Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 3:13

Cristobell wrote:
diatribe wrote:< snip >
I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.
Apologies Diatribe, only just seen this.

I don't know what has held up the trial, we can only speculate at this stage. The longer the delay however, the more suspicious it becomes, we are now into March, and the last day of the hearing was before Christmas!

I don't think there will be any offers or acceptances of a settlement. The case has come too far and Goncalo Amaral is entitled to his day in Court. He has fought the libel actions to the bitter end, it would go against all his constitutional rights to deny him a verdict in open court.

The trial may have become invalid due to some sort of proof that Madeleine is dead. There are two investigations going on, so it is well within the realms of possibility. I am not a legal person, but in the event Madeleine is dead then it would have all sorts of knock on effects as to the validity of HER claim against Goncalo Amaral. We were told one of the delays was due to the Wardship issue.

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

The case may have collapsed. That is the McCanns and/or their Lawyers may have decided to withdraw and offered to pay all costs. Terms would have to be agreed by all parties including Goncalo Amaral and the two other Defendants. I don't really know what happens when a case collapses, but I am sure there are cases out there.

Ouch - look at costs faced by David Irving (pro nazi historian) in his failed action against author Deborah Lipstadt and publishers Penguin - it goes into millions and that is 2002!

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

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

How did this 'dramatic new evidence' emege? Was it discovered during the course of the proceedings, and what impact has it had on the trial?

Did the McCanns issue an apology for 'suppressing the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public' and how did the apology alter the length of time they'd suppressed the evidence? confused

I seem to recall you were invited back to, is it peoplestv? the name escapes me at the moment , in order to update viewers on the libel trial. Will you be making a further appearance any time soon?

by **PeterMac** 06.03.14 8:23

candyfloss wrote:
I have removed it. It would cause offence to some, I must admit I didn't like it, and although I understand what PM is talking about, it would only be used against this forum imo.

Fair enough. It is your forum.
Hitler and Mussolini both practised their gestures and facial expressions, using Opera as the basis.
In the days before TV monitors, gestures had to be large, and although they now look ridiculous in close up, they are exactly what singers and actors do on a large stage
The gestures are wide and slower than normal, and after each one there is a dramatic pause so that the message may 'sink in'

The McCanns seem to have perfected their "Oh so sad', We are the victims, look at us and ~~donate~~ weep look, which they are able to turn on at will, and then, as we saw on the TV studio, turn off again.

Look back at the comparison of Kate and Mary we posted some months back. Exactly the same way of holding the head and the hand across the neck
It seem they have been practicing this, probably on advice.
That was my point

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 9:42

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

I see nothing in this photo which evokes any feeling of pity. What I do see is the wee one with his eyes closed and, from his tightly repressed mouth, it seems to me that were his eyes open the image would be the familiar one of contempt and disdain for those around him.

What seems to be the development of baggy jowls is more probably explained by his head being slightly down with his chin tucked in towards his neck, but the botox is holding up well and I suspect the portrait of Gerry McCann which is too hideous for the eye to behold remains stored in Rothley Towers in much the same manner as Dorian Gray was able to hide his true face from society.

IMO what we're seeing here is as described by tigger because only the prospect of the lifestyle fund drying up forever could cause an expression of genuine anguish to transform Mr Tiny Tears face into any resemblance of sorrow and, needless to say, 'sorry' is a word he reserves entirely for himself.

by Cristobell 06.03.14 9:49

ultimaThule wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
diatribe wrote:< snip >
I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.
Apologies Diatribe, only just seen this.

I don't know what has held up the trial, we can only speculate at this stage. The longer the delay however, the more suspicious it becomes, we are now into March, and the last day of the hearing was before Christmas!

I don't think there will be any offers or acceptances of a settlement. The case has come too far and Goncalo Amaral is entitled to his day in Court. He has fought the libel actions to the bitter end, it would go against all his constitutional rights to deny him a verdict in open court.

The trial may have become invalid due to some sort of proof that Madeleine is dead. There are two investigations going on, so it is well within the realms of possibility. I am not a legal person, but in the event Madeleine is dead then it would have all sorts of knock on effects as to the validity of HER claim against Goncalo Amaral. We were told one of the delays was due to the Wardship issue.

In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

The case may have collapsed. That is the McCanns and/or their Lawyers may have decided to withdraw and offered to pay all costs. Terms would have to be agreed by all parties including Goncalo Amaral and the two other Defendants. I don't really know what happens when a case collapses, but I am sure there are cases out there.

Ouch - look at costs faced by David Irving (pro nazi historian) in his failed action against author Deborah Lipstadt and publishers Penguin - it goes into millions and that is 2002!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[color=#ff0000]In addition, dramatic new evidence has emerged during the course of the trial. Courtesy of The Times, the world learned that the McCanns suppressed the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public. The Apology did nothing to put that particular cat back in the bag, it merely altered the length of time the McCanns suppressed the evidence.

How did this 'dramatic new evidence' emege? Was it discovered during the course of the proceedings, and what impact has it had on the trial?

Good question. The Times were the only paper to run with the suppression story, so they unearthed it themselves, or someone gave them a tip off. As for its impact on the trial, it remains to be seen, but this long delay is curious. The basis of the McCanns' claim for damages is that GA's book harmed the search for Madeleine, the McCanns suppressing a key sighting raises huge questions as to the validity of the McCanns' 'search'.

Did the McCanns issue an apology for 'suppressing the Smith sighting and the e-fit from the public' and how did the apology alter the length of time they'd suppressed the evidence?

The McCanns didn't issue an apology for suppressing the Smith sighting, they extracted an apology from the Times. However it wasn't quite what they demanded, the story stood, only the length of time the McCanns suppressed the story was altered.

I seem to recall you were invited back to, is it peoplestv? the name escapes me at the moment , in order to update viewers on the libel trial. Will you be making a further appearance any time soon?

The trial has not resumed and there have been changes at TPV, so the answer is I honestly don't know.

by Guest 06.03.14 9:51

Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

by Guest 06.03.14 10:00

ultimaThule wrote:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
When and where was this photo taken???

by Guest 06.03.14 10:03

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

It's May 2013, sixth anniversary, from the Daily Mail, I believe. Trying to find it.

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

Thanks, Chatelaine.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:19

Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Woofer wrote:I`m weird I know, but I can`t joke about that pic of GM - it really gets to me - so sad and real for once.

I feel the same. What was the date of the photo?

What affects me is what happened to his 3 year old daughter, Madeleine, and the suffering she endured.

The parents can relieve any perceived "pain" they are enduring by telling the truth of the circumstances of her disappearance. I have no sympathy for them.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:22

Andrew77R wrote:Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

So what was going on around that time that might have suddenly rendered him so concerned?

by Guest 06.03.14 10:34

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

So what was going on around that time that might have suddenly rendered him so concerned?

Chateleine posted on p.18 that the review became an investigation one month after the photograph was taken.

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 10:41

The wee one was besieged on all sides. What he'd imagined to be a 'review' of the case by the Met, in which he no doubt thought he and his whiteboard would play a key part in directing, had become a runaway train rapidly heading towards an all out 'investigation'.

The McCanns attempts to settle with Dr Amaral had not been successful and the prospect of a full blown trial was writ large in the sky over Rothley Towers.

The cash advance on the bewk was long gone and sales had dried up meaning no royalties would be forthcoming from what they'd hoped would be another cash cow, a best seller up there with the Bible. Similarly, the guillible had become wise and donations to the lifestyle fund had become a mere trickle.

Or it could just be that he and his spouse had consumed more than a bottle of NZ vino the night before.

by sallypelt 06.03.14 10:51

Ladyinred wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:Well he certainly looks a condemned man in that photo. The only photo i have seen of GM where he genuinely looks sad and the pain is clearly there etched on his face.

I think that's more to do with the possibility of a lengthy custodial sentence than genuine anguish over MBM.

He looks very worried and so he should be. The end is in sight maybe and he knows it.

So what was going on around that time that might have suddenly rendered him so concerned?

Chateleine posted on p.18 that the review became an investigation one month after the photograph was taken.

And Ladyinred, I have NO doubt that the McCann's would have known well in advance that the review was going to be an investigation. And, again, I agree, there is genuine pain on GM's face and it is caused because he knows where things are heading, but I as I've said, I hate human suffering, and on this occasion, the photograph of him looking as he does, pulls at me heartstrings. However, when I think of the damage that the McCann's and their clan, have done to Tony Bennett, Dr G Amaral and many others, it brings me back down to earth.

In the words of Sir W Churchill: If Hitler invaded Hell I would at least make a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.

by Guest 06.03.14 10:57

ultimaThule wrote:

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

I see nothing in this photo which evokes any feeling of pity. What I do see is the wee one with his eyes closed and, from his tightly repressed mouth, it seems to me that were his eyes open the image would be the familiar one of contempt and disdain for those around him.

What seems to be the development of baggy jowls is more probably explained by his head being slightly down with his chin tucked in towards his neck, but the botox is holding up well and I suspect the portrait of Gerry McCann which is too hideous for the eye to behold remains stored in Rothley Towers in much the same manner as Dorian Gray was able to hide his true face from society.

IMO what we're seeing here is as described by tigger because only the prospect of the lifestyle fund drying up forever could cause an expression of genuine anguish to transform Mr Tiny Tears face into any resemblance of sorrow and, needless to say, 'sorry' is a word he reserves entirely for himself.

For anybody who is starting to feel an ounce of sympathy for the wee man, remember this was his response just a few months earlier:

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

by ultimaThule 06.03.14 11:06

"I hate human suffering, and on this occasion, the photograph of him looking as he does, pulls at me heartstrings. However, when I think of the damage that the McCann's and their clan, have done to Tony Bennett, Dr G Amaral and many others, it brings me back down to earth".

The adults in this case are more than able to take care of themselves, sallypelt, but a three year old child cannot be seen as anything other than utterly defenceless and the damage done to her ensures that I will never ever feel one iota of pity for those who caused her needless suffering and harm.

by **PeterMac** 06.03.14 11:20

ultimaThule wrote:
The adults in this case are more than able to take care of themselves, sallypelt, but a three year old child cannot be seen as anything other than utterly defenceless and the damage done to her ensures that I will never ever feel one iota of pity for those who caused her needless suffering and harm.

And who refuse to accept that their actions contributed in any way to what they SAY happened.
That is what I find so astonishing.
They cannot bring themselves to accept leaving the apartment unlocked and only visiting every half hour was the contributory factor, and without these IT could not have happened.

Which then forces me to the conclusion that IT did not happen.
They therefore do not have to apologise or explain - since that is not what happened.
And they have never been put to the test of what actually did.
Only at that point might they start explaining and apologising.

by sallypelt 06.03.14 11:33

PeterMac wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
The adults in this case are more than able to take care of themselves, sallypelt, but a three year old child cannot be seen as anything other than utterly defenceless [/color][/color]and the damage done to her ensures that I will never ever feel one iota of pity for those who caused her needless suffering and harm.
And who refuse to accept that their actions contributed in any way to what they SAY happened.
That is what I find so astonishing.
They cannot bring themselves to accept leaving the apartment unlocked and only visiting every half hour was the contributory factor, and without these IT could not have happened.

Which then forces me to the conclusion that IT did not happen.
They therefore do not have to apologise or explain - since that is not what happened.
And they have never been put to the test of what actually did.
Only at that point might they start explaining and apologising.

Petermac, I detest what they have done, and a search for justice (searchforjustice was my mirror Forum ID, by the way) is what has kept me here for almost 7 years. No one wants justice more than I do, and the guilty made to pay, and pay heavily for the lies and the hurt that these people have imposed on those, whose only "crime" is wanting to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Even the hangman shows compassion to the condemned, even if he (hangman) supports the punishment. But in my case, feeling someone's pain doesn't prevent me from wanting justice for ALL wrong-doers. There's a saying and that is, "never mistake politeness and kindness for weakness".

by j.rob 06.03.14 18:16

Poe wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:

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

I see nothing in this photo which evokes any feeling of pity. What I do see is the wee one with his eyes closed and, from his tightly repressed mouth, it seems to me that were his eyes open the image would be the familiar one of contempt and disdain for those around him.

What seems to be the development of baggy jowls is more probably explained by his head being slightly down with his chin tucked in towards his neck, but the botox is holding up well and I suspect the portrait of Gerry McCann which is too hideous for the eye to behold remains stored in Rothley Towers in much the same manner as Dorian Gray was able to hide his true face from society.

IMO what we're seeing here is as described by tigger because only the prospect of the lifestyle fund drying up forever could cause an expression of genuine anguish to transform Mr Tiny Tears face into any resemblance of sorrow and, needless to say, 'sorry' is a word he reserves entirely for himself.

For anybody who is starting to feel an ounce of sympathy for the wee man, remember this was his response just a few months earlier:

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

The McCanns have staged managed everything from day one so there is no reason at all to suppose that the 'frief stricken' photo was also stage-managed, especially when you consider how incriminating their behaviour and bdoy language is in this video clip. Gerry, in particular must have realized he had to make amends for this gloating.

Why should anyone feel pity for this couple? They have reaped what they have sowed. They have lied from day one, imo. They have ruthlessly hounded anyone who did not agree with their ridiculous version of events. They have manipulated the media. The have conned the public into donating money to a fund that purports to 'find Madeleine' when, if there behaviour is anything to go by, they know she cannot and will not be found - at least not alive, and probably not dead either.

They have brazenly sued anyone who challenges their absurd version of events - clearly made up as they weren't there - or so they say - when 'it' happened. So they don't know what happened.

They can't have it both ways. Either they genuinely don't know or they do know - but they can only know for sure if they were there at the time of complicit in some way.

They do not deserve any sympathy at all. The victim in all this is Madeleine who, through their neglect (and probably much, much worse) met a grisly end.

How they have got away with spinning this yarn for so long is beyond extraordinary.

There are many victims in this case - principally Madeleine but also the twins. The utter selfishness of their parents has robbed them of their sister and condemned them to a very difficult life indeed when all this eventually unravels (which it will, in one way or another.)

Utter selfishness and motivated by greed. Nothing more or less, imo.

I despite them both.

by j.rob 06.03.14 18:34

So just look at the video clip of Gerry gloating again and think. What message is this sending out to his two remaining children who have been robbed of their sibling? That it is okay to snigger like a naughty school-boy over all the fun you had making up what Madeleine might look like now?

They are both complete idiots, imo, as in a few years time the twins will probably start asking questions and investigating and they may well not be as stupid as the McCanns obviously believe most people are. You don't need a PhD in criminology to work out that their version of events was a crock of s###.

And it is indicative of their degree of narcissism that, in order to concoct a version of events in which Madeleine can 'disappear' it depends upon a fairly high degree of neglect.

That, in itself, tells you a lot about how they prioritize the safety and care of their children. 'Oops - we lost one, oh well, it wasn't our fault. It's the fault of a nasty abductor.'

Their audacity and arrogance has always astounded me and hopefully it will be their downfall. IF Gerry McCann is, indeed, 'grief stricken' do you not think it is rather late in the day to be grief stricken over his missing daughter? He's left it a long time, hasn't he?

I suspect that, if the emotional state reflected in the photo is genuine, then the grief will be entirely for himself and his lifestyle, imo. The McPlan has gone tits up and he knows it. I really do hope that the welfare of the twins is not entirely in the hands of this couple. I would be extremely concerned for them.

Both parents *knew* that the age-progressed photo of Madeleine was a complete farce, imo, and they probably couldn't believe that the Met Police artist appeared to have been fooled by their performance (whether he was or wasn't, who knows?)

by diatribe 06.03.14 18:50

sallypelt wrote:

Wow, I can see so many typing errors in the above post, but it's too late to edit them on the original post, so I will do it here. This is what happens when one is trying to multitask at such a late hour.

Maybe you were distracted by your daughter, 'a LAW student.'

by j.rob 06.03.14 22:16

Oh stop being such a bitch, diatribe, you know perfectly well what this poster is getting at. There are very high level people - legal, political,medical, media - who have defended the McCanns.

It all stinks, and you know it. Carter Ruck are looking like they should be at the bottom of a cess-pit. This case has made the UK look stupid - politicians, legal and medical people bending over backwards to defend negligent parents who are an embarrassment.

Yes - it makes the UK legal system look stupid. And corrupt.

by marconi 06.03.14 23:22

I watched BBC news and the government were talking about corruption of the Yard. There will be an inquiry about it.
Maybe this news comes in time to warn eventual corrupt officers who could try harm the investigation.
Maddie's case has a too high profile, none would dare it.

by sallypelt 06.03.14 23:55

diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

Wow, I can see so many typing errors in the above post, but it's too late to edit them on the original post, so I will do it here. This is what happens when one is trying to multitask at such a late hour.
Maybe you were distracted by your daughter, 'a LAW student.'

Deleted - Please do not attack members. See No.2 Forum Rules.....

2. NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER - that includes calling people trolls etc. Any worries contact Admin or Mods.

Diatribe, try debating and add some substance to your posts, because all I have seen in your last few posts are sweeping statements with NO debth.

by sallypelt 07.03.14 0:03

diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

Wow, I can see so many typing errors in the above post, but it's too late to edit them on the original post, so I will do it here. This is what happens when one is trying to multitask at such a late hour.
Maybe you were distracted by your daughter, 'a LAW student.'

Admins, are these type of posts really necessary? They just bring the forum down and add NOTHING to the quality of debate. I can really do without such attacks.

by Guest 07.03.14 0:14

Okay, I missed that post. Diatribe enough of the sarcastic posts please respect other posters..... Sallypelt the best thing is ignore.

by sallypelt 07.03.14 0:32

sallypelt wrote:
diatribe wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

Wow, I can see so many typing errors in the above post, but it's too late to edit them on the original post, so I will do it here. This is what happens when one is trying to multitask at such a late hour.
Maybe you were distracted by your daughter, 'a LAW student.'
Deleted - Please do not attack members. See No.2 Forum Rules.....

2. NEVER ATTACK ANOTHER MEMBER - that includes calling people trolls etc. Any worries contact Admin or Mods.

Diatribe, try debating and add some substance to your posts, because all I have seen in your last few posts are sweeping statements with NO debth.

OK, I'm out. I have been under attack from diatribe for a while, even to the point where other members have been pming me with support but as soon as I retaliate, which I NEVER do, I am brought to book.

by marconi 07.03.14 6:12

I received the answer from the lawyer, written in specialized difficult language and I will try to tell here what he explained me.

Every person has the right to defend himself.
Every person has the right not to talk about an issue that could incriminate himself.

witness:
A witness has to answer all of the questions.
If an answer could incriminate the witness, he/she has the right to silent.
Nobody is obliged to incriminate himself.

Arguido (formal suspect)

When a arguido status is liftted, it means that the person is not a formal suspect anymore.
A person, whose arguido status has been lifted, can be called back to the process, as being a witness and this person can be again made arguido.

The arguido has the right to remain silent during the whole process, also not answering any question.
The arguido has the right to introduce his own witnesses.
The arguido has the right to make suggestions during the process.

The arguido has to submit himself to the findings and evidence found by the police, including a reconstruction of the crime, statements, phone hackings by the police, letters, e-emails, etc etc

The goal of the police is to resolve a crime.

This is all I can say.In case posters would like to know more about this, please check on internet before it wil become a lawyergate.
Thank you.

by marconi 07.03.14 6:46

The police will find a way to make the McCanns talk, I'm sure.
I wonder if Tapas 7, the only witnesses the parents have, will be prepared to state in favour of them.
None of Tapas 7 showed up in Lisbon and that is a sign that they will probably not defend Kate and Gerry.

by **PeterMac** 07.03.14 8:42

marconi wrote:
None of Tapas 7 showed up in Lisbon and that is a sign that they will probably not defend Kate and Gerry.

And that is VERY telling, isn't it.

Fiona is supposed to have been one of Kate's long term friends
others did runs with them to raise funds, - a long time ago.
They were all there when IT happened
They all saw how IT affected the McCans
They all saw how Press 'intrusion' affected them
and not ONE will go into the witness box to tell the court, first hand
They were left with Pike and the notes on a paper napkin.

by pennylane 07.03.14 9:08

PeterMac wrote:
marconi wrote:
None of Tapas 7 showed up in Lisbon and that is a sign that they will probably not defend Kate and Gerry.

And that is VERY telling, isn't it.

Fiona is supposed to have been one of Kate's long term friends
others did runs with them to raise funds, - a long time ago.
They were all there when IT happened
They all saw how IT affected the McCans
They all saw how Press 'intrusion' affected them
and not ONE will go into the witness box to tell the court, first hand
They were left with Pike and the notes on a paper napkin.

.....and where in the heck was Clarence (pimping) Mitchell? One seriously adept man at lying with as many teeth as he has in his mouth. You'd think he'd be right there for 'Kate and Gerry' in this instance!

I don't think anyone on Team McCanns side, with in-depth knowledge of their crimes, would voluntarily go near a courtroom. Plus I'm not sure TM would dare chance it. Just look at poor Edgar! Even his MO was exposed when he was forced to admit on the stand, that he only followed the leads the McCanns gave him. duh