cover up and that he knew well before the 3rd of May for the following reasons:
He never used this to gain votes, to be photographed with them or indeed to have anything to do with them other than phone calls.
He personally visited FSS and Leicester Police with the result that key evidence disappeared.
I think they may have had a trifle more on him than just the putative microchipping but GB had good reason to pull out all the stops - and it seems he has no reason to love the McCanns. At the time of writing he is worth barely more than a few paltry millions. Virtually never goes to parliament - not a good loser.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by Kololi on 25.02.12 15:18

So how would Mr Cameron who is helping them now fit into this then?

Armed with such knowledge wouldn't he have ensured he was home and dry with a majority by making sure the public were made aware before the election of the unpleasant shananigans that some Labour members were involved in?

If there actually was some government nonsense involved and I was a betting person, I would be more inclined to throw my money in the direction of some sort of chipping scheme being the background for this mystery. I am not, however, so will wait and see whether Scotland Yard draw any similar conclusions to the Portuguese investigators for now. smilie
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 25.02.12 16:01

Can we be absolutely certain it is the McCanns David Cameron is actually helping??? Wink

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Risk the Cover-Up?

Post by Kololi on 25.02.12 16:56

No more than we can be certain that the McCanns did do the dastardly deed. titter

Seriously, for never being rude even though we don't see eye to eye always Rainbow-fairy - roses
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum