Re: Game over?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.03.14 1:48

ProfessorPPlum wrote:The BBC R4 newsreader just said that SY believed 'the culprit' was a dead tractor driver who had sexually assaulted 5 English girls.

Thus proving what the Portuguese newspapers were saying days ago, namely that:

SY new suspect 'smelly bin man' = Tractorman = Euclides Monteiro...

...a suspect first discussed in the News of the World in 2009

by Mirage 23.03.14 1:56

Just watched the first three episodes of Line of Duty on a roll (catching up). Stand out line re deceased suspect: 'It's the oldest trick in the book'.

Another stand out line: 'Do you think I was born yesterday?'

by ultimaThule 23.03.14 2:57

russiandoll wrote:I tried to elaborate on my post with an edit yesterday but could not, apologies.

I can be a pain in the nether regions I am sure when I jump on language, because I am trained in analysis and am also a linguist. It is second nature to me.

It is probable that Redwood meant death in the apartment, but there is a slight ambiguity which made me wonder.

I believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and by the time the staged abduction was acted out she was away from the premises. moved temporarily to some secure location. It might be that while the drama was acted out, someone assisting took advantage of the chaos that late evening to move the body again.

I just wondered if there was a scenario where Maddie was found dead outside, close to 5a then taken indoors to be tended to.

Have always had a bee in my bonnet about that balcony [ it was not a patio as the apartment was on a slope and there was some drop to ground level of the garden area ]. There is at least one photo showing a table and chairs close to a wall, where I believe it was possible for Maddie to climb and fall.

I do not know how likely this is, given what was alerted to by the [ very reliable imo ] blood and cadaver dogs and in the grand scheme of things she would have died close to 5a had this been the case, so on second thoughts I should say sorry because I was being pedantic!

re this from the book..

Think about how M. supposedly entered the apartment for the last time.

Quote LM "madeleine" p. 67.

"She looked so pale and worn out [because???] . . . she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later [exactly? Why?] , the five of us [ NB not just 'we'] went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening."

Was M. already dying/dead as a result of something that had happened when she was 'alone' earlier in the afternoon while all the others (Ella etc) were away at the beach?
Just a thought...

Good points [and a thought from me]. There are nuggets of truth mixed in with the untruths in the book and I can well believe that a scenario such as described above was part of the picture.

Imo however nothing like this happened on 3rd May and it might not have involved fatigue due to crèche activities.

I agree that 5A was not particularly childfriendly for very young children but if Madeleine had fallen from the balcony, to paraphrase GM's famous words, 'why would that be their fault?' and, if such an accident had occurred, why would it be necessary to conceal her body, rd?

Furthermore, if such an accident had occurred, why would she be placed behind the sofa or on the bedroom floor where the EVRD dog indicated the presence of cadaverine odour in order to be tended to?

IMO it's possibe that the child died elsewhere and was carried to 5A where she was laid on the floor by the bedroom wardrobe while a bag was retrieved from its interior which, when full, was placed behind the living sofa pending its onward journey.

by Bishop Brennan 23.03.14 4:06

The MET may feel they have found the exit to this mess (a dead or unfindable sex offender). The media are fully on board (The BBC's use of 'culprit' rather than 'suspect' is a deliberate escalation), and as part of the trial-by-media plan the MET and DC have ramped up the 'bungling PJ' rhetoric to new levels.

BUT, can the exit strategy hold up to any scrutiny? Will anyone subject it to analysis or will we simply have xenophobic ranting? If this is the exit strategy, then it all depends on whether the media and the public accept it. Expect MASSIVE spinning of this over the next few weeks as they try to make it stick, allowing SY to give up in frustration having given the PJ the answer to the 7-year mystery. Not right away, but once the story has been implanted as 'the truth'.

by The Rooster 23.03.14 9:11

I believe the Bishop tells it as it is. A poor reflestion on the Government and I hope Dave is held accountable if playing silly buggers with the Nation.

by russiandoll 23.03.14 10:05

quote UT " I agree that 5A was not particularly childfriendly for very young children but if Madeleine had fallen from the balcony, to paraphrase GM's famous words, 'why would that be their fault?' and, if such an accident had occurred, why would it be necessary to conceal her body, rd? "

WILL GIVE THAT Q SOME THOUGHT!

Imo if parents went out leaving a 3 year old with access to an outside area which was very dangerous, it would be entirely their fault if there was an easily avoidable accident.

How do you prevent a fall from a balcony? Do not let your children have access to it. it is that simple and there are a variety of ways of avoiding such an incident.

In your scenario, do you envisage blood seepage from the bag in the lounge?

I am convinced Maddie died as the result of a fall, because imo Kate told us so in her can of beans FALLING off a shelf in her book of truth.

by Guest 23.03.14 10:20

Bishop Brennan wrote:The MET may feel they have found the exit to this mess (a dead or unfindable sex offender). The media are fully on board (The BBC's use of 'culprit' rather than 'suspect' is a deliberate escalation), and as part of the trial-by-media plan the MET and DC have ramped up the 'bungling PJ' rhetoric to new levels.

BUT, can the exit strategy hold up to any scrutiny? Will anyone subject it to analysis or will we simply have xenophobic ranting? If this is the exit strategy, then it all depends on whether the media and the public accept it. Expect MASSIVE spinning of this over the next few weeks as they try to make it stick, allowing SY to give up in frustration having given the PJ the answer to the 7-year mystery. Not right away, but once the story has been implanted as 'the truth'.

I think this is on the money. I also worry that this means SY do have knowledge of the Portuguese investigation and are confident they have nothing to disprove the Smellyman patsy.

On the otherhand, SY may be merely hedging their bets with regard to what evidence the PJ have. Following GA's interview and the revelation of the existence of the hair I think we can still be very hopeful that the PJ are working towards and have the means to bring the real perpetrators to justice.

I do wonder if the samples of DNA collected from the hire car were sent in their entirety to the British forensic lab where they were destroyed or if the Portuguese were canny enough to retain some in case further analysis proved necessary...

by Cristobell 23.03.14 10:21

aquila wrote:Does anyone think that the McCanns are not in possession of lucrative offers to sign away their daughter's demise to a media company?

Does anyone think that the McCanns will not do this if their daughter is declared dead?

Does anyone think that the McCanns will stay in UK and just 'get on with things' once Madeleine is declared dead?

I don't think they are in possession of any lucrative offers Aquila, and haven't been for quite some time. In November 2010, they were desperate for cash, appearing on any program that would have them, pushing the 24 hotline and the high cost of their own investigation. Have faith Aquila, any cash they have or deals they make, will go towards the massive fail of their libel trial in Lisbon.

by **tigger** 23.03.14 10:23

Bishop Brennan wrote:The MET may feel they have found the exit to this mess (a dead or unfindable sex offender). The media are fully on board (The BBC's use of 'culprit' rather than 'suspect' is a deliberate escalation), and as part of the trial-by-media plan the MET and DC have ramped up the 'bungling PJ' rhetoric to new levels.

BUT, can the exit strategy hold up to any scrutiny? Will anyone subject it to analysis or will we simply have xenophobic ranting? If this is the exit strategy, then it all depends on whether the media and the public accept it. Expect MASSIVE spinning of this over the next few weeks as they try to make it stick, allowing SY to give up in frustration having given the PJ the answer to the 7-year mystery. Not right away, but once the story has been implanted as 'the truth'.

But surely all the changes made to the official TM narrative have been made to make the impossible possible?

Although as PeterMac pointed out after the demise of Tannerman, it changed the time but not the period of opportunity.

So after Tannerman, a number of other round pegs have been proposed although they still have to fit into a square hole of the 'window of opportunity' which I understand is still very narrow at no more than five minutes.
So a combo would just about fit, but a loner is more difficult to accommodate? splat

Or is there an urgent search for two dead paedos?

by Cristobell 23.03.14 10:33

russiandoll wrote:I tried to elaborate on my post with an edit yesterday but could not, apologies.

I can be a pain in the nether regions I am sure when I jump on language, because I am trained in analysis and am also a linguist. It is second nature to me.

It is probable that Redwood meant death in the apartment, but there is a slight ambiguity which made me wonder.

I believe that Madeleine died before 3rd May and by the time the staged abduction was acted out she was away from the premises. moved temporarily to some secure location. It might be that while the drama was acted out, someone assisting took advantage of the chaos that late evening to move the body again.

I just wondered if there was a scenario where Maddie was found dead outside, close to 5a then taken indoors to be tended to.

Have always had a bee in my bonnet about that balcony [ it was not a patio as the apartment was on a slope and there was some drop to ground level of the garden area ]. There is at least one photo showing a table and chairs close to a wall, where I believe it was possible for Maddie to climb and fall.

I do not know how likely this is, given what was alerted to by the [ very reliable imo ] blood and cadaver dogs and in the grand scheme of things she would have died close to 5a had this been the case, so on second thoughts I should say sorry because I was being pedantic!

re this from the book..

Think about how M. supposedly entered the apartment for the last time.

Quote LM "madeleine" p. 67.

"She looked so pale and worn out [because???] . . . she was really tired and wanted me to pick her up, which I did. Ten minutes later [exactly? Why?] , the five of us [ NB not just 'we'] went back to our apartment. I was carrying Madeleine. Because she was so exhausted we skipped playtime that evening."

Was M. already dying/dead as a result of something that had happened when she was 'alone' earlier in the afternoon while all the others (Ella etc) were away at the beach?
Just a thought...

Good points [and a thought from me]. There are nuggets of truth mixed in with the untruths in the book and I can well believe that a scenario such as described above was part of the picture.

Imo however nothing like this happened on 3rd May and it might not have involved fatigue due to crèche activities.

I don't give any credence whatsoever to Kate's account of Madeleine being excessively tired when she carried her home. It sounds like retro fitting to me, probably to fit in with the ludicrous idea that the intruder had been in the night before and drugged her.

by Bishop Brennan 23.03.14 10:34

tigger wrote:

But surely all the changes made to the official TM narrative have been made to make the impossible possible?

It seems to me that we may have 3 narratives going here. I don't think that the official TM story has ever changed. It's tannerman front and centre. Loyalty to Tannerman is likely to remain (for all kinds of reasons discussed on the thread).

The SY narrative is a tale of simple plodders trying to keep busy and construct a story that did not need any T9 involvement. So far with no success. I believe they now just want out of this mess (and cannot go down the T9 exit path).

The final narrative is the PJ - we hear hints that they think SY's serial sex attacker is tractorman and that is why they reopened. Let's hope that's not true. Watching them argue as to whether it was a dead or unfindable serial child molester/killer would just be too awful.

The only constant - maybe narrative 4 - is Amaral himself. Defending a libel suit, and appearing very confident (and well-informed) on credible TV documentaries.

by jeanmonroe 23.03.14 10:35

Bishop Brennan wrote:The MET may feel they have found the exit to this mess (a dead or unfindable sex offender). The media are fully on board (The BBC's use of 'culprit' rather than 'suspect' is a deliberate escalation), and as part of the trial-by-media plan the MET and DC have ramped up the 'bungling PJ' rhetoric to new levels.

BUT, can the exit strategy hold up to any scrutiny? Will anyone subject it to analysis or will we simply have xenophobic ranting? If this is the exit strategy, then it all depends on whether the media and the public accept it. Expect MASSIVE spinning of this over the next few weeks as they try to make it stick, allowing SY to give up in frustration having given the PJ the answer to the 7-year mystery. Not right away, but once the story has been implanted as 'the truth'.

UNTIL of course those 'pesky' Portuguese 'release their bombshell files' into the public domain, as they do!

Showing EXACTLY what SY/Met 'did'or 'did NOT' do in the 26 'meetings/visits' to date, between the PJ/Met.

Remember this from GA:

"We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior:(Leicester Police, McCann 'home' force) we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to PREVENT their detention."

by Bishop Brennan 23.03.14 10:41

jeanmonroe wrote:

UNTIL of course those 'pesky' Portuguese 'release their bombshell files' into the public domain, as they do!

Showing EXACTLY what SY/Met 'did'or 'did NOT' do in the 26 'meetings/visits' to date, between the PJ/Met.

Remember this from GA:

"We prefer not to discuss this with Stuart Prior:(Leicester Police, McCann 'home' force) we have the impression that he is only here to accompany the McCanns' interrogations and to PREVENT their detention."

Agreed! It's also much harder to make this kind of story stick with the internet / forums and social media. The PJ will release everything of course - and knowing that - SY are acutely aware that they do not know about everything that the PJ have. If the PJ are putting tractorman up as a distraction (because they don't trust SY), then SY dare not declare 'game over'. This may be why they need to get DC involved - to force the PJ to release everything to them. And I can't see that happening.

by jeanmonroe 23.03.14 11:02

PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'

by Liz Eagles 23.03.14 11:10

jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'

Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?

by jeanmonroe 23.03.14 11:15

aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'
Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?

Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

Edward Snowden? laughat

by Mirage 23.03.14 11:19

jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS,' of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'

And any officer with half a brain knows Mrs May is really mad with the MET'. She was really, really cross in the House of Commons with them wasn't she? So much so she promised to change the offence of 'misconduct in public office' to that of 'corruption'.

Does anyone have the prison tariffs for these two offences handy for comparison? Best estimate would do.

I would want to be on my toes and totally transparent if I were a worker bee under the watchful eye of the May Queen Bee. She's very scary, and I wouldn't want to upset her any more than she is already if I worked at the MET. She doesn't want her incumbency pock-marked by any more corruption does she? That's plain. And she is going to be draconian if she finds some. You can tell that, just listening to those sharp clipped tones she used in parliament, and her face all drawn and stern.

I would be scared of Mrs May if I were working at the MET and knew something was wrong but didn't say so. I would say to myself, I've got a family to think about. They come first. I will be politically brave.

by Liz Eagles 23.03.14 11:24

Former head of MMU for Labour government, paid spokesperson for the McCanns becomes parliamentary candidate for Tory Party.

Former member of the board of Madeleine Fund becomes Tory cabinet minister.

UK Prime Minister champions the McCanns in House of Commons. Royal Charter to gag press introduced.

by Woofer 23.03.14 11:34

aquila wrote:Former head of MMU for Labour government, paid spokesperson for the McCanns becomes parliamentary candidate for Tory Party.

Former member of the board of Madeleine Fund becomes Tory cabinet minister.

UK Prime Minister champions the McCanns in House of Commons. Royal Charter to gag press introduced.

As CM has not been elected, surely he is only a Prospective Parliamentary Candidate, he wouldn`t actually be in the cabinet - that belongs to the Green Party lady (can`t remember her name) who is the elected candidate for Brighton Pavillion. Not sure about this so correct me if I`m wrong.

by Mirage 23.03.14 11:34

aquila wrote:Former head of MMU for Labour government, paid spokesperson for the McCanns becomes parliamentary candidate for Tory Party.

Former member of the board of Madeleine Fund becomes Tory cabinet minister.

UK Prime Minister champions the McCanns in House of Commons. Royal Charter to gag press introduced.

No time to lose then. People looking in need to tell about 10 people a day and get those ten to tell another ten each day and so on. Tell 'em their future depends on it if they look at you all wish washy.

by Cristobell 23.03.14 11:43

aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'
Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?

Seriously Aquila? 37 homicide detectives conspiring to cover up the death of a little girl?

I read the police corruption article in yesterday's Daily Mail, and have to admit it made quite chilling reading. However, all the corrupt police officers involved had motives, mostly financial. They were moonlighting for a private investigation agency and socialising with South London's murky underworld. They each had something to gain/lose personally.

This case is entirely different. Why would a Prime Minister (coming up to an election) risk losing power over a niggly little case that has the potential to create a major international storm? Why would all those officers, near retirement we are told, risk their reputations and their pensions to cover up such a heinous crime?

If we go by all the astonishing turns this case has taken in the past 7 years, its not surprising that many (perhaps even most) on here believe this is going to be a whitewash, but the reality is, for almost 5 years the case has lain dormant. We may have thought there was a lot going on, but that was what the McCann wanted us to think, their media machine has never stopped churning out stories, and the tabloids lapped them up - Madeleine stories bump up sales.

The idea that the McCanns have powerful allies is a myth created by themselves. They squirm with embarrassment if an interviewer dares to mention that they requested the interview, the McCanns have worked very hard to convince people that they are much in demand, and an audience with them is a privilege.

Just as we on here have formed a deep dislike them for them as people, a by product of studying this case, so too I am sure have those who have met them in an up close and personal capacity. I have a feeling there is an aura of 'Emperor's New Clothes' in production studios with everyone saying how charming they are, whilst projectile vomiting in the loos and talking behind their backs. No wonder they are so paranoid about people hating them.

If we are heading towards a cover up, where are all the powerful supporters now?

by Liz Eagles 23.03.14 11:46

Cristobell wrote:
aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'
Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?
Seriously Aquila? 37 homicide detectives conspiring to cover up the death of a little girl?

I read the police corruption article in yesterday's Daily Mail, and have to admit it made quite chilling reading. However, all the corrupt police officers involved had motives, mostly financial. They were moonlighting for a private investigation agency and socialising with South London's murky underworld. They each had something to gain/lose personally.

This case is entirely different. Why would a Prime Minister (coming up to an election) risk losing power over a niggly little case that has the potential to create a major international storm? Why would all those officers, near retirement we are told, risk their reputations and their pensions to cover up such a heinous crime?

If we go by all the astonishing turns this case has taken in the past 7 years, its not surprising that many (perhaps even most) on here believe this is going to be a whitewash, but the reality is, for almost 5 years the case has lain dormant. We may have thought there was a lot going on, but that was what the McCann wanted us to think, their media machine has never stopped churning out stories, and the tabloids lapped them up - Madeleine stories bump up sales.

The idea that the McCanns have powerful allies is a myth created by themselves. They squirm with embarrassment if an interviewer dares to mention that they requested the interview, the McCanns have worked very hard to convince people that they are much in demand, and an audience with them is a privilege.

Just as we on here have formed a deep dislike them for them as people, a by product of studying this case, so too I am sure have those who have met them in an up close and personal capacity. I have a feeling there is an aura of 'Emperor's New Clothes' in production studios with everyone saying how charming they are, whilst projectile vomiting in the loos and talking behind their backs. No wonder they are so paranoid about people hating them.

If we are heading towards a cover up, where are all the powerful supporters now?

Has it ever crossed your mind Cristobell that it's not the McCanns who are being protected?

by jeanmonroe 23.03.14 11:49

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?
----------------------------------------------------------------

Don't mean a thing!

He eventually received a £325,000 pay-off from the trust, on the condition he never talked about the dispute.

Yesterday he gave evidence about the ‘gagging clause’ and the build up to his dismissal.

Describing the threats he claimed to have been subjected to, he said: “I wrote to Sir David Nicholson explaining everything that had gone on.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9787829/Sir-David-Nicholson-admits-misinforming-Parliament-over-whistleblower.html

The 38 Operation Strange 'officers' have to decide

"money/career" OR "clear conscience"

They DECIDE.

by Cristobell 23.03.14 12:01

aquila wrote:Former head of MMU for Labour government, paid spokesperson for the McCanns becomes parliamentary candidate for Tory Party.

Former member of the board of Madeleine Fund becomes Tory cabinet minister.

UK Prime Minister champions the McCanns in House of Commons. Royal Charter to gag press introduced.

Being a parliamentary candidate offers no job security whatsoever Aquila. And Brighton is unwinnable for the tories. It is probably the most enlightened region of the country. As a parliamentary candidate, CM is far, far away from the 'thick of it'. His talents, as we know, lie in spin, yet he has not been placed in Tory Central Office where his skills could be best utilised, particularly with an election coming up. And indeed such a job would come with a regular pay cheque.

Esther McVie distanced herself from the McCann case a long time ago Aquila, and any involvement she had would have been fully cleared before being offered a Cabinet position. She is an attractive tory politician, prepared to swipe her grandmother's wheelchair from under her, she was bound to go far.

As for David Cameron, the McCanns were popular (another McMyth) - ergo, supporting them would be a popular move. As for the Royal Charter, he is opposed to it! I would even go so far as to say, he authorised DCI Redwood's little snippet about death in the apartment, to oppose the Hacked Off petition. If it can be shown that one of Hacked Off's leading players has been trying to manipulate the Law for criminal purposes, the Royal Charter is dead in the water.

by SixMillionQuid 23.03.14 12:04

aquila wrote:
Cristobell wrote:
aquila wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:PLUS, of course, there's always the distinct possibility of the proverbial WHISTLEBLOWER!

FROM either the PJ 'side' or somebody who 'worked on' or is 'working on' the MET 'side'
Who would a possible whistleblower report to?

What if the Operation Grange team have signed confidentiality documents/agreements extraordinaire (didn't Gordon Brown back at the beginning of this farce mutter something about national security?). What are the gutless/powerless UK press going to do with information from a whistleblower in this case?
Seriously Aquila? 37 homicide detectives conspiring to cover up the death of a little girl?

I read the police corruption article in yesterday's Daily Mail, and have to admit it made quite chilling reading. However, all the corrupt police officers involved had motives, mostly financial. They were moonlighting for a private investigation agency and socialising with South London's murky underworld. They each had something to gain/lose personally.

This case is entirely different. Why would a Prime Minister (coming up to an election) risk losing power over a niggly little case that has the potential to create a major international storm? Why would all those officers, near retirement we are told, risk their reputations and their pensions to cover up such a heinous crime?

If we go by all the astonishing turns this case has taken in the past 7 years, its not surprising that many (perhaps even most) on here believe this is going to be a whitewash, but the reality is, for almost 5 years the case has lain dormant. We may have thought there was a lot going on, but that was what the McCann wanted us to think, their media machine has never stopped churning out stories, and the tabloids lapped them up - Madeleine stories bump up sales.

The idea that the McCanns have powerful allies is a myth created by themselves. They squirm with embarrassment if an interviewer dares to mention that they requested the interview, the McCanns have worked very hard to convince people that they are much in demand, and an audience with them is a privilege.

Just as we on here have formed a deep dislike them for them as people, a by product of studying this case, so too I am sure have those who have met them in an up close and personal capacity. I have a feeling there is an aura of 'Emperor's New Clothes' in production studios with everyone saying how charming they are, whilst projectile vomiting in the loos and talking behind their backs. No wonder they are so paranoid about people hating them.

If we are heading towards a cover up, where are all the powerful supporters now?
Has it ever crossed your mind Cristobell that it's not the McCanns who are being protected?

Also there are public servants, usually at junior level, that know there's something wrong in a case they're involved with but have to 'bite the bullet' because that's what their masters want. They could 'talk' about an individual case but risk being found out, traced and possibly jailed by the state. It's a big risk.