Re: Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated'

by tiny 21.05.13 20:05

Do people on here really think there was a soothing couple.i think its a load of bull,after 6 yrs this couple have just come to light

by Guest 21.05.13 20:12

Didn't the Portuguese authorities vouchsafe to re-open the inquest if and when new evidence would come to light?

And here: hey, presto: new evidence. On a platter!

by Lance De Boils 21.05.13 20:13

I believe that if there was a "soothing couple", it would have been 2 of the T9. Or at least people that the McCanns knew. Certainly no random strangers.

"Middle-aged" is such a vague term. When I was a teenager, anyone from late 30s or early 40s upwards was "middle aged" to me. However, now I'm into my 40s, to me "middle-aged" means 50-60 ish.

(In 10 yrs time, I'll probably consider "middle aged" to be over 60. Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 110921

Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 110921

)

by tiny 21.05.13 20:15

Portia wrote:Didn't the Portuguese authorities vouchsafe to re-open the inquest if and when new evidence would come to light?

And here: hey, presto: new evidence. On a platter!

So why are not the mccanns shouting this new evidence from the rooftops after all they did say they wanted it re-opened

by Guest 21.05.13 20:17

tiny wrote:
Portia wrote:Didn't the Portuguese authorities vouchsafe to re-open the inquest if and when new evidence would come to light?

And here: hey, presto: new evidence. On a platter!
So why are not the mccanns shouting this new evidence from the rooftops after all they did say they wanted it re-opened

***
Rhetorical question?

by Guest 21.05.13 20:21

tiny wrote:
Portia wrote:Didn't the Portuguese authorities vouchsafe to re-open the inquest if and when new evidence would come to light?

And here: hey, presto: new evidence. On a platter!
So why are not the mccanns shouting this new evidence from the rooftops after all they did say they wanted it re-opened

Must say I'm very surprised, considering SY have put forth this new evidence and want case re-opened, why aren't the McCanns on the old breakfast sofa saying the same. The silence is defeaning.

by margaret 21.05.13 20:29

candyfloss wrote:
tiny wrote:
Portia wrote:Didn't the Portuguese authorities vouchsafe to re-open the inquest if and when new evidence would come to light?

And here: hey, presto: new evidence. On a platter!
So why are not the mccanns shouting this new evidence from the rooftops after all they did say they wanted it re-opened
Must say I'm very surprised, considering SY have put forth this new evidence and want case re-opened, why aren't the McCanns on the old breakfast sofa saying the same. The silence is defeaning.

Shouldn't they be horrified by this news?

IMO the case will be reopened soon.

by **PeterMac** 21.05.13 22:15

margaret wrote:
Shouldn't they be horrified by this news?

Not horrified.
TERRIFIED
The Express has blown out of the water
• half hourly checks, or indeed any checks at all - by ANY of them on two consecutive nights. 1st and 2nd
• all the reported events of 21:15 3/5/07, GM meeting JW, then being passed by JT and so on and on.

Pinkie is still working out what to say.
C-R admitted they were only working on what they had been told and had not even bothered to read the book, the primary first hand evidence of one of the main witnesses / suspects / clients / Plaintiffs / complainants in the case. They hadn't even bothered to read her "version of the truth".
So I think we can expect them to stay well out of this one !

Bit by bit the "official story' is being picked apart in public, rather as we have done in private over the past 6 years, seeking only the truth about what happened to a little girl in Portugal.

by ShuBob 21.05.13 22:42

PeterMac wrote:
margaret wrote:
Shouldn't they be horrified by this news?

Not horrified.
TERRIFIED
The Express has blown out of the water
• half hourly checks, or indeed any checks at all - by ANY of them on two consecutive nights. 1st and 2nd
• all the reported events of 21:15 3/5/07, GM meeting JW, then being passed by JT and so on and on.

Pinkie is still working out what to say.
C-R admitted they were only working on what they had been told and had not even bothered to read the book, the primary first hand evidence of one of the main witnesses / suspects / clients / Plaintiffs / complainants in the case. They hadn't even bothered to read her "version of the truth".
So I think we can expect them to stay well out of this one !

Bit by bit the "official story' is being picked apart in public, rather as we have done in private over the past 6 years, seeking only the truth about what happened to a little girl in Portugal.

With regards to lawyers and their clients, I read this article the other day and found it quite interesting not least because the subject is the head of Hacked Off:

A senior Liberal Democrat MP has useda Commons motion to launch an astonishing attack on the head of the Hacked Off pressure group for 'acting against freedom of expression and
the rule of law' during his legal career.

John Hemming has condemned Hugh Tomlinson QC, the barrister who has led Hacked Off's call for state-backed regulation of the press, for his role in bringing legal injunctions on behalf of footballer Ryan Giggs and banker Fred Goodwin.

The MP also claims that Mr Tomlinson helped to secure the 'secret imprisonment' of a woman simply for 'writing emails'.
[...]
Mr Tomlinson's spokesman said: 'The motion contains a number of significant factual errors.

'Mr Tomlinson must take cases within his areas of expertise: he is not permitted to choose which cases to take based on his personal view. The arguments he advances are based on the instructions of his clients.

'Mr Hemming is entitled to criticise Mr Tomlinson's personal views, or the views of Hacked Off, but he is not entitled to attribute to Mr Tomlinson the views and arguments of his clients.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326765/MP-attacks-head-Hacked-Off-acting-stifle-free-speech-legal-career-bringing-injunctions-Giggs-Goodwin.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

by lufc50337 21.05.13 23:20

bobbin wrote:
margaret wrote:
bristow wrote:
sally66 wrote:To me the 'Why didn't YOU come when me and Sean were crying last night' was to pre empt something and IMO this is it.

Yes I totally agree with this.

But l just can't believe two strangers got into their apartment to soothe Maddie and they still went out and left her alone in an unlocked apartment the next night? Nobody is that daft and evil publically!

Yes, but on the Thursday morning, 3rd May, when Maddie supposedly asked the supposed question, Kate didn't know that a kindly couple had come into the apartment (without leaving an iota of forensic evidence for the police who would arrive later in the evening) and soothed Maddie.
Maddy just brushed Kate's question off instead of taking the opportunity to explain to her mother, "NO, it wasn't when the ~~twins~~, em, me and Sean, were having our bath", it was when the old couple that want to adopt me came in and cuddled and soothed me in a way that you never have and then they went out and said they would be back tomorrow (that's "today" mummy), to take me from my bed, folding the covers back in a little triangle, just like you always tuck me in, so that when you look in (unlike normally when you don't) they are going to leave the door wider open, and then you'll wonder, is it me or the bedding.

What I don't understand is why this kindly soothing couple of oldies suddenly went on the rampage and jemmied the shutters open, taking Maddie out via the narrow window, without scratching the lichen on the window ledge but putting a perfect replica of Kate's finger print on the window.

But muddying the waters is their area of expertise

by aiyoyo 22.05.13 6:38

Maybe this mysterious couple and their nocturnal activity is begotten from old statements and already investigated and eliminate by PJ.
I am guessing the PJ already sussed out the entire picture from piecing together every witness statements and if the MET couldn't figure it out, proving the keystone coppers they are, then maybe Portuguese do not see the need to tell them anything.

We were led to believe the Review is a joint-cooperation with both parties working in tandem, so you have to wonder whether the MET pre-informed their counterparts before they made those announcements. We were also told that the couple in Rothley were kept up-to-date of the review by the MET, unless that info is just a piece of rubbish journalism, otherwise if the Portuguese were a tad mistrustful of MET it would be understandable as you have to question why a Review Team would need to keep the "suspects" informed of anything.

by aiyoyo 22.05.13 8:29

The Portuguese wont reopen without new evidence, non-withstanding that MET had come up with a handful of suspects as a result of two years of paper shifting that they claimed need to be investigated if only for elimination.

It's all so very predictable that Op Grange had not found anything that can justify the legal tussle of reopening. By passing the buck back to the Portuguese, effectively MET are indicating readiness to down tool and draw the Review to a close in an inconclusive anti-climax way, thereby affording them with a reason to justify the spendings of the review.

Effectively, we are back to square one, as if the Review had not taken place. The MET's review had not done the investigation any service by their inability to come up with new evidence to move the case forward to fruition. It's a bl**** waste of time and money.

I would be very surprised if the MET announcements result in a re-opening. At most the announcements are pre-emptive moves to an open-end close of the Review.

by jozi 22.05.13 10:41

aiyoyo wrote:
The Portuguese wont reopen without new evidence, non-withstanding that MET had come up with a handful of suspects as a result of two years of paper shifting that they claimed need to be investigated if only for elimination.

It's all so very predictable that Op Grange had not found anything that can justify the legal tussle of reopening. By passing the buck back to the Portuguese, effectively MET are indicating readiness to down tool and draw the Review to a close in an inconclusive anti-climax way, thereby affording them with a reason to justify the spendings of the review.

Effectively, we are back to square one, as if the Review had not taken place. The MET's review had not done the investigation any service by their inability to come up with new evidence to move the case forward to fruition. It's a bl**** waste of time and money.

I would be very surprised if the MET announcements result in a re-opening. At most the announcements are pre-emptive moves to an open-end close of the Review.

Sorry you feel that aiyoyo but I feel there is something happening and the MET are just biding their time (hope so as how will they account for time and money ). We have read about phone accounts,forensic evidence and statements that do not correspond and would like to question people again ? This gives me hope not the BS that Clarry is adding to it all .......The police will keep them (McCanns ) informed, makes them feel they are on their side in all this, but how informed that's the question ???

Remember last week when all this came out, Clarry declined to answer until he had time to think,now he is in full voice all the stories now are just too ridiculous to even think about them and its all the same crap being repeated to muddy waters.....fingers crossed !!!

by aiyoyo 22.05.13 15:52

Well, I thought their recent announcements were exactly that - account for time and money saying they identified a handful of suspects that Portuguese refused to do anything about so it's not their problem the review cannot go any further or the case cannot progress.

They would argue coming up with the new suspects is justification for the time and money; that their Review was productive and did yield something but the Portuguese wont reopen. So that's iIT! Case remains shelved. Maddie's disappearance remains a mystery. Her parents remain free to spin and put out the collection box.

by lj 22.05.13 18:07

aiyoyo wrote:Well, I thought their recent announcements were exactly that - account for time and money saying they identified a handful of suspects that Portuguese refused to do anything about so it's not their problem the review cannot go any further or the case cannot progress.

They would argue coming up with the new suspects is justification for the time and money; that their Review was productive and did yield something but the Portuguese wont reopen. So that's iIT! Case remains shelved. Maddie's disappearance remains a mystery. Her parents remain free to spin and put out the collection box.

I believe the same.

by Guest 22.05.13 19:22

lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Well, I thought their recent announcements were exactly that - account for time and money saying they identified a handful of suspects that Portuguese refused to do anything about so it's not their problem the review cannot go any further or the case cannot progress.

They would argue coming up with the new suspects is justification for the time and money; that their Review was productive and did yield something but the Portuguese wont reopen. So that's iIT! Case remains shelved. Maddie's disappearance remains a mystery. Her parents remain free to spin and put out the collection box.

I believe the same.

nice try anyway!
hi ij!

by margaret 22.05.13 21:38

aiyoyo wrote:Well, I thought their recent announcements were exactly that - account for time and money saying they identified a handful of suspects that Portuguese refused to do anything about so it's not their problem the review cannot go any further or the case cannot progress.

They would argue coming up with the new suspects is justification for the time and money; that their Review was productive and did yield something but the Portuguese wont reopen. So that's iIT! Case remains shelved. Maddie's disappearance remains a mystery. Her parents remain free to spin and put out the collection box.

Trouble is you only have too look at forums, newspaper comments etc to know that the Mccanns are not believed, supported or respected by many.

Their fund has had it's day too, so even if SY walk away the mcs are still in hell.

by marconi 01.06.13 10:58

Could Clarence Mitchell be among the 12 suspects? It seems to be obvious that he knows that Maddie is dead.

Planning sightings and costing money to police abroad.

by plebgate 01.06.13 19:42

margaret wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Well, I thought their recent announcements were exactly that - account for time and money saying they identified a handful of suspects that Portuguese refused to do anything about so it's not their problem the review cannot go any further or the case cannot progress.

They would argue coming up with the new suspects is justification for the time and money; that their Review was productive and did yield something but the Portuguese wont reopen. So that's iIT! Case remains shelved. Maddie's disappearance remains a mystery. Her parents remain free to spin and put out the collection box.

Trouble is you only have too look at forums, newspaper comments etc to know that the Mccanns are not believed, supported or respected by many.

Their fund has had it's day too, so even if SY walk away the mcs are still in hell.

Yes I think the fund has had it's day. Announcing that their search would be temporarily suspended because of the SY Review but still asking for donations is ridiculous imo.

If the SY review ends with no positive outcome why on earth would people donate to their fund again and if there is a positive outcome of the SY review there will be no need to donate.

The Fund is over I believe.

by Cristobell 01.06.13 20:12

We are forgetting that Portugal are running their own review and SY were/are working with their counterparts in the PJ. They too must reach a conclusion. We don't know how much Portugual have invested in the Oporto Review, but I doubt the people will accept the case being shelved again and left in limbo. The mccanns have said many times, they will never give up. The Portuguese tourist industry is pummelled every year, again and again, we see comments where British people will no longer there. That awful negative propaganda affects peoples' lives. The workers at the Ocean Club did not leave those kids on their own, the parents did. Those workers were out there searching for Madeleine day and night, it is cruel to blame them, the village should be allowed to recover. In the end, the announcement from the PJ, will be the only one that matters.

by lj 02.06.13 5:34

These pathetic parent are to blame for whatever happened, even if you believe their fairy tale. So yes, I hope Portugal gets some b@lls and figures out what really happened. I also hope that in that story they will indicate which parts of the investigation was sabotaged by British interference, wheter it is diplomatic, governmental, laboratory or police corps. That way all those "believers" will know what they fell for.

I won't hold my breath through. I think that neither the British or the Portuguese have the guts to face and tell the truth.

by marconi 04.06.13 10:53

Could Clarence Mitchell be one of the dozen?

by Liz Eagles 04.06.13 11:07

I just googled Clarence Mitchell (nothing to do with Marconi's comment I must stress) and it's weird - Clarence is really difficult to find apart from Press articles etc. Can someone find him on Wiki? I would have thought being a media guru his name would be right up top and very easy to find.

by Guest 04.06.13 11:16

I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

by Liz Eagles 04.06.13 11:20

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

We've lost Clarence.

by bobbin 04.06.13 11:32

aquila wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

We've lost Clarence.

That's what he'd like us to think, but hey, there is loads of 'him' copied and disseminated throughout the global web.
I think what he's shown here is how busy he is, at getting everything 'deleted'.
It's his job to control what comes out in the news, and that level of control must spill over, into controlling (and removing) what has, undesirably, got out.
Don't worry Clarence, all the whitewashing you do will still have a residual 'pink' tinge, or should I say, 'taint'. You just can't get rid of 'red', just like Mrs. McBeth, who couldn't wash her hands clean of the ***** . Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 110921

by Guest 04.06.13 11:34

aquila wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

We've lost Clarence.

Iirc Clarence was already out of sight in Leveson days.
Thanks to sir Cristopher Meyer's statement we know that CM already had given evidence.
parapono

by Liz Eagles 04.06.13 11:36

bobbin wrote:
aquila wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

We've lost Clarence.
That's what he'd like us to think, but hey, there is loads of 'him' copied and disseminated throughout the global web.
I think what he's shown here is how busy he is, at getting everything 'deleted'.
It's his job to control what comes out in the news, and that level of control must spill over, into controlling (and removing) what has, undesirably, got out.
Don't worry Clarence, all the whitewashing you do will still have a residual 'pink' tinge, or should I say, 'taint'. You just can't get rid of 'red', just like Mrs. McBeth, who couldn't wash her hands clean of the ***** .

When was Clarence removed from Wiki? I am of course assuming he had a wiki entry (but doesn't everyone in public life have one?)

Last tweets from CM that I can see 29th May 2013 (I don't do twitter - I clicked onto the google entry).

by bobbin 04.06.13 11:45

aquila wrote:
bobbin wrote:
aquila wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I see what you mean! He certainly isn't the Clarence Mitchell who was a baseball player.

Here's his LinkedIn profile.

http://u k.linkedin.com/pub/clarence-mitchell/42/46b/587

We've lost Clarence.
That's what he'd like us to think, but hey, there is loads of 'him' copied and disseminated throughout the global web.
I think what he's shown here is how busy he is, at getting everything 'deleted'.
It's his job to control what comes out in the news, and that level of control must spill over, into controlling (and removing) what has, undesirably, got out.
Don't worry Clarence, all the whitewashing you do will still have a residual 'pink' tinge, or should I say, 'taint'. You just can't get rid of 'red', just like Mrs. McBeth, who couldn't wash her hands clean of the ***** .

When was Clarence removed from Wiki? I am of course assuming he had a wiki entry (but doesn't everyone in public life have one?)

Last tweets from CM that I can see 29th May 2013 (I don't do twitter - I clicked onto the google entry).

Quite, why no Wiki. I looked for him re the possibility of him being one of the 'lovers' and could find nothing. That's when I thought, this is unusual. He's so high-profile, like shaking hands with the pope, quick to get in there, but nowt on him in the place where you'd most expect it.
That's why I came to the realisation, that he's in charge of 'not what you see' but what 'we don't want you to see'.
The other alternative is that people would probably defile his pages with graffiti on a daily basis, so he probably gets up in the morning, pours his coffee, deletes his page, goes to work, same thing next day, same deletion Saturday and Sunday, even if not going to work. Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 3139096799

Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 3139096799

by Praiaaa 04.06.13 11:49

[quote="bobbin so he probably gets up in the morning, pours his coffee, deletes his page, goes to work, same thing next day, same deletion Saturday and Sunday, even if not going to work. Madeleine Suspects 'Not Fully Investigated' - Page 3 3139096799

[/quote]