Re: MADELEINE MCCANN FILE KEPT SECRET - Sunday July 1 2012

by Cristobell 05.09.12 13:15

Actually, returning to the OP and the newspaper articles, I now wonder if those confidential documents refer to the Wikileaks revelation that the British were building a case against the McCanns?

by Nelly6969 05.09.12 13:46

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 2:15 pm

Actually,
returning to the OP and the newspaper articles, I now wonder if those
confidential documents refer to the Wikileaks revelation that the
British were building a case against the McCanns?

______________________________
Cristobell

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

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

Posts: 264
Join date: 2011-10-12

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

It states that the information was supplied by the Portuguese to the British so unlikely I'd have thought - see below extract from ruling:

Firstly, there would be a specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal which would impact on the co-operation between these two states regarding the ongoing investigation in to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This is because the documents contained information provided to the UK in confidence by Portuguese officials and internal discussions between the Home Office and MPS of such information.

by Hummingbird 05.09.12 19:34

candyfloss wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Two things that stuck into my mind about sightings:

- a very serious looking early sighting in Belgium on a terrace, where people even had been alert enough to secure the girl's glass for possible DNA &
- a tv interview question [search me, cannot remember which transmission], where they - G&K - were asked which sighting alerted them most. And they weren't able to mention one single one [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think that was one of the iconic moments in this case Chatelaine. The pair of them were visibly squirming. I would have thought that every sighting would be carved into their hearts, but as you say, they couldn't remember a single one! It also brought to mind Gerry sucking on a lollipop and discussing football while the police were investigating a possible burial site. All very strange,

This one Chatalaine....

[youtube][/youtube]

Well, I have seen some things by these two and read some stuff about these two but this one actually convinces me beyond belief that they are up to their necks in the ----!! I've never seen this interview before but his squirming and scratching, her screwing up her face trying to stiffle the giggle at the end, and the fact that they can't remember the 'sightings' is proof beyond doubt that they know where MM is!! They have obviously never once taken any notice whatsoever of these sightings and that was obvious on the very day after MM disappeared when they were more worried about the speed of the PJs driving than the CCTV image. This one needs to be shown on every TV station throughout the land it is so brazen it is 'almost' laughable.

by Guest 05.09.12 19:52

Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

by Hummingbird 05.09.12 20:21

candyfloss wrote:Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

I wonder why anyone has ever bothered to suggest that they may have seen her - judging by the response here and in the previous video they think it is one big joke!! Disgraceful - Thanks candyfloss for that!!

by Gillyspot 06.09.12 8:02

Bernard Hogan Howe

" “We are still reviewing a lot of material. It is a significant amount of money and we have quite a lot of officers tied up in this. There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

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

Bearing in mind I have already been told I need an FOI (& we know what use they are) for information on results of the Madeleine "review" I find this (in bold) concerning. Just WHAT do government have to do with "likely outcome" of the review? IMO NONE!

by marxman 06.09.12 8:48

Gillyspot wrote:Bernard Hogan Howe

" “We are still reviewing a lot of material. It is a significant amount of money and we have quite a lot of officers tied up in this. There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

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

Bearing in mind I have already been told I need an FOI (& we know what use they are) for information on results of the Madeleine "review" I find this (in bold) concerning. Just WHAT do government have to do with "likely outcome" of the review? IMO NONE!

As many observers have feared, a 'state police'?

by Ross 06.09.12 9:14

Gillyspot wrote:Bernard Hogan Howe

" “We are still reviewing a lot of material.

Why? These are 'experienced detectives' right? Presumably, as experienced detectives they would start at the beginning? They would see that McCann lied at the scene (about the shutters), they would see that the parents and friends made statements that did not match and could not fit into a coherent timeline, they would see the McCanns refusing to co-operate with the police etc etc. Why would 'experienced detectives' bother sifting through alleged sightings on the top of Mount Kilimanjaro when the actions of the parents on the night raised more red flags than a Mayday parade in Moscow?

Because these particular hand-picked detectives would also know that within an hour of the 'disappearance' the British Ambassador was on the phone to the National Director of the PJ, and that the McCanns had the full support of the Foreign Office throughout, that the Prime Minister-in-waiting intervened directly in the case, that the British media carried out a campaign of disinformation and distraction. They would know, presumably because it was in the brief, that they were not to investigate what actually happened in PdL on the night of May 3rd or days preceding it.

So I guess I've answered my own question. They are "still reviewing a lot of material" because they are desperately trying to cobble together some vaguely plausible explanation that points the finger firmly away from the heart of the case.

by russiandoll 06.09.12 10:22

quote : They would know, presumably because it was in the brief, that they were not to investigate what actually happened in PdL on the night of May 3rd or days preceding it.

On the Met Police website, however, when you look at the Operation Grange link, it clearly states REMIT OF INVESTIGATION. The word " review" is not even included. And the remit states that it is more than a review , it has investigative elements.

IMO if the real events of the Maddie case were so shocking and threatening to powerful individuals, were of such gravity that they needed to be covered up by the government , it would have happened years ago and without the expense of a review of the case.

by Ross 06.09.12 11:08

russiandoll wrote:On the Met Police website, however, when you look at the Operation Grange link, it clearly states REMIT OF INVESTIGATION. The word " review" is not even included. And the remit states that it is more than a review , it has investigative elements.

IMO if the real events of the Maddie case were so shocking and threatening to powerful individuals, were of such gravity that they needed to be covered up by the government , it would have happened years ago and without the expense of a review of the case.

Sometimes it's called a review, sometimes it's called an investigation. It has no statutory basis or precedent so what exactly it is, and what exactly its purpose is remains moot.

As to your second point, what defines this case is that there are so many contradictions and apparent incompatibilities of the evidence that no-one can put together a single coherent narrative explaining all the events. We do know for a fact that high-powered individuals became involved immediately cf. the ambassador, who does not act without instruction. However, as you point out, if it was a straightforward cover-up it would have been covered up, not paraded around the world's media provoking a million amateur sleuths to dig up one lie and contradiction after another. How can that circle be squared? Not with any conventional explanation for sure.

by aiyoyo 07.09.12 2:30

Gillyspot wrote:Bernard Hogan Howe

" “We are still reviewing a lot of material. It is a significant amount of money and we have quite a lot of officers tied up in this. There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is."

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

Bearing in mind I have already been told I need an FOI (& we know what use they are) for information on results of the Madeleine "review" I find this (in bold) concerning. Just WHAT do government have to do with "likely outcome" of the review? IMO NONE!

Bernard Hogan Howe has put his foot in it and given away the government's game.
Upon examining processed files literally from page 1 even amateurish police can discern nothings add up, the maccnns et at has cooked up a cock and bull story which needs to be re-visit by hauling the whole lot in for interrogation if they want to solve the case. And even amateur would realise until the mccanns are eliminated out of the equation, they should look no further.

But no, this lot of "experienced top calibre detectives" said they still have lots of information yet to be looked at; probably still wasting time and money cataloguing and filing psychic and medium claims then taking their time analysing this heap of rubbish in batch job.

by rainbow-fairy 07.09.12 15:14

candyfloss wrote:Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

From 2 minutes on, Gerry is talking about 'everything we have done in the last 100 days is based on the belief Madeleine was alive when she was abducted' - what a nonsense! Who would abduct a child that was dead?!?

Also, when asked about the 'well-known fact' that they left the children alone (which I do not believe) Gerry displays all the typical signs of a big lie - swallowing, eyes closed, scratching nose throughout... before waffling that 'they can't comment too much on the routines as they are subject to investigation' - well it didn't stop them leaking other stuff via friends and family!

Also they are talking of staying and that NO-ONE would bully them into leaving - hmmm, if memory serves within days of interviews and arguido status they fled!

The truly innocent would have no fear. IMO, the interviews have been a rope around their necks of their own making... let them carry on. People are not believing them anymore... slowly but surely public support is waning.

The best hope of justice for Maddie is not SY imo. Someone breaking will be the way ahead...

by Gillyspot 07.09.12 17:43

Great Post rainbow-fairy - I agree entirely roses

Lets hope it isn't too soon before someone breaks.

by ShuBob 07.09.12 18:40

rainbow-fairy wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

From 2 minutes on, Gerry is talking about 'everything we have done in the last 100 days is based on the belief Madeleine was alive when she was abducted' - what a nonsense! Who would abduct a child that was dead?!?

Also, when asked about the 'well-known fact' that they left the children alone (which I do not believe) Gerry displays all the typical signs of a big lie - swallowing, eyes closed, scratching nose throughout... before waffling that 'they can't comment too much on the routines as they are subject to investigation' - well it didn't stop them leaking other stuff via friends and family!

Also they are talking of staying and that NO-ONE would bully them into leaving - hmmm, if memory serves within days of interviews and arguido status they fled!

The truly innocent would have no fear. IMO, the interviews have been a rope around their necks of their own making... let them carry on. People are not believing them anymore... slowly but surely public support is waning.

The best hope of justice for Maddie is not SY imo. Someone breaking will be the way ahead...

I sometimes wonder if that will be enough. If, say, Tanner decides to break ranks, I can see the McCanns and their buddies in the press completely destroying any credibility she may have left.

by **PeterMac** 07.09.12 18:55

That might depend on what she said.
There is a difference between "I now recall that I didn't actually see what I thought I saw, erm, like, y'know"

and
"I was instructed to say what I did, and paid to do so, and promised that it would all be OK, by X, but I now want to tell the truth"

by ShuBob 07.09.12 19:18

She'll have to show some evidence with regards to the instruction(s), no? The McCanns and their lackeys will claim her advances against Gerry were rebuffed and this is her way of paying him back. IMO, she'll need support from at least one more tapas member to stand a chance of being taken seriously unless she has solid evidence like emails/taped phonecalls/bank account details to back up some of her claims.

by Olive_Boyle 07.09.12 21:54

If the person that came forward knew where the body was though. Game over.

by jd 08.09.12 0:21

rainbow-fairy wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

From 2 minutes on, Gerry is talking about 'everything we have done in the last 100 days is based on the belief Madeleine was alive when she was abducted' - what a nonsense! Who would abduct a child that was dead?!?

Also, when asked about the 'well-known fact' that they left the children alone (which I do not believe) Gerry displays all the typical signs of a big lie - swallowing, eyes closed, scratching nose throughout... before waffling that 'they can't comment too much on the routines as they are subject to investigation' - well it didn't stop them leaking other stuff via friends and family!

Also they are talking of staying and that NO-ONE would bully them into leaving - hmmm, if memory serves within days of interviews and arguido status they fled!

The truly innocent would have no fear. IMO, the interviews have been a rope around their necks of their own making... let them carry on. People are not believing them anymore... slowly but surely public support is waning.

The best hope of justice for Maddie is not SY imo. Someone breaking will be the way ahead...

Welcome back RF!!! roses

by Mumbles 09.09.12 0:56

candyfloss wrote:Hummingbird take a look at the first 30 seconds of this one and the reaction when asked by interviewer take us through the emotional experience when someone says they have definitely seen Madeleine........

[youtube][/youtube]

Seeing this video again after such a long time, reminded me that someone had once made a clip of these frames in question,
slowing them down so that they could be viewed in sequence by using the arrows either side of the frame.

Watching Gerry smirk in slow motion really does give me the chills.

Here's the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 09.09.12 9:31

Mumbles wrote: [...]

Seeing this video again after such a long time, reminded me that someone had once made a clip of these frames in question,
slowing them down so that they could be viewed in sequence by using the arrows either side of the frame.

Watching Gerry smirk in slow motion really does give me the chills.

Here's the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

***
Me too!
I haven't seen this slow motion before. Thank you for posting a link.

by Hummingbird 09.09.12 10:27

Châtelaine wrote:
Mumbles wrote: [...]

Seeing this video again after such a long time, reminded me that someone had once made a clip of these frames in question,
slowing them down so that they could be viewed in sequence by using the arrows either side of the frame.

Watching Gerry smirk in slow motion really does give me the chills.

Here's the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

***
Me too!
I haven't seen this slow motion before. Thank you for posting a link.

Mumbles, this is one of the best things I have ever seen on video about these two, it really shows their true colours doesn't it and yes, I agree it gives you the chills.

The way they are looking straight at the interviewer and yet the second the question sinks in they both look down and start to smirk a little, then they look at each other out the corner of their eyes and the most telling is when GM can hardly contain himself and looks so 'pleased' with himself and KM has to turn her head away very quickly so as not to see him laughing otherwise they would be be like a pair of children giggling in assembly!! He then looks at her fully and she keeps her face turned away from him - just what exactly are these two on? It is truly appalling and I only wish EVERYONE who has ever thought they truly had seen MM (in all good intentions) and who had given to their fund could see it.
Poor Madeleine sad

Latest topics