Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Guest 17.05.14 11:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Very droll.

But think of it perhaps, aquila, rather like panning for gold.

Day after day, you search and search - and find nothing of interest of value.

But then, all of a sudden, you find gold dust.

Or even a nugget.

And then you realise that all your searching has been worthwhile, after all.

I must admit that the Portugal News reference to Monteiro dying on a golf course near Lagos passed me by completely at the time. How does Brendan de Beer know this? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

by HelenMeg 17.05.14 16:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Very droll.

But think of it perhaps, aquila, rather like panning for gold.

Day after day, you search and search - and find nothing of interest of value.

But then, all of a sudden, you find gold dust.

Or even a nugget.

And then you realise that all your searching has been worthwhile, after all.

I must admit that the Portugal News reference to Monteiro dying on a golf course near Lagos passed me by completely at the time. How does Brendan de Beer know this? I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There has to be a good reason why Mc Canns + SY do not wish to focus on Monteiro and yet the PJ do. You would expect the Mc Canns to latch on to such a suspect, especially as he died in 2009 in a 'tractor' accident! But no... could it be he is too close to home....
anyway I'm pinning a few hopes on the PJ pursuing this through to who enlisted his help on that night ..

by Hongkong Phooey 18.05.14 11:12

So, does tractorman receive a call from the OC land line then his phone pings in the vicinity? It could lead to Smithman passing the 'goods' to Tractorman for temporary storage etc. This would involve bringing unknown quantities into the equation, who knows how reliable they would be (he did meet an untimely end though). It also puts the OC in the picture for the cover up (which when you look at the removing of nannies/creche workers has some merits). Why would they do this, would a child dying by accident (or something else where the OC would be blameless) really sour their reputation? The sheer scale of the help and protection is astounding when you look at it.

Would it not be preferable for the OC that an accident occurred rather than kids being snatched from their beds by pedophiles in their resort?

by galena 19.05.14 11:30

Woofer wrote:I doubt whether David Cameron or Theresa May give the McCanns a second thought - haven`t they got a country to run.

And to the contrary, I reckon if David Cameron tried to claim points by solving (and arresting) the McCanns, it would probably lose him votes, well the votes of the people that read the MSM anyway. It would be Oh poor McCanns - how could you arrest such lovely people who have suffered so much already - remember the mentality of the majority of Mirror and Sun readers.

PS - that sounded snobby about Sun readers, sorry - in fact my Son buys it sometimes (purely for the sport of course)

I totally agree - I don't believe for one minute that Cameron would see arresting the McCanns as a vote winner and it would be doubtful that the public would see it that way either. Since it seems sadly unlikely that Madeleine will be discovered alive and well the best solution would be to pin the blame on a nasty foreign abductor and at the same time highlight the superiority of SY to those nasty foreign McCann-doubting PJL!

by Cristobell 19.05.14 11:52

galena wrote:
Woofer wrote:I doubt whether David Cameron or Theresa May give the McCanns a second thought - haven`t they got a country to run.

And to the contrary, I reckon if David Cameron tried to claim points by solving (and arresting) the McCanns, it would probably lose him votes, well the votes of the people that read the MSM anyway. It would be Oh poor McCanns - how could you arrest such lovely people who have suffered so much already - remember the mentality of the majority of Mirror and Sun readers.

PS - that sounded snobby about Sun readers, sorry - in fact my Son buys it sometimes (purely for the sport of course)

I totally agree - I don't believe for one minute that Cameron would see arresting the McCanns as a vote winner and it would be doubtful that the public would see it that way either. Since it seems sadly unlikely that Madeleine will be discovered alive and well the best solution would be to pin the blame on a nasty foreign abductor and at the same time highlight the superiority of SY to those nasty foreign McCann-doubting PJL!

I think it would have been impossible to arrest Kate and Gerry in the first 5 years, as their wall of protection was pretty sound and they seemed to have the support of the public. However, things have changed quite dramatically and that seems to stem from the Crimewatch programme in October 2013, when membership of the anti groups rocketed - one facebook group went from 5000 to 20,000+. If SY are whitewashing this case, their actions are having the opposite effect as the flaws in the abduction story are being highlighted for a mainstream UK audience and more and more are looking up the true facts on the internet rather than relying on the lies of their daily newspapers. The case of missing Madeleine may have brought huge paydays for the tabloids, but it will ultimately be the death of them as the public realise the extent to which they lie to their readers.

by galena 19.05.14 13:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?

On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?

Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction. So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor? The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute. So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...

by bobbin 19.05.14 13:13

galena wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?

On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?
Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction. So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor? The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute. So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...

As it stands, Jane could have seen a thousand men carrying children at 9.15 that night.
It does not mean that anyone of them was an 'Abductor' of Madeleine McCann.
They could all have been innocent people carrying a child.

NO ABDUCTION>
1. Since there was NO evidence of stranger DNA in the apartment,
2. Since there was NO broken shutter or sign of forced entry
3. Since the parents insist that the child could NOT have woken and wandered,
It goes without saying that there is NO evidence of 'Abduction'.
Therefore, whether SY do or do not get called to give evidence, they would be being asked to give evidence of something that COULD NOT have happened.

by Guest 19.05.14 13:22

galena wrote:Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction. So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor? The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute. So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...

Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 19.05.14 13:31

Andrew77R wrote:
Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

Yes indeed Andrew77R, I'm definitely in the Option C camp.

by **PeterMac** 19.05.14 13:48

Grange have in the recent past
1 Dismissed Tannerman' (either as a real man or a fantasy) - the only piece of "evidence" of an abduction of a child, whether dead, comatose, or sleeping, on which the McCanns relied -
2 Said that there is a real chance Madeleine did not leave the apartment alive - fairly obvious, but it has been said and cannot now be retracted.
3 Sought permission AND cooperation from the Portuguese authorities in a "search" - fairly obviously for a burial site or sites
4 Sought permission AND cooperation from the PJ in planned digs of various sites - some of which may require warrants of entry - again fairly obviously for burial / disposal
and so on. Not forgetting the visit at the highest level of the CPS to the equivalent authority in Portugal some time ago.

Can there be any doubt that Grange and the PJ are NOT looking for a living child.

No searching has actually been done since early May 2007, when Police and many residents, holiday makers, and other well- wishers actually did some looking around, whilst the parents "kept vigil" or went to sleep, or went jogging and started their European tour, or started writing a book . . .
Since that time, despite the assurance of their most recent and best qualified PI that Madeleine was definitively in a "Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL" no one has bothered searching in a physical sense.
Fairly obviously, again, because no one believes, or has believed, there is any point.

"Find the body and . . ."
They are trying to, Gerry.

by AndyB 19.05.14 14:09

Andrew77R wrote:It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

For what? SY have no jurisdiction (unless we're talking murder or manslaughter but, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for either)

by bobbin 19.05.14 14:10

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

Yes indeed Andrew77R, I'm definitely in the Option C camp.

I'm yet to be convinced either way, since there have been so many full-frontal cover-ups exposed lately, but if this were a whitewash, then destroying Jane's 'tannerman' puts the onus of 'abductor' onto 'Smithman'.
Smithman looked like 'Gerry' according to Smiths, button trousers to boot.
If AR has removed the "tannerman abduction' possibility, it no longer looks like an investigation into 'stranger' abduction.
The MET's thinking then, would appear to be more in line with the PJ take on things, i.e. removal of body (or at best, abduction of live Maddie) by person known to the child.
Why would AR get rid of the only premise being touted by the McCs as the foundation of their own defense.
A whitewash/govt.coverup would have to give the McCs a way out, not Jane Tanner.
AR's revelation has stripped the McCs of their protection.
The ensuing public interest, after the CW revelation, in this case, has made the public attitude to the McCs change and we are seeing a gradual emergence of 'straighter talking' interviews and daring out-coming of BBC as in the recent radio discussion.
Does this look less like a whitewash than more.
I cannot see how the govt/corrupt politicians/police etc. controlling the police investigation can be actually 'helping' the McCs to get off the hook here....
unless it can be demonstrated that the Smithman sighting was categorically NOT possibly Gerry McCann and therefore Maddie's disappearance remains a perpetual mystery, and all we have at the end, is a little smack on the hand for Kate McCann for being Kate McCann, and wee smackie on the bottom for Gerry because the main judge likes smacking naughty little boys on the bottom, in the belief that naughty little boys actually like this sort of thing also. spin

by AndyB 19.05.14 14:17

bobbin wrote:Why would AR get rid of the only premise being touted by the McCs as the foundation of their own defense.

Because getting rid of Tannerman opens up the window of opportunity to allow the time for stranger abduction. With Tannerman it was impossible

bobbin wrote:A whitewash/govt.coverup would have to give the McCs a way out, not Jane Tanner.

That rather depends on what it is that is being covered-up

by bobbin 19.05.14 14:37

AndyB wrote:
bobbin wrote:Why would AR get rid of the only premise being touted by the McCs as the foundation of their own defense.
Because getting rid of Tannerman opens up the window of opportunity to allow the time for stranger abduction. With Tannerman it was impossible

bobbin wrote:A whitewash/govt.coverup would have to give the McCs a way out, not Jane Tanner.
That rather depends on what it is that is being covered-up

Good point AndyB. but then there is no reason to claim 'abduction' anymore than anything else, since there was no sign of break in, no stranger DNA.
Which leaves a perpetual mystery of how Madeleine was no longer in the apartment, and the parents guilty of 'negligence'.
If however there is a cover up and it does not offer the McCs a sound escape for losing Madeleine, then either they were completely innocent barring 'negligence' and have nothing to hold against the cover-er-uppers, or, they know of some crime which lead to Maddie's disappearance and will hold this as a bargaining point over the cover-er-uppers.
Depending upon the 'influence' of the cover-er-uppers, either some ~~(reasonable financial)~~ inducement to suffer a small punishment for 'negligence' or something akin to a freak car accident might ensue. There are several examples of people having accidental suicide experiences in recent years depending upon what is to be concealed and covered up on behalf of whom.

by Seek truth 19.05.14 14:38

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:

It is interesting... but I could have summed it up in three sentences. In fact I've made similar speculations here in the past.
Could you do the honour and post your 3 sentences.....

Looks a hell of a long read that Textusa blog.

Sorry, missed this lat night as I did something radical and went to bed....

Actually I can do it in one. Monteiro sufficiently of interest to PJ to justify reopening the investigation because phone records show he was in contact with one of the "players" on the evening of the 3rd.

That aside, Textusa claims that Monteiro's fatal tractor accident occurred at a golf course on the Algarve and not in the north as previously understood. I'm unaware on what evidence this claim is made. Also Monteiro must be more involved than previously assumed because his widow didn't want to show her face on camera. Textusa also claiming that he/she/they are the only ones ever to suggest that the OC are implicated in some way.

Can't say Monteiro's involved because his wife didn't want to show her face on camera because Portugal does this a lot anyway. They have this habit of hiding interviewees faces.
Don't see much of that in UK.

Besides I'm sure there are other pictures of her, can't remember where I've seen .

by galena 19.05.14 14:53

bobbin wrote:
galena wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?

On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?
Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction. So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor? The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute. So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...
As it stands, Jane could have seen a thousand men carrying children at 9.15 that night.
It does not mean that anyone of them was an 'Abductor' of Madeleine McCann.
They could all have been innocent people carrying a child.

NO ABDUCTION>
1. Since there was NO evidence of stranger DNA in the apartment,
2. Since there was NO broken shutter or sign of forced entry
3. Since the parents insist that the child could NOT have woken and wandered,
It goes without saying that there is NO evidence of 'Abduction'.
Therefore, whether SY do or do not get called to give evidence, they would be being asked to give evidence of something that COULD NOT have happened.

I agree with you - I've never felt that Tannerman, whether real or fake was 'proof' of an abduction. In fact quite the opposite - if Jane made up the story that in itself raises further suspicions. At the time I considered that Gerry might have put her up to it in order to encourage the police to take the abduction more seriously instead of wasting resources investigating the parents and their holiday friends. Later I changed my mind given the obviously spurious nature of the search for Madeleine and assumed it was a way of diverting suspicion away from themselves.

But I feel that if the case ever came to court the McCanns could insist that Tannerman did exist (they seem reluctant to give him up) - then the onus would be on SY to produce him. Sorry I can't totally agree with your point in bold - the issues you raise make it unlikely that there was an abduction, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was impossible. The abductor could have had a key and been very careful not to leave DNA. Or - as another poster theorised - he could have beckoned Madeleine to the window and abducted her that way. OR - he could have been someone who wasn't a stranger, who had a legitimate reason for having his DNA in the apartment.

by galena 19.05.14 14:55

AndyB wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.
For what? SY have no jurisdiction (unless we're talking murder or manslaughter but, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for either)

Given that Tracey Connelly (Baby's P's mother) is already out of prison I find it very hard to believe in the 20 year sentence!

by Seek truth 19.05.14 15:00

Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

by galena 19.05.14 15:03

Andrew77R wrote:
galena wrote:Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction. So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor? The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute. So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...
Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

If Jane Tanner has come forward they are going to need her as a star witness to convict the McCanns of anything. The chance of them breaking down and confessing anything are negligible.

by Cristobell 19.05.14 15:04

bobbin wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

Yes indeed Andrew77R, I'm definitely in the Option C camp.

I'm yet to be convinced either way, since there have been so many full-frontal cover-ups exposed lately, but if this were a whitewash, then destroying Jane's 'tannerman' puts the onus of 'abductor' onto 'Smithman'.
Smithman looked like 'Gerry' according to Smiths, button trousers to boot.
If AR has removed the "tannerman abduction' possibility, it no longer looks like an investigation into 'stranger' abduction.
The MET's thinking then, would appear to be more in line with the PJ take on things, i.e. removal of body (or at best, abduction of live Maddie) by person known to the child.
Why would AR get rid of the only premise being touted by the McCs as the foundation of their own defense.
A whitewash/govt.coverup would have to give the McCs a way out, not Jane Tanner.
AR's revelation has stripped the McCs of their protection.
The ensuing public interest, after the CW revelation, in this case, has made the public attitude to the McCs change and we are seeing a gradual emergence of 'straighter talking' interviews and daring out-coming of BBC as in the recent radio discussion.
Does this look less like a whitewash than more.
I cannot see how the govt/corrupt politicians/police etc. controlling the police investigation can be actually 'helping' the McCs to get off the hook here....
unless it can be demonstrated that the Smithman sighting was categorically NOT possibly Gerry McCann and therefore Maddie's disappearance remains a perpetual mystery, and all we have at the end, is a little smack on the hand for Kate McCann for being Kate McCann, and wee smackie on the bottom for Gerry because the main judge likes smacking naughty little boys on the bottom, in the belief that naughty little boys actually like this sort of thing also.

I agree, to all intents and purposes, it looks as though the net is closing in on the McCanns. They have kept Tannerman, so their will be their defence, but I don't know where that will leave Jane.

Going by their recent public appearance, they still seem confident there is 'no evidence', but I doubt they know what is going on, anymore than we do.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 19.05.14 15:10

Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say. This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website. Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.

by galena 19.05.14 15:15

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say. This isn't a totalitarian state.

I for one never imagined a scenario where the McCanns sat down with SY and they agreed what to say. That's not how things work here. It's all a matter of a word in the right ear, a nudge, a hint that it would be a good thing if this went away. I think the McCanns are clinging on to Tannerman out of habit (either that or they can't be arsed to update their website) but Redwood knows what's best for them - Tannerman has sparked a world of debate about timings and windows of opportunities. He has to go!

by Seek truth 19.05.14 15:52

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say. This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website. Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.

It is NOT RIGHT to go against what the police say, especially when taxpayers money (£7 million) is involved.
This countrys a joke

by whatliesbehindthesofa 19.05.14 16:04

Seek truth wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say. This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website. Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.
It is NOT RIGHT to go against what the police say, especially when taxpayers money (£7 million) is involved.
This countrys a joke

Firstly, if the investigation is not a whitewash, then I can't think of a single reason for the McCanns to do what the police say.

Secondly, we don't know if the police have even bothered to ask them to take Tannerman off their website. If the investigation isn't a whitewash, why would they? If it is a whitewash, what does it matter? In the former case, if I was in charge I'd let them keep whatever they like on their website as yet another nail in their coffins.

by AndyB 19.05.14 16:27

bobbin wrote:If however there is a cover up and it does not offer the McCs a sound escape for losing Madeleine, then either they were completely innocent barring 'negligence' and have nothing to hold against the cover-er-uppers, or, they know of some crime which lead to Maddie's disappearance and will hold this as a bargaining point over the cover-er-uppers.

I understand what you're saying here but imagine for a moment that Madeleine was given to Aliens to be experimented on in exchange for the McCanns being given a ride in the spaceship. Unfortunately, Madeleine dies during the experiment and her body is returned to the McCanns who then dispose of it secretly. The powers that be have had nothing to do with the arrangement but they don't want it known that Aliens exist so they go along with the abduction myth and arrange for the McCanns to be protected. They allow them to set up a limited company, which then gives the McCanns a financial inducement to play along. Everyone's happy until the Portuguese publish the case files and people start questioning the McCann's version of events.

How do the powers that be keep the existence of the aliens a secret when the Sun demands a review of the case and blackmails the Prime minister with threats of bad headlines for a week? I suggest that they would effect to be investigating while secretly trying to find someone to pin it on. (Incidentally, I also think that they would be maintaining a back-up plan of framing the McCanns for murder should there be no plausible patsy).

How much of a threat would "Take us down and I'll tell them everything" have under these circumstances? As to why the McCanns haven't been suicided away, I have no answer but perhaps its because to do so would be too high risk given their high profile. Perhaps its why they maintain a high profile

Please note - I do not believe that aliens were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The story is meant to illustrate the idea that there are circumstances in which the McCanns can be guilty but the powers that be get involved in a cover up surrounding the disappearance for reasons of their own, reasons which do not provide the McCanns with any leverage. The big questions of course are; who is being protected and what is being covered up.

by **PeterMac** 19.05.14 16:59

Just in case any of the zombies and brain-dead from the other side are watching, it is always worth re-stating this on as many threads as possible.

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report -
Quick reminder - THE MAN WHO REPLACED Dr Amaral, and who incidentallly has never been described as "disgraced" so far as I know.
Someone slipping there I think !

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

and from
The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logic, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

by Guest 19.05.14 17:16

Thank you for the reminder, PeterMac. Shame there's no space at the top of the page for it to be displayed.

by Garrincha 19.05.14 17:52

Clay wrote: Monteiro sufficiently of interest to PJ to justify reopening the investigation because phone records show he was in contact with one of the "players" on the evening of the 3rd.

IMO if this is true it changes everything, including the title of this thread...

by Guest 19.05.14 18:49

galena wrote:
AndyB wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.
For what? SY have no jurisdiction (unless we're talking murder or manslaughter but, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for either)

Given that Tracey Connelly (Baby's P's mother) is already out of prison I find it very hard to believe in the 20 year sentence!

I was being overly optimistic with the 20 year sentence quote. Figure of speech.

Will be overly optimistic again.

'Also we sentence you Clarence Mitchell to life without the possibility of parole as you really are the most hideous creature that is so full of bull to ever walk the planet. Take him down'

by canada12 19.05.14 18:55

PeterMac wrote:Just in case any of the zombies and brain-dead from the other side are watching, it is always worth re-stating this on as many threads as possible.

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report -
Quick reminder - THE MAN WHO REPLACED Dr Amaral, and who incidentallly has never been described as "disgraced" so far as I know.
Someone slipping there I think !

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

and from
The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logic, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.