Game over?

Cristobell wrote:

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.

But Cristobell, Esther McVey is not just a cabinet minister is she? She's a member of the Privy Council that advises the Queen. A meteoric rise by anyone's standards.

I just don't think there is a cover up or whitewash, we only have the opinion of the media in many of these stories, and I really don't think that SY would be revealing what their true intentions are...that would be ludicrous, but they need to keep up the pretence of chasing after burglars, cleaners, OC workers (dead or alive) charity workers etc because if they didn't, everyone would immediately twig that they had the McCanns in their sights and there would be chaos.  It could even be that SY are to an extent "protecting" the McCanns from an enraged public who have been duped for the last 7 years and we will know nothing about SY's true intent until the McCanns are in police custody.

I also agree with Cristobel that there is no way the McCanns have lucrative careers set up, they are thoroughly disliked, even by people who think Madeleine was abducted, it's only a small minority of people who hero worship them (and they tend to be complete nutters who display the worst type of internet/twitter abuse)  Everyone is totally fed up with the McCanns, you only have to read the online comments sections to see that and people are disgusted that in these times of austerity all of this money is being thrown at a case that could have been easily prevented if the McCanns had just looked after their own children.

I also cannot see any reason whatsoever for a cover up, if there was, we would just never have heard of the McCanns at all, SY would not have moved their review to an investigation (with the PJ also reopening the case) it just serves no purpose and as I said previously, mostly the public have never taken to the McCanns and that is unlikely to change even if they were exonerated, they could hardly maintain the lifestyle fund, why the heck would people donate to them?  SY will have to conclude the case somehow and now Andy Redwood has broached the subject of Madeleine not being alive when she left the apartment, the McCanns can hardly "resume" their own search (not that it ever started) because SY have covered every possible lead there is!

I still think that SY are eliminating every red herring there was, one by one, hence all of the ridiculous stories in the press, because now the McCanns cannot shout "Oh but SY didn't look at the cleaners/paedos/staff/charity workers  blah blah so they haven't unturned all the stones that we would have" baloney.  No, I think SY are playing a very clever game to trap the slippery customers they know the McCanns to be imo

Whilst part of me wants to agree with Cristobel that the detectives in this case could not be corruptible, I keep remembering the cases where police officers do keep silent, e.g. :-
 
Hillsborough,
Dr. Kelly
Daniel Morgan
Stephen Lawrence
Princess Diana (French police)
Holly Greig
Plebgate
Jill Dando
Jimmy Saville
Lee Balkwell
 
and there must be loads more.
 
IMO to actually be attracted to a career in the police, one has to be `establishment minded`, `them and us mentality`.
 
There is I believe an unwritten `Blue Code of silence` amongst police officers that they will always protect each other.  In fact Portsmouth University are doing an `Exploration of The Blue Code of Silence`in the police.  It is supposed to be published this month -
 
http://www.college.police.uk/en/21111.htm
 
It will be interesting to see what the results are.

Woofer wrote:Whilst part of me wants to agree with Cristobel that the detectives in this case could not be corruptible, I keep remembering the cases where police officers do keep silent, e.g. :-
 
Hillsborough,
Dr. Kelly
Daniel Morgan
Stephen Lawrence
Princess Diana (French police)
Holly Greig
Plebgate
Jill Dando
 
and there must be loads more.
 
IMO to actually be attracted to a career in the police, one has to be `establishment minded`, `them and us mentality`.
 
There is I believe an unwritten `Blue Code of silence` amongst police officers that they will always protect each other.  In fact Portsmouth University are doing an `Exploration of The Blue Code of Silence`in the police.  It is supposed to be published this month -
 
http://www.college.police.uk/en/21111.htm
 
It will be interesting to see what the results are.

The Hollie Greig case is a load of nonsense though.  Anne Greig is a seriously deranged woman!  As for David Kelly, that was Blair and his desire for war (along with the US)  The Princess Diana case has been thoroughly investigated and as France is a republic they don't have the same establishment ties and as such have no reason to go along with a conspiracy, I do truly believe that her death was just a tragic accident and I am a bit of a conspiracy theorist btw e.g. I think 9/11 was an inside job and I don't believe Dr Kelly committed suicide either.

Many of the others were just to cover up SY's incompetence even the Barry George case was overturned on a technicality there are still many people who believe he was responsible.  But overall these cases have reasons for conspiracy behind them, even  if there never has been any conspiracy at all, whereas the McCanns are a pair of nobodies, with no reach into the establishment at all, yes they would like us to think they do, but they don't, because if they did, they would just have disappeared when they fled Portugal and the media would have left well alone, if they had even been made arguidos in the first place, support from high places would have meant they would have escaped any police involvement at all in the event that Madeleine had died on that holiday, they would just have slipped out of Portugal with their deceased daughter and gone back to their everyday lives with no one any the wiser imo

jeanmonroe wrote: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.

They also have to decide whether they want to spend sleepless nights forever more waiting for that knock on the door.  

The corrupt police in the cases of Daniel Craig and Stephen Lawrence had good reason to cover up what was going on, and sadly, such was the thinking at the time of the murders, the macho police weren't that concerned about the victims.  Daniel Craig was a good guy, unfortunately for him his business partner was a baddy.   Stephen Lawrence for them, was just another black kid, whose death would quickly be forgotten. 

In contrast, Maddie is the little blonde girl, as Kate says, the innocent victim in all this.  Her death occurred in Portugal, ergo no links to any British police detectives.  The only high ranking holidaymaker at PDL that week, was an obscure, divorced guy who was taking his kids to a family resort, whose aunt happens to be a  former Labour Minister.  Imo, if someone of high rank were being protected, it would have to be a Royal (an HRH one), a member of the former labour cabinet, or 007 himself, to justify the scale of Operation Grange.

There is no motive for 37 homicide detectives to conspire in the cover up of such a heinous crime, and given the number of people already involved, at any moment now, something has got to give.  The abduction story is falling apart.  SY have removed Tannerman, put a efit of Gerry and have mentioned death in the apartment.  SY now have considerably more to cover up, not less.

This is what I do not understand for those who still insist this is a cover up?  The case is going forwards, not backwards.   I remember as a former catholic tormenting myself with all my sins knowing the Good Lord could see directly inside my head (I was very young).  Can you imagine how the McCanns must feel being the subject of two investigations?  Normal people would have cracked long ago, given an inch, perhaps even said they may have been wrong about the times of their checks, or the amount of wine they drank, but this lot it would seem are holding fast.  I can almost picture Gerry giving one of his motivational talks, now all repeat after me 'there is no evidence....', it must be chanted in a Glasgwegian accent with a hint of menace.

You beat me to it with the Hollie Greig case, Kevmack.

I'll just add a link to one of the topics about it on this forum.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7563-the-devastating-fantasies-of-mother-mrs-anne-greig-and-the-lies-of-robert-green-and-belinda-mckenzie?highlight=hollie+greig

Mirage wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

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.

But Cristobell, Esther McVey is not just a cabinet minister is she? She's a member of the Privy Council that advises the Queen. A meteoric rise by anyone's standards.

She is hugely ambitious Mirage, and the truth is, those who are hugely ambitious achieve their goals, one way or another.  She is a photogenic tory, one the public will like because she is pretty and the public think she is just like them because she is not an Eton toff.  In addition, if the cuts she announces came from a Dracula lookalike or an uglymug, we would be throwing blunt sticks.

@ Kevmac - I`m on the fence as far as Hollie Greig is concerned and I will never agree that Diana`s death was just an accident, but I don`t want to steer this off-topic.

You say  -" Imo, if someone of high rank were being protected, it would have to be a Royal (an HRH one), a member of the former labour cabinet, or 007 himself, to justify the scale of Operation Grange ".

..... And that is what I believe this is all about, not the McCanns themselves, but maybe an HRH or a high ranking cabinet minister ..... and on whom the McCanns have dirt. All just my opinion.

kevmack wrote:I just don't think there is a cover up or whitewash, we only have the opinion of the media in many of these stories, and I really don't think that SY would be revealing what their true intentions are...that would be ludicrous, but they need to keep up the pretence of chasing after burglars, cleaners, OC workers (dead or alive) charity workers etc because if they didn't, everyone would immediately twig that they had the McCanns in their sights and there would be chaos.  It could even be that SY are to an extent "protecting" the McCanns from an enraged public who have been duped for the last 7 years and we will know nothing about SY's true intent until the McCanns are in police custody.

I also agree with Cristobel that there is no way the McCanns have lucrative careers set up, they are thoroughly disliked, even by people who think Madeleine was abducted, it's only a small minority of people who hero worship them (and they tend to be complete nutters who display the worst type of internet/twitter abuse)  Everyone is totally fed up with the McCanns, you only have to read the online comments sections to see that and people are disgusted that in these times of austerity all of this money is being thrown at a case that could have been easily prevented if the McCanns had just looked after their own children.

I also cannot see any reason whatsoever for a cover up, if there was, we would just never have heard of the McCanns at all, SY would not have moved their review to an investigation (with the PJ also reopening the case) it just serves no purpose and as I said previously, mostly the public have never taken to the McCanns and that is unlikely to change even if they were exonerated, they could hardly maintain the lifestyle fund, why the heck would people donate to them?  SY will have to conclude the case somehow and now Andy Redwood has broached the subject of Madeleine not being alive when she left the apartment, the McCanns can hardly "resume" their own search (not that it ever started) because SY have covered every possible lead there is!

I still think that SY are eliminating every red herring there was, one by one, hence all of the ridiculous stories in the press, because now the McCanns cannot shout "Oh but SY didn't look at the cleaners/paedos/staff/charity workers  blah blah so they haven't unturned all the stones that we would have" baloney.  No, I think SY are playing a very clever game to trap the slippery customers they know the McCanns to be imo

Bravo    

Just as the McCanns are preparing their Defence, SY and the PJ are preparing their prosecutions, and they have to be watertight.  They are not up again a scruffy solicitor who pulled the night shift at the local nick, they are up against the Bar's finest from the inner cloisters of the Temple.  The McCanns aren't likeable people, I would imagine they have made a lot of enemies along the way, people waiting to pounce when they get their comeuppance, which I think now the 'death in the apartment' theory is out there, will be very soon.

kevmack wrote:I just don't think there is a cover up or whitewash, we only have the opinion of the media in many of these stories, and I really don't think that SY would be revealing what their true intentions are...that would be ludicrous, but they need to keep up the pretence of chasing after burglars, cleaners, OC workers (dead or alive) charity workers etc because if they didn't, everyone would immediately twig that they had the McCanns in their sights and there would be chaos.  It could even be that SY are to an extent "protecting" the McCanns from an enraged public who have been duped for the last 7 years and we will know nothing about SY's true intent until the McCanns are in police custody.

I also agree with Cristobel that there is no way the McCanns have lucrative careers set up, they are thoroughly disliked, even by people who think Madeleine was abducted, it's only a small minority of people who hero worship them (and they tend to be complete nutters who display the worst type of internet/twitter abuse)  Everyone is totally fed up with the McCanns, you only have to read the online comments sections to see that and people are disgusted that in these times of austerity all of this money is being thrown at a case that could have been easily prevented if the McCanns had just looked after their own children.

I also cannot see any reason whatsoever for a cover up, if there was, we would just never have heard of the McCanns at all, SY would not have moved their review to an investigation (with the PJ also reopening the case) it just serves no purpose and as I said previously, mostly the public have never taken to the McCanns and that is unlikely to change even if they were exonerated, they could hardly maintain the lifestyle fund, why the heck would people donate to them?  SY will have to conclude the case somehow and now Andy Redwood has broached the subject of Madeleine not being alive when she left the apartment, the McCanns can hardly "resume" their own search (not that it ever started) because SY have covered every possible lead there is!

I still think that SY are eliminating every red herring there was, one by one, hence all of the ridiculous stories in the press, because now the McCanns cannot shout "Oh but SY didn't look at the cleaners/paedos/staff/charity workers  blah blah so they haven't unturned all the stones that we would have" baloney.  No, I think SY are playing a very clever game to trap the slippery customers they know the McCanns to be imo

This makes quite a lot of sense. What I find astonishing, given all the indications of the McCann's culpability in the disappearance of their daughter, is that as late as May 2011, when Madeleine was published, the McCanns were calling for an independent investigative review of the case. Kate writes: "Since July 2008 there has been no police force anywhere actively investigating what has happened to Madeleine. We are the only people looking for her."


Apart from the brazen audacity of what Kate writes, you can't help feeling amazed that the McCanns would be demanding further scrutiny of what happened. Once the case had been shelved by the Portugese police you would have thought that the McCanns would have breathed a massive sigh of relief and put their heads firmly under the parapet, thinking: "phew, close call, but we got away with it."

Did they just get drunk with all the media exposure, the attention, claiming victim-hood, the ambassadorial roles and the Fund? 

As for eliminating the red herrings - yes. For instance, on page 365 of her book where Kate calls for an independent review of the case (I mean, WTF?!) she writes about various people allegedly seen in the vicinity of the Ocean Club that spring and asks if they have "been eliminated on solid grounds?"

"Who is the man Jane Tanner saw carrying a child, very probably Madeleine, away from our holiday apartment?"

He has been eliminated by police.

"Who is the man seen watching the apartment in the days before? Four years later he, or they, remain to be identified."

Not sure who she is referring to here and whether or not police have eliminated this person who may or may not have existed.

"Have all those in the vicinity of the Ocean Club that spring, especially those with knowledge of our movements, been eliminated on solid grounds?"

There is a rather glorious double-entendre here as it would appear that the McCanns and their friends have worked very hard to eliminate anyone with knowledge of their movements that spring at the Ocean Club - Amaral being the chief target (and boy did they work hard to try to discredit him)  but also many other key eye-witnesses appear to have disappeared off the face of their earth or remained astonishingly silent or obtuse.

"There are still people who have not been interviewed. Nor has everyone's description been taken or their movements accounted for."

If these paedophile attacks in the years prior to Madeleine's disappearance did really happen (and Kate writes about them in her book, the inference being that it might have been the same person that 'stole' Madeleine) then it is important that they are properly investigated. For all sorts of reasons.

In my opinion, there are some quite strong pointers towards paedophile activity in connection with Madeleine, as her parents and friends have always insisted. However, as is so often the case, the big bad bogey-men can often be the ones on the inside, rather than the outside.

It seems likely to me that several people were involved in moving Madeleine away from the Ocean Club and in concealing her, presumably in more than one place. Someone or several people obviously had to remove her from the apartment on or before the night of the alleged abduction and before the police arrived. But whether she was dead when first removed from the apartment, we do not know for sure.

The cadaver scent in the apartment strongly indicates that her body was in there for a period of time - or even several periods of time, but it does not necessarily confirm that she actually died in the apartment. She could have died outside (either by accident or not) and then - when the police had gone off on a wild-goose chase, her body could have been brought back inside, while they decided what to do with it (the freezer that Gerry allegedly disposed of at the dump?)


If people apart from the McCanns or their friends were involved in some way - even if they were not fully aware of what was happening (for instance they gave the McCanns keys to somewhere) then, as Kate herself helpfully writes in her book, there will be other people who were in the vicinity of the resort at the time or even before, who might hold some vital information.

And don't forget, these attacks, if they took place, as well as Madeleine's 'disappearance' have to be seen against the backdrop of the Casa Pia scandal. This must have rocked the country as the abuse at the children's home had gone on for decades and some very high profile people were involved. The trial started in 2004. It was the first time an institutional sex abuse scandal had been taken to court in Portugal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Pia_child_sexual_abuse_scandal

kevmack wrote:

Woofer wrote:Whilst part of me wants to agree with Cristobel that the detectives in this case could not be corruptible, I keep remembering the cases where police officers do keep silent, e.g. :-
 
Hillsborough,
Dr. Kelly
Daniel Morgan
Stephen Lawrence
Princess Diana (French police)
Holly Greig
Plebgate
Jill Dando
 
and there must be loads more.
 
IMO to actually be attracted to a career in the police, one has to be `establishment minded`, `them and us mentality`.
 
There is I believe an unwritten `Blue Code of silence` amongst police officers that they will always protect each other.  In fact Portsmouth University are doing an `Exploration of The Blue Code of Silence`in the police.  It is supposed to be published this month -
 
http://www.college.police.uk/en/21111.htm
 
It will be interesting to see what the results are.

Many of the others were just to cover up SY's incompetence even the Barry George case was overturned on a technicality there are still many people who believe he was responsible.  But overall these cases have reasons for conspiracy behind them, even  if there never has been any conspiracy at all, whereas the McCanns are a pair of nobodies, with no reach into the establishment at all, yes they would like us to think they do, but they don't, because if they did, they would just have disappeared when they fled Portugal and the media would have left well alone, if they had even been made arguidos in the first place, support from high places would have meant they would have escaped any police involvement at all in the event that Madeleine had died on that holiday, they would just have slipped out of Portugal with their deceased daughter and gone back to their everyday lives with no one any the wiser imo

Wow! - I wouldn't want you on a jury if I or a member of my family were up on a charge. Claiming someone is seriously deranged not a term I would use about somebody I have never met. Though I don't know much about the Hollie case, I wouldn't make a statement like that.
about somebody.

You also say the MCs are nobodies - hardly! Nobodies don't get flown around in a private jet, don't get to meet the pope, don't become ambassadors for charities, don't have friends like Esther McVeigh, don't get private calls for PMs.....unless they have a connection of course - I could go on. Ben Needhams mother didn't get this attention did she? I'm with Aquila on that one. Its probably more who they know, or rather someone in their group knows/or knows something about another powerful person or group.

And you don't have to be Royal to be protected. I believe Jimmy Saville was protected until he died....He wasn't Royal, but I bet he had damn good connections. We know he knew royalty, don't we.

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?

It has Aquila, I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity.  Also when we get down to the nitty gritty, something I try to avoid, even the worst parents I could imagine would not use their own children for anything seedy.  Paedophiles prey on vulnerable children, those without protection, ergo, those in care or those stolen from the streets.  They don't use their own children, nor would they use a family resort and bring granny along.  

If the VIP is the one who authorised the cover up - I think it unlikely.  They will all do as their predecessors have done before them, and point the finger at someone else.  No heads will roll within this or any former government, though a prospective tory candidate might find himself out on a limb.  

I cannot find any logical explanation that would include hiding the involvement of a VIP and I have tried every line of thinking!  My conclusions are that the McCanns like us to think that this case is bigger than them, or that they are more important than they actually are.  As we reach the end, myths are being revealed before my eyes.  Everything is based on a lie.  What they are telling the world (us) and what they are telling the forces of the PJ and SY.  They see themselves as champions of the oppressed (themselves) and victims intent of squeezing every last bit of sympathy (and cash) they can out of a public who gave, and moved on years ago.  

I agree that they are being protected, but that protection is a shield against the torrent of media intrusion that will be inevitable once this story breaks.

Cristobell wrote:
It has Aquila, I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity.  Also when we get down to the nitty gritty, something I try to avoid, even the worst parents I could imagine would not use their own children for anything seedy.  Paedophiles prey on vulnerable children, those without protection, ergo, those in care or those stolen from the streets.  They don't use their own children, nor would they use a family resort and bring granny along.  

If the VIP is the one who authorised the cover up - I think it unlikely.  They will all do as their predecessors have done before them, and point the finger at someone else.  No heads will roll within this or any former government, though a prospective tory candidate might find himself out on a limb.  

I cannot find any logical explanation that would include hiding the involvement of a VIP and I have tried every line of thinking!  My conclusions are that the McCanns like us to think that this case is bigger than them, or that they are more important than they actually are.  As we reach the end, myths are being revealed before my eyes.  Everything is based on a lie.  What they are telling the world (us) and what they are telling the forces of the PJ and SY.  They see themselves as champions of the oppressed (themselves) and victims intent of squeezing every last bit of sympathy (and cash) they can out of a public who gave, and moved on years ago.  

I agree that they are being protected, but that protection is a shield against the torrent of media intrusion that will be inevitable once this story breaks.

I'm not disagreeing with your general argument Cristobell, nor am I suggesting that any of the individuals in the McCann case are involved in "anything seedy" with their children, but you have only to recall Josef Fritzl or read a few incest survivors stories to know that this statement is sadly not true. "The worst" parents really are pretty bad.

I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" has to do with the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that there are people in high places who may have a connection to the above, hence the level of protection afforded the group.

j.rob wrote:Don't forget - Blair slapped a D notice on the (admittedly highly flawed) Operation Ore.
This passage lifted from:
 http://www.dailyalternative.co.uk/tony-blair-cover-up-paedophile-scandal/
In 1999, an international investigation of child pornographers and paedophiles run by Britain’s National Criminal Intelligence Service, code named Operation Ore, resulted in 7,250 suspects being identified in the United Kingdom alone. Some 1850 people were criminally charged in the case and there were 1451 convictions. Almost 500 people were interviewed “under caution” by police, meaning they were suspects. Some 900 individuals remain under investigation. In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair’s government.
However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation. Blair cited the impending war in Iraq as a reason for the D-Notice. Police also discovered links between British Labour government paedophile suspects and the trafficking of children for purposes of prostitution from Belgium and Portugal (including young boys from the Casa Pia orphanage in Portugal).
Tony Blair: stifling investigations of paedophiles in his Labour government.

 
And just imagine the number of police officers that have to keep their mouths shut about that dirty secret.
 
And is it just coincidence that the Blairs are communicating with the McCanns soon after Maddie goes missing and is it just coincidence that Jim Gamble backs them and was/is a Portfolio Holder for the FSS LAB. In Goncalo`s recent interview he refers to there having been something untoward going on there with regard to evidence from IRA bombings.  Jim Gamble was an RUC copper as well as having links to FSS.  Not making accusations, just pointing out coincidences.

Popcorn wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
It has Aquila, I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity.  Also when we get down to the nitty gritty, something I try to avoid, even the worst parents I could imagine would not use their own children for anything seedy.  Paedophiles prey on vulnerable children, those without protection, ergo, those in care or those stolen from the streets.  They don't use their own children, nor would they use a family resort and bring granny along.  

If the VIP is the one who authorised the cover up - I think it unlikely.  They will all do as their predecessors have done before them, and point the finger at someone else.  No heads will roll within this or any former government, though a prospective tory candidate might find himself out on a limb.  

I cannot find any logical explanation that would include hiding the involvement of a VIP and I have tried every line of thinking!  My conclusions are that the McCanns like us to think that this case is bigger than them, or that they are more important than they actually are.  As we reach the end, myths are being revealed before my eyes.  Everything is based on a lie.  What they are telling the world (us) and what they are telling the forces of the PJ and SY.  They see themselves as champions of the oppressed (themselves) and victims intent of squeezing every last bit of sympathy (and cash) they can out of a public who gave, and moved on years ago.  

I agree that they are being protected, but that protection is a shield against the torrent of media intrusion that will be inevitable once this story breaks.

I'm not disagreeing with your general argument Cristobell, nor am I suggesting that any of the individuals in the McCann case are involved in "anything seedy" with their children, but you have only to recall Josef Fritzl or read a few incest survivors stories to know that this statement is sadly not true. "The worst" parents really are pretty bad.

Not forgetting the women involved with Ian Watkins of the Lost Prophets rock band -

DM article 18 Dec 2013 -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525722/Lostprophets-paedophile-Ian-Watkins-described-child-sex-abuse-crimes-mega-lolz.html

How could any mother be so evil? Judge's withering condemnation as he jails two women for 31 years for letting pop star abuse their babies

Two mothers committed the ‘greatest betrayal’ by offering up their children for horrific abuse by a paedophile rock star, a judge said yesterday.

Mr Justice Royce said the depraved pair had sacrificed their moral compass because of their infatuation with Ian Watkins.
‘That you were manipulated by Watkins may be obvious, but you were a mother – your infant was only 11 months old,’ he said in jailing the first woman for 14 years.

‘A mother naturally loves, protects, shields, nurtures and cherishes. Your infant would have trusted you implicitly.

‘You totally betrayed that trust. Could there be a greater betrayal?’

mouse wrote:

Wow! - I wouldn't want you on a jury if I or a member of my family were up on a charge. Claiming someone is seriously deranged not a term I would use about somebody I have never met. Though I don't know much about the Hollie case, I wouldn't make a statement like that.
about somebody.

You also say the MCs are nobodies - hardly! Nobodies don't get flown around in a private jet, don't get to meet the pope, don't become ambassadors for charities, don't have friends like Esther McVeigh, don't get private calls for PMs.....unless they have a connection of course - I could go on. Ben Needhams mother didn't get this attention did she? I'm with Aquila on that one. Its probably more who they know, or rather someone in their group knows/or knows something about another powerful person or group.

And you don't have to be Royal to be protected. I believe Jimmy Saville was protected until he died....He wasn't Royal, but I bet he had damn good connections. We know he knew royalty, don't we.

Wow!  How rude you are!  Do you know anything about Anne Greig?  I do!  And yes she is deranged and has ruined the lives of many, many people, so please don't make assumptions about something you clearly know nothing about!

As for the McCanns being nobodies, yes, they are, they got a lot of public sympathy at the beginning, but that soon wore off, there's no private jets and audiences with the pope now, Esther Mcvey deserted them a long time ago and they got one phonecall from Gordon Brown, who then distanced himself and never met with them again.  they are just name droppers who had a few contacts but they have used and abused any goodwill that they had and all support is now gone.

I never said you had to be Royal to get protection, and as for Savile, people just mainly turned a blind eye because of his "charity" work, as soon as he stopped bringing in the money i.e. when he died, it was open season and it opened the floodgates against many a celeb and high profile person, the court cases and investigations are all ongoing, so no high level intervention anymore, so I just don't believe in cover ups and protections, especially as there is no one worth while of protection

And Paulo Rebelo - who was leading the Madeleine investigation from October 2007 until the summer of 2008 when the case was shelved and the McCanns were cleared  - also led the Casa Pia inquiry. 

Hmm. Very interesting. Too hot to handle?

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:

Wow! - I wouldn't want you on a jury if I or a member of my family were up on a charge. Claiming someone is seriously deranged not a term I would use about somebody I have never met. Though I don't know much about the Hollie case, I wouldn't make a statement like that.
about somebody.

You also say the MCs are nobodies - hardly! Nobodies don't get flown around in a private jet, don't get to meet the pope, don't become ambassadors for charities, don't have friends like Esther McVeigh, don't get private calls for PMs.....unless they have a connection of course - I could go on. Ben Needhams mother didn't get this attention did she? I'm with Aquila on that one. Its probably more who they know, or rather someone in their group knows/or knows something about another powerful person or group.

And you don't have to be Royal to be protected. I believe Jimmy Saville was protected until he died....He wasn't Royal, but I bet he had damn good connections. We know he knew royalty, don't we.

Wow!  How rude you are!  Do you know anything about Anne Greig?  I do!  And yes she is deranged and has ruined the lives of many, many people, so please don't make assumptions about something you clearly know nothing about!

As for the McCanns being nobodies, yes, they are, they got a lot of public sympathy at the beginning, but that soon wore off, there's no private jets and audiences with the pope now, Esther Mcvey deserted them a long time ago and they got one phonecall from Gordon Brown, who then distanced himself and never met with them again.  they are just name droppers who had a few contacts but they have used and abused any goodwill that they had and all support is now gone.

I never said you had to be Royal to get protection, and as for Savile, people just mainly turned a blind eye because of his "charity" work, as soon as he stopped bringing in the money i.e. when he died, it was open season and it opened the floodgates against many a celeb and high profile person, the court cases and investigations are all ongoing, so no high level intervention anymore, so I just don't believe in cover ups and protections, especially as there is no one worth while of protection

As a member of this forum who's not noted for her diplomatic skill (mostly noted for being snappier than a crocodile) could I jump in here and say that I think you've slightly misunderstood each other's posts?

This thread is really going well. There's good discussion and lots of opinion relevant to the topic. Is it possible to put your argument on the backburner?

@ Cristobell - "I have tried to imagine every scenario, but I cannot imagine a VIP who would warrant such a huge police investigation and so much publicity."

Come on Cristobel ... I`m usually the naive one on this forum   .
I can think of loads but won`t list them here   .

The investigation is huge because there are thousands of people not falling for it all over the world .... and rather than keep quiet the McCanns have perpetuated it by sueing people and going on TV couches.  It could have just died a death in the early stages but they have made the stupid decision to take the power and run with it.   In most cases like this, Mi5 would step in and GM would have had an accident but its too far gone for that to happen.

aquila wrote:

As a member of this forum who's not noted for her diplomatic skill (mostly noted for being snappier than a crocodile) could I jump in here and say that I think you've slightly misunderstood each other's posts?

This thread is really going well. There's good discussion and lots of opinion relevant to the topic. Is it possible to put your argument on the backburner?

I have no intention of disrupting the thread, but I don't appreciate being personally attacked like that by someone who by their own admission knows nothing about the Hollie case but tries to call me out and make assumptions about my credibility, and as far as I'm concerned I've said my piece.  

"Also when we get down to the nitty gritty, something I try to avoid, even the worst parents I could imagine would not use their own children for anything seedy.  Paedophiles prey on vulnerable children, those without protection, ergo, those in care or those stolen from the streets.  They don't use their own children, nor would they use a family resort and bring granny along." 

Cristobel,

I tend to disagree. I think extremely naive of you to suggest that even the worst parents would not abuse their own children, use them for anything seedy.  Of course children in care can be abused, as can abducted children, but children, children of those considered at times to be good parents can be every bit as vulnerable.  The problem for these children is that to the outside world all is well,the parents respectable but behind closed doors it is not so. So very many children abused and used for 'seedy stuff' by those closest to them, including their parents.   As to this specific granny - old sozzled socks couldn't see what was going on beyond her wine glass ! Paedophiles are cunning individuals abusing kids right under the nose of others.

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" has to do with the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that there are people in high places who may have a connection to the above, hence the level of protection afforded the group.

I'll say this again because I think we're getting fairly close to the truth, judging by the attempts to derail this thread.
Please see above.

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" goes no further than the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

It's certainly starting to look that way to me, although I do think there are probably also other reasons for the high level of protection the McCanns received. The Gasper statements were pretty damning. They must have thought long and hard before going to the police with that kind of information. 

Dr Katherine Gasper about David Payne:

“I remember thinking whether he would look at my daughter and other little girls in a different way than I or others do. I imagined that he had perhaps visited internet sites related to little children. In a word, I thought that he could be interested in child pornography on the web. During our holiday in Majorca, each parent would bath the children in turn. I was keen to stay near the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children. I remember I said to Savio to be careful and to be close by if Dave was helping to bathe the children and my daughter in particular. I did this [stay hear the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children] quite obviously because hearing what he said had troubled me and I didn’t trust him bathing ‘A’ [our first child].