Game over?

Seek truth wrote:Well I'd like to hear the PJ say they have evidence and charge them, but I don't believe it'll happen. I hope I'm wrong. After 7 years, and Mr Amaral tried but he was pushed away. They've had lots of opportunities, but the  English quickly come in and change things, just ask Mr Amaral!

The trial, stopped, and when things weren't working for them, things change and Tannerman is found etc.

j.rob wrote:As this case has been so politically driven from the outset, I would imagine that the way in which the case unravels (I do believe it will, eventually) will also be governed by political interests. Timing is everything in politics. There are good times to bury bad news and there are bad times to bury good news. And so on. Politicians want to gain votes. The Government of the day have a need to keep at least a semblance of law and order and that means the public having at least some level of confidence in the police force, the NHS, our legal system and other professional/state bodies. I think this case demonstrated just how much sleaze there had been under B LIAR and it carried on under Brown. It happened at a very sensitive time politically and provided a convenient platform for many people to jump on. I think the unfolding of the case will also be governed at least in part by what else in going on politically and the prevailing mood and climate of the economy generally. There is also diplomacy to be considered - not just relations with Portugal but how the UK is perceived internationally. To continue to allow a bunch of mediocre and neglectful doctors to lead a major crime investigation, control and gag the media, launder money around in a fraudulent fund which finances libel suits against detractors would not be good for the UK's image. It's quite ironic really that Clarence Mitchell used to be involved in media relations for the Government. The zeal with which he attached himself to the McCann wagon from practically the outset was proof, in one were needed, that politics was always a defining feature of this case. Quite sickening really when you consider what the case SHOULD really be about.

ultimaThule wrote:

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

lj wrote:

j.rob wrote:As this case has been so politically driven from the outset, I would imagine that the way in which the case unravels (I do believe it will, eventually) will also be governed by political interests. Timing is everything in politics. There are good times to bury bad news and there are bad times to bury good news. And so on. Politicians want to gain votes. The Government of the day have a need to keep at least a semblance of law and order and that means the public having at least some level of confidence in the police force, the NHS, our legal system and other professional/state bodies. I think this case demonstrated just how much sleaze there had been under B LIAR and it carried on under Brown. It happened at a very sensitive time politically and provided a convenient platform for many people to jump on. I think the unfolding of the case will also be governed at least in part by what else in going on politically and the prevailing mood and climate of the economy generally. There is also diplomacy to be considered - not just relations with Portugal but how the UK is perceived internationally. To continue to allow a bunch of mediocre and neglectful doctors to lead a major crime investigation, control and gag the media, launder money around in a fraudulent fund which finances libel suits against detractors would not be good for the UK's image. It's quite ironic really that Clarence Mitchell used to be involved in media relations for the Government. The zeal with which he attached himself to the McCann wagon from practically the outset was proof, in one were needed, that politics was always a defining feature of this case. Quite sickening really when you consider what the case SHOULD really be about.

Great post.
I do believe that it is not so much something the McCanns holding something on an important person it is this process that you describe so much better than I could. I used to describe it as "not wanting to look stupid". Of course with every step the government took, the stakes got higher, reaching a new zenith with operation Grange.
That's one of the reasons why I believe Operation Grange will be a "whitewash". Now way they will come out with the parents as suspects, because that means they also have to admit to the very undue malversations from diplomats, politicians, and likely their now defunct forensics lab.

As far as Clarence goes: I think Tigger characterizing it as the Peter principle is correct. He has almost fascinated me with his almost comedy central statements. I think if anyone ever does a parody of him, they can use everything he ever said unedited. They should not forget the way he dressed up at times: the fake policeman, the optimistic McCann fan etc.

ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

lj wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

sharonl wrote:
We should consider the reason that this review was set up in the first place.  Remember that Theresa May was against the idea to start with and only agreed to it under pressure from David Cameron who was told by Rebekah Brooks that he would be exposed in the headlines every day if he didn't comply with her request.

Theresa May may have turned down the Mccanns but from the MET's FOI response letter it would appear she agreed to Portuguese request to allow MET to participate in the Review.  It's apparent she isn't against a Review except it has to be taken in the faith of right perspective.

Before the review was set, we had the McCann private detectives Metedo 3, Oakley International and Alphaig supplying the press with the latest nonsense on the case.  We had sightings galore, witnesses galore and many other spoof articles about what the PI's were up to.  Since the arrest or imprisonment of most of these clowns these stories seem to have dried up and we have had to make do with mystery men, un-named witnesses, sources and dead paedophiles..

So what has this review achieved?

Nothing else has been achieved, and if it had what could the Met police do about it?  They have no jurisdiction in Portugal, they may not even be recognised as police officers in Portugal.  To make an arrest they would need the assistance of the Portuguese Police, otherwise they may be seen as running a case alongside the official one or interfering, they may even get arrested themselves.

The invited on board MET must observe the Portuguese rules.
For a workable relationship mutual respect must be a given, relatively anyway.
No reason why MET wont be accorded due respect but they can't operate UK rules in Portugal and expect to ride roughshod over their host.



The British police have even stated that this is a case for the Portuguese Police, we are just assisting them.

Notice how there have been fewer sightings since the review started, the press now focus on what they say that the Met are doing.  Notice how the press stories have changed from weekly sightings to weekly suspects.

For me, this review is nothing more than a PR exercise, set up to keep Rebekah Brooks happy and to protect Cameron from adverse publicity in the headlines.

Imagine if there was no review, the press would have no story to sell.


No review = more pseudo sightings, more TV and Press appearance by the odious pair begging for money and maybe even selling all sorts all in the name of their untiring search.

Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:
As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.
So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.

Hillsborough was 25 years ago, and they are starting again.

aiyoyo wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Go backward to refer to the dialogue.

The dogs and death inside the apt were mentioned in a one-sentence question by the member and met with that reply from the Officer.

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:
As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.
So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.

Hillsborough was 25 years ago, and they are starting again.

Châtelaine wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:@ Ayoyo 9:39
I wonder if the question had been "The dogs indicated death in the apartment", the officer might have replied: "Yes, that's true" ...

The follow-up question then might have been "And on  items belonging to McCanns and nowhere else" and the officer replied .... ?

Go backward to refer to the dialogue.

The dogs and death inside the apt were mentioned in a one-sentence question by the member and met with that reply from the Officer.

***
I should have done that before posting and now just did,  but cannot find it.
Can you give me a pagenumber  please, or remind me of the member, who originally posted it? TA

Andrew77R wrote:
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me -  the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?"

Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

russiandoll wrote:The post is on p.47 of the Whitewash topic. Here is the exchange re the dog alerts :

   Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?"

  The police officer was correct. The dog alerted to the odour of a corpse, the indications being that a lifeless body was in a location long enough for the odour to develop.

That is the extent of the dog work. It is up to detectives and others to identify the body and to find evidence leading to when and how it came to be in that location.

If we take MM out of the equation and allow for another body having been in 5a, it does not mean that another person died there.

The police officer was correct to differentiate between death and dead.

I believe that Maddie's body was in 5a for some time after death, because I accept the dog alerts.

I have no idea where Maddie died.

russiandoll wrote:Aiyoyo, which part are you referring to? Which words from the police officer's replies can you not reconcile with Redwood's " might not have been alive when she left the apartment? " = died in the apartment isn't it ? Or do you think he meant she died elsewhere and they brought her dead body back into the apartment ? Feasible ?
BTW is that direct quote from Redwood?
If it is, he is careful with his words, again not easy to decipher what he meant, as in died in the apt or dead body moved into the apt?

 Redwood said that Maddie might have been dead when she was moved from the apartment. That can be reconciled with the dog alerts, whether he says so or not.

russiandoll wrote: [...] there is knowledge on the parents' part that their daughter was not asleep when they went for their meal.

russiandoll wrote:aiyoyo, from what I have read I believe that Maddie probably died in 5a, however the dog alerts do not tell us anything other than there was a body[ presumably Maddie's ] in 5a. I think it unlikely that Maddie died elsewhere and was brought back to the apartment, because imo if that had happened she would not have been placed behind the sofa.

 I simply think that as you say, certain people are being very careful with what they are saying. The police officer was being very firm about the limitations of the dog alerts, that is all I was trying to say.

 Was he ? being very firm about the dogs or limitations?   Are you sure ?
This had been discussed before, dogs can't name a corpse.  Officer's remark is not about that, CAN'T BE.
Since you believe Maddie likely died in the apartment as in let's assume this belief is shared by Redwood and unnamed Officer too, then by definition dogs alert is 100% fool proof isn't it doesn't matter about the finer point of dogs limitation?  
So which bit is "not strictly true"?  Dogs ? or death in the apartment ?

If Maddie did not die in 5A, who did, if dogs is to be believed - the question is down to that tout simplement.
If the dogs reliability is to be discounted then the death theory can be thrown out doesn't matter where she died.

What the officer meant is very obscure.  What Redw ood meant if the quote is attributable to him is a tad clearer ie a dead Maddie was abducted.


 The bottom line though, is that if an alive, sleeping Maddie did not leave 5a, unless there is evidence given the timeline and statements, that a stranger could have entered, killed then removed her, there is knowledge on the parents' part that their daughter was not asleep when they went for their meal.

plebgate wrote:I have to ask - how do we know that the q & a conversation with the policeman did take place?  It may very well have, but  I do not know for sure.  That's my take on it and I do not propose answering anyone who posts telling me that it definitely did because without evidence I remain cautious.

tigger wrote:

lj wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

Just putting my ha'penny worth in.
The above exchange is an excellent example on how to discuss a difference of opinion and conviction rationally and politely.

My opinion in this is that if a member has a high profile, either through generally being well informed or being a frequent  and long-time poster, it is incumbent on them to be careful what is stated as fact when it is only an opinion. Especially elsewhere.
For one thing JH has the distinction of being  under constant scrutiny  for legal reasons.

As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.

So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.

tigger wrote:

lj wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:'Dictate'?!  Not at all, lj - I wouldn't dream of dictating what other members post on social networking sites.  However, IMO is it incumbent on those who are widely known to be associated with this site to refrain from publicly disseminating information which is blatantly untrue in connection with this case. 

While writing, if Grange is intent on a whitewash what do you envisgage will happen in the event the PJ's investigation concludes there is evidence to substantiate charges against the McCanns and/or their pals?

I remain of the opinion that you cannot tell members from this forum what they can write elsewhere. Sorry No Fate Worse Than De'Ath, I have my nails in but this as friendly as I can be. BTW I did not see anything about planning attacks?

Sorry my english today sucks. I have been speaking 4 languages all day, my head is spinning and I really can't find the right words so let me give you a quote:

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
Were an opinion a personal possession of no value except to the owner; if to be obstructed in the enjoyment of it were simply a private injury, it would make some difference whether the injury was inflicted only on a few persons or on many.
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it.
If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.

What I think will happen is that the most PJ can come up with is hiding the body, and maybe neglect. I wonder if the statute of limitations won't come in  play then. But even if they are charged I think CR will do their thing, everyone will stall and stall. I think in the end the McCanns won't go to Portugal on free vacations anymore, the Portuguese are not heart broken about that and nothing will happen. The case goes silent until a body is being discovered.

Just putting my ha'penny worth in.
The above exchange is an excellent example on how to discuss a difference of opinion and conviction rationally and politely.

My opinion in this is that if a member has a high profile, either through generally being well informed or being a frequent  and long-time poster, it is incumbent on them to be careful what is stated as fact when it is only an opinion. Especially elsewhere.
For one thing JH has the distinction of being  under constant scrutiny  for legal reasons.

As for the statute of limitations in Portugal, lj - that's the beauty of it. there's another13 years to go before the case is closed.
I may be wrong and would love expert confirmation of this but all the remaining documents will then be published.

So perhaps it's the long view that's worrying the powers that be.