Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

ultimaThule wrote:

1soapy wrote:I don’t see how or why the McCann’s would NOT ask for a review or investigation. Why?


Others (parents in other cases that is) have campaigned for years (without success). No need to think they would be any more successful, especially if they don’t put too much effort into it (GA said all they needed to do was ask the PJ).


Especially being (one time) suspects, it would be odd if they did not campaign. Do you not think it would be MORE odd to quietly forget about it (in the eyes of the public)? They have to seem to be still looking and wanting help to do so. Superficially, it might be better to quietly forget it all, but the public interest forbade or negated that.


Money.


Power and confidence over authorities to show that even with demands (to find the truth), it will not be found.

Fame?

IMO

I agree, soapy.   In order to maintain that they were the wholly innocent bereft parents of an abducted child, it was necessary for the McCanns to claim that they wanted the PJ to re-open the case although, of course, they could have achieved this for the price of a stamp and without any publicity whatsoever.

It was also necessary for them to ask for a review to be held in the UK in the hope that they would gain access to all of the information that the PJ and Leciestershire police held at that time.

Imo both of the McCanns are attention seekers of the 'look at me, aren't I wonderful' type and much as they profess not to like the limelight, they're addicted to it.  Also imo. Gerry's always wanted to make a name for himself and achieve worldwide recognition but, such is his distinctly average intellect, he's only managed to become famous for being infamous and his discontent with this state of affairs is becoming apparent on his features.

Botox and hair dye have their limitations and it seems to me that whatever Faustian pact the wee one made with the devil clearly didn't include a portrait which would dissipate in a locked room to which only he had access.

juliet wrote:It is interesting that KM thought the British public would be outraged and close to rioting if we learned she was arrested. Whatever gave her that idea? The public generally were deeply suspicious of the McCanns from the start.

Hicks wrote:

juliet wrote:It is interesting that KM thought the British public would be outraged and close to rioting if we learned she was arrested. Whatever gave her that idea? The public generally were deeply suspicious of the McCanns from the start.

I believe this might give an explanation.

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

Same goes for hubby. Imo.

candyfloss wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

I have no doubt that Rebekah Brooks was instrumental in facilitating the McCanns' request for a UK-based review and that she personally made a case to convince David Cameron that it should take place, but I very much doubt that it was her intention for any such review to confine itself to exonerating them from any complicity in their eldest daughter's disappearance.

It occurs to me that those who claim that RB wields enormous power over policitians and the like may be best placed to explain why she was unable to spare herself, her spouse, and others, the ignominy and the expense of appearing as defendants at the Old Bailey in a time-consuming trial which is yet to conclude. .

Good point.    

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

Cristobell wrote:

1soapy wrote:I wonder (in spite of the legality) if there is a hacked recording somewhere, if Rebekah Brooks knows and/or if it could have or has been shared with the police or any authorities (supporting whatever view) and if it has been a factor in the case or investigation.

I have just said something similar on another thread.  Imo, if the NOTW were prepared to hack the Dowlers, I am sure they had a go at the McCanns and their entourage.

Woofer wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I`ve never understood this either - the idea that it was to sell more papers doesn`t ring true to me.

Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely) she helped Kate get what she wanted, or

Was it because she knew the McCanns were bluffing about wanting a review and called their bluff, or

Was it because RB was instructed by RM to do so, but why?  RB must realise the Mcs are involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Please can someone explain why RB forced the review on Cameron. I have read all of the above and for me it does not explain why Labour government intervened in 2007 to prevent PJ finding the truth of what happened to Madeleine. There are always alliances between press and political parties - always have been. But it does not explain why Labour government intervened in Madeleine case initially.

I`ve never understood this either - the idea that it was to sell more papers doesn`t ring true to me.

Was it because the McCanns really truly wanted a review and because RB was an old school friend of Kate`s (not confirmed but likely) she helped Kate get what she wanted, or

Was it because she knew the McCanns were bluffing about wanting a review and called their bluff, or

Was it because RB was instructed by RM to do so, but why?  RB must realise the Mcs are involved in the disappearance of their daughter.

I don't think it was anything more complicated than Madeleine headlines sold newspapers - that was the bottom line of the highly competitive business she was in.  Newspaper editors were probably fighting to get the McCanns onboard together with all the exclusives (think: 'I couldn't Make Love to Gerry' headline). It would have been tacky if all the tabloids had gone with that one. 

If Rebekah were a man, we wouldn't bat an eyelid at the thought that he might be ruthless enough to exploit victims of tragedy in order to sell more newspapers, and when he discarded them, we would say 'ah well, it was to be expected'.  Rebekah has a nose for a good story just as much as any seasoned old hack, and she was in a win, win situation.  If it turned out the parents were complicit (as everyone secretly knew they were), she would be sitting on a goldmine of exclusive interviews, tapes etc, when the proverbial hit the fan.

Doug D wrote:HelenMeg,

I posted the timeline for the book release, open letter to DC, and DC’s immediate response on the
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
thread yesterday, but précis some of it again here with some additional comments:
 
McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell told the newspaper: "The publication date for Madeleine has now been moved on to May 12 2011 in the light of the royal wedding and the subsequent media coverage that will generate.
(So don’t want to publish it when it won’t make the front pages then)
 
GM was ‘somewhat horrified’ at the suggestion of newspaper serialization of the book (as per Leveson).

(Why? Doesn't make any sense when publicity was the main agenda. Was the reality just to help push up the price?)

But Mc's agreed ‘when NI agreed to backing the campaign to search for Madeleine.’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   (Leveson snippets thanks to HiDeHo)
 
9 May 2011 - In a heart-rending book serialised from today in The Sun, Kate, 43, writes how she is haunted by “flashes” of Madeleine “screaming” for her and ...
 
13 May 2011 - In a moving open letter delivered to Number 10 Downing Street on their behalf by The Sun last night, (so 12^th May), they call on Mr Cameron to press for a ...
 
DC response letter was dated 13 May 2011
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
13^th May 2011
 
‘The PM has been accused of bowing to the Murdoch empire over his decision to intervene in the Madeleine McCann case.
 
Two peers who are members of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] watchdogs warned that the independence of the Metropolitan police was under threat after the prime minister brought in Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
 
(So it appears that it was an ‘immediate’ decision, not ‘I’ll have a look and talk about it’, therefore this must have been planned in advance.)
 
Insiders at the Yard played down any suggestions that their role could quickly lead to any breakthrough in the case, saying that the review, which will cost millions of pounds, could take months or even years.
 
Labour's Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of bowing to Rupert Murdoch's empire, referring to Cameron's decision to call in Scotland Yard after [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote an open letter in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] asking for his help.’
 
11^th May 2012 – Leveson – (RB)
Lord Justice Leveson intervened during the questioning. He asked whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation.
 
“I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns,” Mrs Brooks said.
 
The suggested threat reported was that Theresa May would have ‘bad headlines’ splashed across The Sun for a week, but an alternative alleges Cameron asked Met to open review of Madeleine McCann case as "debt being repaid" for Sun backing Conservatives.
 
 Whatever the level of ‘threat’ or ‘persuasion’, surely the most important thing for RB was to gain maximum publicity in order to sell more papers. Did she really give a stuff about the McCann case?
 
All just a pre-planned campaign imo. If it wasn't just about publicity and paper sales there was no reason for the book launch, serialisation, appeal to DC and DC calling for a review to all coincide so neatly.

"It was The Sun that done (won) it!" all over again.
 
 
 

Woofer wrote:@ HelenMeg - "Can anyone explain how she forced DC to open the review? "

"QC Robert Jay claimed Mrs Brooks threatened to put Home Secretary Theresa May on the front page of The Sun every day until she ordered a new inquiry into the missing child.

But Mrs Brooks denied she had used threats and said her argument — and that of Maddie’s parents Kate and Gerry — had simply “persuaded” the Tory-led government soon after it took power."

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

HelenMeg wrote:

Woofer wrote:@ HelenMeg - "Can anyone explain how she forced DC to open the review? "

"QC Robert Jay claimed Mrs Brooks threatened to put Home Secretary Theresa May on the front page of The Sun every day until she ordered a new inquiry into the missing child.

But Mrs Brooks denied she had used threats and said her argument — and that of Maddie’s parents Kate and Gerry — had simply “persuaded” the Tory-led government soon after it took power."

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

Thanks Woofer - really helpful.

Tony Bennett wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

fleffer wrote:
The whole abduction story therefore now hangs on the highly doubtful claims of the Smith family.
And if he really was the abductor, how did he parade, carrying a child through the streets of Praia da Luz, to be seen, it seems, only by one Irish family, and no-one else?   
No wonder Clarence Mitchell once described this as 'a complete mystery'

And now we are being lead to believe that he was carrying, not only a child, but also a pickaxe and shovel, and dug a large hole in the car park which again, no one seems to have noticed !
Do Grange think we are stupid, or are they ?

Yes.

We havem't worked out yet that Smithman had an accomplice (Accomplice-Man) in the vilage, who had already dug a hole, and was ready with a spade (pickaxe no longer needed) to fill it in.

Mind you, Redwood woud then have to explain the following:

* how 'Smithman' (if he ever existed) wandered around Praia da Luz without been seen by anyone apart from the Irish family

* how he wasn't seen or heard abducting anyone and left no forensic trace, and

* why he would steal a child from an apartment, only to bury her an hour later. 

I think the search is on for an 'Accomplice-Man'.

andrac wrote:

did the smith family take maddie in order to blame gerry ?

PeterMac wrote:BEFORE

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

AFTER

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

Is that why some of the Met officers stayed behind ? ? 

Casey5 wrote:I think the McCanns' wanted a revue for 2 reasons.

1. To have a chance of obtaining the information not made public that they believe, rightly or wrongly, the PJ may hold.

2. To be exonerated publicly by Scotland Yard and the Portuguese Judiciary on being involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.

If the second one ever happens I believe they will quit their high profile lifestyle, wrap up the fund and stfu. Job done. imo

Woofer wrote:On my more optimistic days, when I agree with Cristobel that OG are probably doing an honest investigation, it strikes me that its taking one hell of a time and would this be because of the branches sprouting from the core of this case into the world of Westminster, the aristoracy,wealthy business men etc. 

Admittedly it would be taking the focus away from the original criteria `to investigate an abduction`.  But I imagine a scenario where Andy knocks on BHH`s door and says `Hey boss, this isn`t an abduction; our enquiries led us to the family and a whole lot more`.  He then goes on to explain the `whole lot more` i.e. the Westminster lot and all their cronies etc.  What is BHH going to do?  BHH can only be corrupted if he is unclean himself surely.