Pat's latest.....Find the body and prove we killed her..,

kikoraton wrote:Ore? David Kelly? Dunblane?

scary! they are the first ones I had in mind! Dunblane in particular, tragic. I didnt want to distract from the case in hand by going into a debate about these whitewashes! Daz white

Lioned wrote:Trouble with conspiracy theories is that they have to remain theories.

But not:

* Nero burning Rome and blaming it on the Christians

* Hitler's men burning the Reichstag and blaming it on Jews/communists

* The claim that the U.S. was 'surprised' by the Pearl Harbour attack

Personally I feel that team McCann would have been screaming out to the press, calling all their high profile mates in and generally lobbying anyone and everyone if they thought there was any chance that this SY investigation could implicate them in anyway.

Lets face it, they know exactly what's going on, they always have from the beginning.

I really, really hope I have got it all wrong and please feel free to wipe my nose in it if I have. But as said before the UK Government has a long history of white washes (bloody Sunday, Dr Kelly, dodgy dossiers, Dunblane, etc etc).

It also seems apparent that certain supporters seem to know what's going to be printed in the press well in advance.

Wonder could this account for Madeleine's rootless hair?

In an historical crime novel I am reading, A pathologist explains how when arsenic goes to the hair, it first goes to the piece of hair nearest the root as it grows.

He,(the pathologist in the book) then states, "The position of the arsenic in the hair would not alter after death".

A toxicologist asked him, "Had you found arsenic in the distal (furthest) end of the victim's hair"?

"Yes" said the pathologist.

So said the toxicologist, "So the level of arsenic in the ends of her hair indicted that, she had arsenic in her body over a long period of time"?

"I think that" The Pathologist conceded.

My Question is, Could this apply to calpol overdose?

Could Madeleine's rootless hair have been the result of the ends being clipped in anticipation of forensics wanting samples, leaving the hair nearest the scalp, possibly containing a overdose, if so this could be construed as a devious act.

Also I noticed Brian Healy's medication had the name McCann on the administration labels on the containers.

All I know is when I clean my hair brush, I find some hairs with the root on

david_uk wrote:

kikoraton wrote:Ore? David Kelly? Dunblane?

scary! they are the first ones I had in mind! Dunblane in particular, tragic. I didnt want to distract from the case in hand by going into a debate about these whitewashes! Daz white

So why did you wait until after Kiko had mentioned them before deciding you had already thought of them, instead of using the Jersey care home exmaple which is nothing like a UK based whitewash?

Can you then provide any evidence of how the Police investigations for these were white washed, by who, when and on whose orders?

The point i'm making is that the constant carping about government protection, white washes and general conspiracy theory nonesene actually detracts from the quality of rational thinking and thoughts about this case from all of us on here who do not believe the McCann's story or innocence.

It all whiffs of David Icke style weirdness which doesn't help this forum to have sensible conversations about the merits of the evidence and it puts in the mind of the detractors of this site, both in other forums and in the more general media, that we're all swivel eyed conspiracy theory loons wearing tin foil helmets.

The message we are trying to send out to the wider world suffers as a result of unfounded or unproven conspiracy theories.

Let's leave the conspiracy theroies to the Pro McCann loons who seem to think that the whole of Portugal, led by that rogue maverick "Gonc" were out to fit up the McCann's from the outset.

We'll just concentrate on the knowns of the case itself, the evidence gathered so far and the upcoming news and information which we can digest and add to what we already know.

Let's use the facts to put our case forward not conspiracy theories.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Lioned wrote:Trouble with conspiracy theories is that they have to remain theories.

But not:

* Nero burning Rome and blaming it on the Christians

* Hitler's men burning the Reichstag and blaming it on Jews/communists

* The claim that the U.S. was 'surprised' by the Pearl Harbour attack

Ive been to Pearl Harbour, even the guys who give the tours and some of the staff at the harbour are pretty much of the opinion that it was allowed to happen. Tragic and an eerie place to visit!.

Me wrote:

david_uk wrote:

kikoraton wrote:Ore? David Kelly? Dunblane?

scary! they are the first ones I had in mind! Dunblane in particular, tragic. I didnt want to distract from the case in hand by going into a debate about these whitewashes! Daz white

So why did you wait until after Kiko had mentioned them before deciding you had already thought of them, instead of using the Jersey care home exmaple which is nothing like a UK based whitewash?

Can you then provide any evidence of how the Police investigations for these were white washed, by who, when and on whose orders?

The point i'm making is that the constant carping about government protection, white washes and general conspiracy theory nonesene actually detracts from the quality of rational thinking and thoughts about this case from all of us on here who do not believe the McCann's story or innocence.

It all whiffs of David Icke style weirdness which doesn't help this forum to have sensible conversations about the merits of the evidence and it puts in the mind of the detractors of this site, both in other forums and in the more general media, that we're all swivel eyed conspiracy theory loons wearing tin foil helmets.

The message we are trying to send out to the wider world suffers as a result of unfounded or unproven conspiracy theories.

Let's leave the conspiracy theroies to the Pro McCann loons who seem to think that the whole of Portugal, led by that rogue maverick "Gonc" were out to fit up the McCann's from the outset.

We'll just concentrate on the knowns of the case itself, the evidence gathered so far and the upcoming news and information which we can digest and add to what we already know.

Let's use the facts to put our case forward not conspiracy theories.

Honestly Me, i got to sentence two of your last post and just zoned out, i honestly didnt read the rest. You obviously have something missing from your life that you feel the need to repeat yourself and start an argument/debate that noone wants to have. This is not a discussion about `other` whitewashes` in History. I for one have made no specific long thread about how i think its a whitewash in waiting , if i did , if i could be bothered id write a book! along with references and would debate it till the cows come home. I dont have that kind of time or inclination!. THe review will be a whitewash from the SY side, thats my opinion and last word to you. If I am wrong then so be it and ill post a picture of me with my best `I was wrong face`. It looks kind of like this

Well lets let time tell, but considering the Pro's are as bullish as ever and nobody is talking about anything other than abduction I guess you can only hope. The press releases if to be believed are that it is all meant to reach a conclusion in the next few months (can't believe this can be funded forever), it is an abduction case and they are not looking at the parents in connection in anyway does not look good.

I can understand the PJ's reluctance to re-open the case, why chase an abduction which appears to be something that they don't believe happen?

Pershing36 wrote:Well lets let time tell, but considering the Pro's are as bullish as ever and nobody is talking about anything other than abduction I guess you can only hope. The press releases if to be believed are that it is all meant to reach a conclusion in the next few months (can't believe this can be funded forever), it is an abduction case and they are not looking at the parents in connection in anyway does not look good.

I can understand the PJ's reluctance to re-open the case, why chase an abduction which appears to be something that they don't believe happen?

Firstly, the police or not going to say they are looking at the parents or anyone else are they. What case do you know where the police have said before someone is arrested that they are interested in them, whilst they are free and leading a normal life, unless of course they are danger to the public in which case they say they are looking for this person. They always say they have possible leads and suspects, no more.

Correct me if i'm wrong but have they not said they are not looking at 'sightings',though they are interested in talking to the Smiths,they are 'laying the ground' to talk to the tapas crew again ? Have i interpreted that correct (albeit from the Amarel interview and papers reports)?

Lioned wrote:Correct me if i'm wrong but have they not said they are not looking at 'sightings',though they are interested in talking to the Smiths,they are 'laying the ground' to talk to the tapas crew again ? Have i interpreted that correct (albeit from the Amarel interview and papers reports)?

Yes, I agree, it seems that something is going to happen... Moreover, Amaral said that «...the “affair” is not going well for the McCanns». IMO, he knows more than us.. so I trust him.

Well slate me, ban me or do whatever. I admire all your really good work and like I said before I really hope I am wrong.

But Police investigations which includes white washes leak to the press from time to time, I cannot believe this is some smoking gun in police justice.

It seems very clear it is the faceless abductor (thats what we will be told). Surely if they suspected anyone else they would have interviewed them by now. Come to think of it have they interviewed anyone? No, so what are they working on the whole PJ is wrong ( well it was thought to be hence why Kate/Gerry released)?

If so surely re-interview witnesses, or just trust the truth was told and logged by untruthful cops? Which ever way you look at it surely it is worth interviewing again. Or surely you will fall into the original PJ problems. I think the PJ have the sense not open the case because their investigation has no leads other than their original obvious and make them chase shadows, resources and money.

These are my very strong views, I am sorry I believe in you guys but not in SY. Ireally hope you prove me wrong.

Pershing36 wrote:Surely if they suspected anyone else they would have interviewed them by now. Come to think of it have they interviewed anyone? No, so what are they working on the whole PJ is wrong ( well it was thought to be hence why Kate/Gerry released)?

How do you know they haven't interviewed certain people already. Are you privvy to the investigation? This is not the circus it was before with TV cameras and media parked outside the McCanns. This investigation is going on quietly behind the scenes, which is the way it should be. I'm sure SY and the PJ are going through it thoroughly and this time without the glare of the media. What snippets have appeared in our press are the usual

candyfloss wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Surely if they suspected anyone else they would have interviewed them by now. Come to think of it have they interviewed anyone? No, so what are they working on the whole PJ is wrong ( well it was thought to be hence why Kate/Gerry released)?

How do you know they haven't interviewed certain people already. Are you privvy to the investigation? This is not the circus it was before with TV cameras and media parked outside the McCanns. This investigation is going on quietly behind the scenes, which is the way it should be. I'm sure SY and the PJ are going through it thoroughly and this time without the glare of the media. What snippets have appeared in our press are the usual

No I am not saying that it is a personal feeling looking at the UK's history. I am not privvy to anything but you speak like you are to the general journalist reports, if so please enlighten me to your sources that say what all the journalists are saying is simply rubbish.

I am sure the money spent on this investigation could be allocated by a click of the fingers by the PM, I reckon we spend more in a month on watching foreign ships catch more Cod than allowed (with our blindfolds on of course).

This isn't high profile, I bet most people don't even know it is still going on. Their high profile Leveson will have confused a lot of Sun readers.

When I hear something different then I might change my mind.

david_uk wrote:
Honestly Me, i got to sentence two of your last post and just zoned out, i honestly didnt read the rest.

Well clearly that's the difference between you and me. You see when I’m having a conversation with someone i actually like to listen to what they have to say, take it in, think about and it respond accordingly.

It's a shame you can't find it within yourself to afford me the same courtesy.

david_uk wrote:You obviously have something missing from your life that you feel the need to repeat yourself and start an argument/debate that noone wants to have.

I have nothing missing in my life thanks, but that’s a nice attempt at condescending me anyway. The only reason i have to repeat myself with you is because you won't answer the points i have raised nor expand upon and evidence your initial assertions.

david_uk wrote:This is not a discussion about `other` whitewashes` in History. I for one have made no specific long thread about how i think its a whitewash in waiting , if i did , if i could be bothered id write a book!

No you said this would be a whitewash and when asked for examples the only thing you could come up with was Haute De La Garenne which was a completely false and incorrect example.

You then jumped on Kiko's examples as if they were your own, which i found highly amusing.

david_uk wrote: along with references and would debate it till the cows come home. I dont have that kind of time or inclination!. THe review will be a whitewash from the SY side, thats my opinion and last word to you. If I am wrong then so be it and ill post a picture of me with my best `I was wrong face`. It looks kind of like this

And so we're back to square one. You think it will be a whitewash, we know that you've said it already. What we want to know, and what i have asked you for since the beginning of our exchanges, is why you feel like that, what evidence you have to support that opinion and how this whitewash will be carried out given there are 30 detectives currently on this case.

It's childish to debase this discussion to a simple case of who's right and who's wrong.

All i am asking you to do is to suggest how it could be done and why. I’m still waiting for your answer.

Call me old fashioned, but when I give an opinion I like to explain how I have arrived at that opinion and my reasons behind reaching that view.

Clearly we seem to different standards on how informed opinions should be formed.

candyfloss wrote:Things were happening way before the McCanns letter in the papers to David Cameron..........

Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.

This was completed in March 2010, but Mr McCann said current Home Secretary Theresa May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289

WHOA! Hold. The. Phone!

I never knew this? If Theresa May withheld, and one may assume is still withholding, the contents of this previous review, surely that would point to it having implicated the McCanns as likely suspects, no? I can't think of anything else that would make it so "sensitive" to not show them, seeing as most everything else they've requested has been granted them.....

30 detectives - Really? At say, 35 hours a week each, that's over a thousand hours detective work every week! And that is just in the UK.

How many Portuguese hours? What cost?

I did not understand how, when we were initially informed by David Cameron that they were authorising a 'review'of the case, the government was able to estimate it may cost £3m

I don't know detectives salaries, but if it is around 30 thousand, then that is a years work - for 30 of them! How could he possibly think he would need to devote so much to a missing child?

Am I really expected to believe that England actually has, right now, 30 detectives working full-time on this case? (What are they all doing)?

If so, and we are collaborating with them, then the Portuguese must also be spending vast money on this.

Add to that how much Clarence and CR are making -

So I ask - How much money has been 'thrown' at this case - and why? It seems calossal

How many detectives work on a normal murder case? 1,2,3,4,5?

listener wrote:How many detectives work on a normal murder case? 1,2,3,4,5?

i would imagine a dozen is already plenty.

37 for a cold case is colossal ..they must already have been leaning towards a certain direction when they deemed that such high a figure is needed for the task.

Realistically because they allocated 3.5million budget I think they are looking at a 1-1/2 year deadline. With 37 officers salaries at various level, travel and hotel expenses, incidentals and paying for translations, administrative and secretarial staff to do the filing and necessary papers work as well as co-ordinating with various authorities inside and outside of Uk, paying lab tests or whatever else, would easily come up to 3.5 in that period of time. The Pj are going to have their own set of costs so the cost of the review is enormous.


Question is what caused them to re-look the files and work on certain areas? Cant have gone into it blindly.

IIRC the 30 officers were not going to be working on this case exclusively, but none the less, it certainly was implied that there would be a massive amount of work done on it.
I will be very interested to see how much of the final report will be made available to the public. If we get fobbed of with a woolly one-liner at the end of it, it won't look good for SY. Keeping optimistic though!!

crewman wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Things were happening way before the McCanns letter in the papers to David Cameron..........

Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.

This was completed in March 2010, but Mr McCann said current Home Secretary Theresa May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289

WHOA! Hold. The. Phone!

I never knew this? If Theresa May withheld, and one may assume is still withholding, the contents of this previous review, surely that would point to it having implicated the McCanns as likely suspects, no? I can't think of anything else that would make it so "sensitive" to not show them, seeing as most everything else they've requested has been granted them.....

I am amazed at how few people seem to have picked up on this (well, commented on it at least).
At the time the SY review was announced, so memorably by 'Call me Dave' on the front page of The Sun, I posted that I DID NOT BELIEVE that this review was commissioned at the click of the McCann's fingers. Indeed, my feeling was that Team McCann had got wind of the review team being assembled, and their 'letter to the Sun' was a pre-emptive strike, to make it look like their bidding.
'Why would David Cameron allow/go along with this?' I hear you ask... Well, if you think about it, if DC waited and announced the review in response to the McC's request, that's going to be good PR - kind, caring Mr Cameron. Also, if the review was set up to look at involvement of the McCanns, it wouldn't tip his hand publicly. Also allowing the McCann's to carry on as normal (give 'em enough rope time). In fact, I can't see how it would be anything other than win/win for Cameron. If he secured a conviction against K, G and maybe others, he'd get the glory for commisioning a team that locked up probably the most heartless parents our country has ever seen. On the other hand, IF they are innocent and there IS an abductor, he can say 'Look, we succeeded where those nasty Portuguese failed'! Add to that bash the previous Labour government and its game set and match to DC - whichever way the review goes...
I said at the time that NO WAY could review be commissioned in 24 hours. We now know that the feasibility exercise was completed in March 2010. We also know now, that the Portuguese reviewing has been going on for a YEAR - that works out also as March 2011!
So, clearly, this PT team in Oporto has NOT been set up at the request of the working SY review! When did they begin? Was it November? It seems that UK and PT have been working in tandem for a full two months BEFORE THE REVIEW WAS ANNOUNCED.
Consider this: PT are unlikely to set up a team to chase 'fake abductors'. Could it be that both countries are sick and tired of the antics of TM, and are going through the evidence with that fabled 'fine toothed comb', effectively to build their case BEFORE they interview - like a spider luring its prey into its web? It certainly seems possible to me...
I'm also considering now that 'Leveson' may have been part of the plan. Such a fawning sycophantic manner towards them- to lull them into a false sense of security (or give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves) - well it worked! Kate lied on oath about the origins of the DNA found in the Scenic!
It seems feasible to me. Then add to this the fact that Theresa May refused the McCanns access to the file as it was 'sensitive' - does that sound as though they've been written off as suspects? It doesn't to me.
But I may have missed something?
Would be interested to hear other thoughts on this...

ETA: Could this also be why no papers print anything vaguely anti-McCann? Partially to guard against compensation payouts but also to help with any future trial? Neutral reporting and all that... just a thought...

rainbow-fairy wrote:

crewman wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Things were happening way before the McCanns letter in the papers to David Cameron..........

Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.

This was completed in March 2010, but Mr McCann said current Home Secretary Theresa May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289

WHOA! Hold. The. Phone!

I never knew this? If Theresa May withheld, and one may assume is still withholding, the contents of this previous review, surely that would point to it having implicated the McCanns as likely suspects, no? I can't think of anything else that would make it so "sensitive" to not show them, seeing as most everything else they've requested has been granted them.....

I am amazed at how few people seem to have picked up on this (well, commented on it at least).
At the time the SY review was announced, so memorably by 'Call me Dave' on the front page of The Sun, I posted that I DID NOT BELIEVE that this review was commissioned at the click of the McCann's fingers. Indeed, my feeling was that Team McCann had got wind of the review team being assembled, and their 'letter to the Sun' was a pre-emptive strike, to make it look like their bidding.
'Why would David Cameron allow/go along with this?' I hear you ask... Well, if you think about it, if DC waited and announced the review in response to the McC's request, that's going to be good PR - kind, caring Mr Cameron. Also, if the review was set up to look at involvement of the McCanns, it wouldn't tip his hand publicly. Also allowing the McCann's to carry on as normal (give 'em enough rope time).
I said at the time that NO WAY could review be commissioned in 24 hours. We now know that the feasibility exercise was completed in March 2010. We also know now, that the Portuguese reviewing has been going on for a YEAR - that works out also as March 2011!
So, clearly, this PT team in Oporto has NOT been set up at the request of the working SY review! When did they begin? Was it November? It seems that UK and PT have been working in tandem for a full two months BEFORE THE REVIEW WAS ANNOUNCED.
Consider this: PT are unlikely to set up a team to chase 'fake abductors'. Could it be that both countries are sick and tired of the antics of TM, and are going through the evidence with that fabled 'fine toothed comb', effectively to build their case BEFORE they interview - like a spider luring its prey into its web? It certainly seems possible to me...
I'm also considering now that 'Leveson' may have part of the plan. Such fawning sycophantic manner - to lull them into a false sense of security (or give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves) - well it worked! Kate lied on oath about the origins of the DNA found in the Scenic!
It seems feasible to me. Then add to this the fact that Theresa May refused the McCanns access to the file as it was 'sensitive' - does that sound as though they've been written off as suspects? It doesn't to me.
But I may have missed something?
Would be interested to hear other thoughts on this...

Exactly my thoughts too,which I said in another thread albeit not in as many words or as explicable as yours.

UK and Portugal been exploring the feasibility prior to the announcement that seems certain now.
This reasoning is logical as there is no way Cameron could have announced anything without already having bagged a deal with the Portugal to work in tandem. Else he would look extremely silly if he'd left it to the Yard to sort that out with Portuguese side only for them to reject the cooperation after the announcement was made.

Wonder why it was left until recently to announce the joint efforts of Oporto team - was it news on necessary basis or because Oporto was only given proper review budget recently. Anyhow it does not look to me that two teams gathered and working in tandem overtly is just to look chase bogus abductor.

I think the McCann request might have been pre-emptive also, it certainly looks like wheels in motion before DC's announcement.
Cautiously optimisitic, have to be.....I dont see how there is a pre planned whitewash not with all the doo doo hitting the fan about police corruption in the Met right now.
All I want is the truth for this little girl.

Latest tweet from Pat Brown.........

PAT BROWN‏@ProfilerPatBReply
Retweet

Best news in a long time! D'Andre Lane charged with murder of his daughter, Bianca Jones WITHOUT a body! AND the cadaver dogs hit.



Here is the story.........



(CBS/AP) DETROIT - The father of missing 2-year-old Detroit girl Bianca Jones has been charged with her murder.



Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy announced charges Wednesday against D'Andre Lane, who claims his daughter was abducted during a carjacking on Dec. 2, 2011.




March 14, 2012 2:52 PM
Bianca Jones' father charged with murder in Detroit 2-year-old's disappearance


Lane says he was carjacked while his daughter was secured in a child seat. The car was recovered but Bianca was never found.

Lane has publically denied any wrongdoing in his daughter's disappearance, although police expressed doubt just days after he reported her missing.

Lane is currently being held in the Oakland County Jail on an unrelated matter. He was expected to remain there for 14 days for violating a personal protection order, reports CBS Detroit.

According to Michigan prison records, Lane was jailed for more than three years on drug and firearm possession charges stemming from a 2003 arrest and was paroled in 2007. He also previously served a more than four-year probation starting in 1996 after being convicted of assault with intent to commit armed robbery, and a conspiracy charge.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57397429-504083/bianca-jones-father-charged-with-murder-in-detroit-2-year-olds-disappearance/