Re: "Digging" with a helicopter (continued from 'digging at resort')

by canada12 13.05.14 9:55

PeterMac wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
I cannot accept that somebody would drive all the way from PdL to Huelva with a dead body in the boot. That would have been incredibly risky, and unnecessary when you could just bury the body near PdL.
Precisely. It also involves too many people.
Why not just ONE. Then no one else, - including Kate - knows, and cannot ever spill the beans they do not have.
One person hides the body in a place known only to him / her / it.
One person disposes finally, in a place known only to him / her / it.
And that person can then grin and be cheerful,

Do you think someone who was aware of these plans has "spilled the beans", PeterMac?

by Guest 13.05.14 10:08

PeterMac wrote:

I know what you mean about the risk factor. As GM would say it's Ludicrous!!
However - there is strong evidence to suggest that a frozen body was in the boot of the hire car. So they drove it somewhere?
If willing to drive somewhere with a frozen body in the boot then why not drive a bit further a field. I would think that there thinking would be. The further away the better.....
Why THEY ?

THEY as in i think GM had a helping hand in disposing the body.

Disposing the body somewhere further a field than PDL as the evidence suggests a frozen body was present in the back of the hire car.

I'm certain Kate doesn't know. She would never be trusted with that sort of information.

Can't see GM just taking a drive off (on his own) with a shovel in the back of the boot next to a body and stopping off at some quiet place thinking this looks like a good spot.

It was planned meticulously.

Surely had to be a 2 man job. For look out / saving time purposes etc etc??

Next question. Who is the second person?

No idea.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 10:10

canada12 wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
I cannot accept that somebody would drive all the way from PdL to Huelva with a dead body in the boot. That would have been incredibly risky, and unnecessary when you could just bury the body near PdL.
Precisely. It also involves too many people.
Why not just ONE. Then no one else, - including Kate - knows, and cannot ever spill the beans they do not have.
One person hides the body in a place known only to him / her / it.
One person disposes finally, in a place known only to him / her / it.
And that person can then grin and be cheerful,

Do you think someone who was aware of these plans has "spilled the beans", PeterMac?

I realise the question is for PM, but would like to give my view.

If someone else besides the body disposer knows of the site (which I think unlikely), and spilled the beans then there won't be a need for the helicopter.
However, that said, the dig would suggest Police may have interviewed the holiday friends and came to a confirmed conclusion a dig is an added-bonus way to progress their case against 'you know who' to fruition.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 10:11

Andrew77R wrote:
I know what you mean about the risk factor. As GM would say it's Ludicrous!!

However - there is strong evidence to suggest that a frozen body was in the boot of the hire car. So they drove it somewhere?

If willing to drive somewhere with a frozen body in the boot then why not drive a bit further a field. I would think that there thinking would be. The further away the better.....

And hope that the car didn't break down.
And that nobody else on the road gives your car a bump.
And that the police don't stop you for whatever reason.

No ... the shorter the distance the better. I think the body was stored in a frozen state, and was transported in the back of the car just as far as was necessary to find a secluded burial spot near PdL.

Huelva was probably about getting rid of other evidence. The kind of evidence that would not be as obviously incriminating as a dead child giving off an unmistakable smell.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 10:14

PeterMac wrote:
Precisely. It also involves too many people.
Why not just ONE. Then no one else, - including Kate - knows, and cannot ever spill the beans they do not have.
One person hides the body in a place known only to him / her / it.
One person disposes finally, in a place known only to him / her / it.
And that person can then grin and be cheerful,

I agree that it was probably a single person doing the burial. Things things should be done on a need-to-know basis. The only person who needed to know was the person doing the burial. And I do not believe that Gerry has any trust in Kate whatsoever ... and I think he would be right in that.

by Guest 13.05.14 10:15

aiyoyo wrote:So........people still believe it is a white wash eh....despite the imminent dig ?

I firmly believe that there is a very big and vile background to this which TPTB will try to whitewash to the bitter end. They have absolutely no choice.

However, I believe that because 'a lot of people' are now realising that there is something amiss in this case then TPTB have to come up with some sort of 'closure' to the case which will satisfy 'a lot of people' and therefore push it all back into the background. But not for those up us that know better.

I believe PTBP have to find a credible but safe option - whether this turns out to be some action against the Mccanns depends on if that is deemed safe to do so i.e. what the Mccanns could subsequently reveal about TBTB.

I can think of several options, there will be many more I am sure:-

The MSM now going to discredit the Mccanns to the extent that anything they say is discredited so they do not have TPTB over a barrel.
TPTB go for a 'get-out' option (i.e. a patsy) to keep the Mccanns happy and thus quiet.
Some sort of agreement is reached with the Mccanns about what the outcome is what is revealed in the outcome of the case and for ever thereafter.

I go for a mixture of all three.

So yes aiyoyo I would say very definitely a whitewash but in the above context. I wouldn't believe we are being told the truth even if the Mccanns were banged up tomorrow.

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

by mariola 13.05.14 10:15

Châtelaine wrote:Peter, I'm with you all the while.

CHATELAINE,keep up the good work.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 10:18

Andrew77R wrote:
THEY as in i think GM had a helping hand in disposing the body.

Disposing the body somewhere further a field than PDL as the evidence suggests a frozen body was present in the back of the hire car.

I'm certain Kate doesn't know. She would never be trusted with that sort of information.

Can't see GM just taking a drive off (on his own) with a shovel in the back of the boot next to a body and stopping off at some quiet place thinking this looks like a good spot.

It was planned meticulously.

Surely had to be a 2 man job. For look out / saving time purposes etc etc??

Next question. Who is the second person?

No idea.

My answers to a few of these questions:

I believe one person did the burial. But, another person could have been a look-out much further down whatever road lead to the burial site. And I think that person would most likely be Kate. She wouldn't know precisely where the burial site was, and if she was to tell the police later on that she had had a dream that Maddy was buried on a hillside, she wouldn't have been able to be more specific.

ETA - and asking Kate to be the look-out would be a good way of getting her away from the burial site - otherwise she may have insisted on tagging along.

by Guest 13.05.14 10:18

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Huelva was probably about getting rid of other evidence. The kind of evidence that would not be as obviously incriminating as a dead child giving off an unmistakable smell.

Say the body was put in the car for a very short time. Say 10 mins for a quick drive in PDL somewhere for disposal.

Would that leave the sort of smell that they would have to leave all the car doors / boot open for a long period of time. IIRC overnight too....

by Liz Eagles 13.05.14 10:19

Why announce a dig?

Why announce a helicopter reccie of PDL?

Why put out TWO different versions of a 'reconstruction' that had nothing much in common with the released files?

Why tell the media that GPR equipment is now allowed on Portuguese soil?

Why tell the media that a number of ILOR's have not been sanctioned?

Why tell the media anything at all? It's not as if Madeleine's life is in immediate danger is it?

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 10:19

Andrew77R wrote:
THEY as in i think GM had a helping hand in disposing the body.
Disposing the body somewhere further a field than PDL as the evidence suggests a frozen body was present in the back of the hire car. Agree
I'm certain Kate doesn't know. She would never be trusted with that sort of information. Definitely Agree - which is why she meanders aimlessly around PdL
Can't see GM just taking a drive off (on his own) with a shovel in the back of the boot next to a body and stopping off at some quiet place thinking this looks like a good spot. Agree
It was planned meticulously. Agree - except for the word 'meticulously' !
Surely had to be a 2 man job. For look out / saving time purposes etc etc?? Not sure that I necessarily agree. Persuasive, but not conclusive. Many people have buried bodies on their own. There is a vast "Lawless Hinterland" and of course lots of golf courses and farmland to the North and West where there were all those phone pings !
Next question. Who is the second person?
No idea. Officially and on the record - Agree. Off the record, - who knows ? Who would be bold enough to guess ?

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 10:21

PeterMac wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
I cannot accept that somebody would drive all the way from PdL to Huelva with a dead body in the boot. That would have been incredibly risky, and unnecessary when you could just bury the body near PdL.
Precisely. It also involves too many people.
Why not just ONE. Then no one else, - including Kate - knows, and cannot ever spill the beans they do not have.
One person hides the body in a place known only to him / her / it.
One person disposes finally, in a place known only to him / her / it.
And that person can then grin and be cheerful,

I'm with you that body disposing activity is best kept solo.

The 'one person' who did it will also have good reason for wanting to hide the body.
He/she/it may or may not necessary be the perpetrator that caused her death, but may have perpetrated the crime of physical abuse and/or drug overdose to the child (that had nothing to do with cause of a death) but would have a need to hide the body from autopsy.
I can only think this case in question the burial activity was done by father of the child.

by canada12 13.05.14 10:23

Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Huelva was probably about getting rid of other evidence. The kind of evidence that would not be as obviously incriminating as a dead child giving off an unmistakable smell.
Say the body was put in the car for a very short time. Say 10 mins for a quick drive in PDL somewhere for disposal.

Would that leave the sort of smell that they would have to leave all the car doors / boot open for a long period of time. IIRC overnight too....

It could, if it was a very warm day, and the ice melted and fluids leaked, as GA has suggested. Even 10 minutes in a hot car could account for something like that.

As for another person "spilling the beans"... what I meant was, the others in the group might know that one person was going to do a burial and only that person would know where the site was. But someone in the group could tell that information to the police - nothing more than that - just, "this was the plan, so-and-so would do the disposal, I don't know where he/she/it decided to go, but that was the plan."

IMO.

by DIBarlow 13.05.14 10:25

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
THEY as in i think GM had a helping hand in disposing the body.
Disposing the body somewhere further a field than PDL as the evidence suggests a frozen body was present in the back of the hire car. Agree
I'm certain Kate doesn't know. She would never be trusted with that sort of information. Definitely Agree - which is why she meanders aimlessly around PdL
Can't see GM just taking a drive off (on his own) with a shovel in the back of the boot next to a body and stopping off at some quiet place thinking this looks like a good spot. Agree
It was planned meticulously. Agree - except for the word 'meticulously' !
Surely had to be a 2 man job. For look out / saving time purposes etc etc?? Not sure that I necessarily agree. Persuasive, but not conclusive. Many people have buried bodies on their own. There is a vast "Lawless Hinterland" and of course lots of golf courses and farmland to the North and West where there were all those phone pings !
Next question. Who is the second person?
No idea. Officially and on the record - Agree. Off the record, - who knows ? Who would be bold enough to guess ?

RO'B has been conspicuous by his absence from many of the T7 media mugshots organised by the pink prat.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 10:32

canada12 wrote:
As for another person "spilling the beans"... what I meant was, the others in the group might know that one person was going to do a burial and only that person would know where the site was. But someone in the group could tell that information to the police - nothing more than that - just, "this was the plan, so-and-so would do the disposal, I don't know where he/she/it decided to go, but that was the plan."
IMO.

But this is a long time later, after everyone else has gone home.
I doubt whether any of the group even knew the original storage location.
It would have made sense for the group to have adopted Omerta - a Pact of Silence.
Oh, hang on, Didn't someone actually use those words . . .?

by Woofer 13.05.14 10:34

jeanmonroe wrote:Here's 4 questions.

WHY and HOW is the LAST person, G. McCann, who has admitted, on record, to seeing a 'live' Madeleine, asleep in her bed, NOT a 'person of interest' as stated by DCI Redwood?

Commander Simon Foy, DCI Redwood's ex-boss on Operation Grange, said of Stuart Hazell (Tia Sharp case) "of course Mr Hazell would be a main 'person of interest' as he claimed he was the last person to see Tia'

So, Stuart Hazell, last person to claim to see a 'live' Tia was automatically a 'main' POI in investigation.

But G McCann, last person to claim to see a 'live' Madeleine is NOT, according to DCI Redwood, a POI in investigation.

WHY not?

There has to be a 'reason' WHY Mr McCann, or ANY of the T9, as stated by DCI Redwood, are NOT 'persons of interest', dosen't there?

WHAT is Operation Grange's 'REASONING' for stating that?

The T9, in unison, just 'saying' or TELLING DCI Redwood 'nothing to do us us, guv' does not, i'm afraid, qualify as a 'reason'

He is used to be 'lied' to by hardened 'criminals', almost daily, in his job of Detective Constable Inspector, imo..

Very valid point JM - we concentrate too much on why they are persons of extremely great interest. Changing the focus to WHY THEY ARE NOT POIs is what DCI Redwood should, at some point, have to explain.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 10:42

canada12 wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Huelva was probably about getting rid of other evidence. The kind of evidence that would not be as obviously incriminating as a dead child giving off an unmistakable smell.
Say the body was put in the car for a very short time. Say 10 mins for a quick drive in PDL somewhere for disposal.

Would that leave the sort of smell that they would have to leave all the car doors / boot open for a long period of time. IIRC overnight too....

It could, if it was a very warm day, and the ice melted and fluids leaked, as GA has suggested. Even 10 minutes in a hot car could account for something like that.

As for another person "spilling the beans"... what I meant was, the others in the group might know that one person was going to do a burial and only that person would know where the site was. But someone in the group could tell that information to the police - nothing more than that - just, "this was the plan, so-and-so would do the disposal, I don't know where he/she/it decided to go, but that was the plan."

IMO.

Again, it is my view that none of the friends would implicate her/himself in it no matter what by giving out that kind of info - about them knowing who disposed of the body albeit not knowing where the site is. They will never let on they knew Maddie died and that they were part of the cover up, else there will be serious consequences for them.

If interviewed this time around, the Police would have drafted their questions very carefully to elicit that sort of replies/answers they sought; and so from their gibberish answers of inevitable half true, half lies, and freudian slips etc the police would have more materials to work on and to deduce where to look by process of elimination of people movements.

by Guest 13.05.14 10:44

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
THEY as in i think GM had a helping hand in disposing the body.
Disposing the body somewhere further a field than PDL as the evidence suggests a frozen body was present in the back of the hire car. Agree
I'm certain Kate doesn't know. She would never be trusted with that sort of information. Definitely Agree - which is why she meanders aimlessly around PdL
Can't see GM just taking a drive off (on his own) with a shovel in the back of the boot next to a body and stopping off at some quiet place thinking this looks like a good spot. Agree
It was planned meticulously. Agree - except for the word 'meticulously' !
Surely had to be a 2 man job. For look out / saving time purposes etc etc?? Not sure that I necessarily agree. Persuasive, but not conclusive. Many people have buried bodies on their own. There is a vast "Lawless Hinterland" and of course lots of golf courses and farmland to the North and West where there were all those phone pings !
Next question. Who is the second person?
No idea. Officially and on the record - Agree. Off the record, - who knows ? Who would be bold enough to guess ?

Thanks for your answers on the above PM.

Off the record, would you be bold enough to hazard a guess of who the second person could be?

by Mirage 13.05.14 10:53

Woofer wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Here's 4 questions.

WHY and HOW is the LAST person, G. McCann, who has admitted, on record, to seeing a 'live' Madeleine, asleep in her bed, NOT a 'person of interest' as stated by DCI Redwood?

Commander Simon Foy, DCI Redwood's ex-boss on Operation Grange, said of Stuart Hazell (Tia Sharp case) "of course Mr Hazell would be a main 'person of interest' as he claimed he was the last person to see Tia'

So, Stuart Hazell, last person to claim to see a 'live' Tia was automatically a 'main' POI in investigation.

But G McCann, last person to claim to see a 'live' Madeleine is NOT, according to DCI Redwood, a POI in investigation.

WHY not?

There has to be a 'reason' WHY Mr McCann, or ANY of the T9, as stated by DCI Redwood, are NOT 'persons of interest', dosen't there?

WHAT is Operation Grange's 'REASONING' for stating that?

The T9, in unison, just 'saying' or TELLING DCI Redwood 'nothing to do us us, guv' does not, i'm afraid, qualify as a 'reason'

He is used to be 'lied' to by hardened 'criminals', almost daily, in his job of Detective Constable Inspector, imo..

Very valid point JM - we concentrate too much on why they are persons of extremely great interest. Changing the focus to WHY THEY ARE NOT POIs is what DCI Redwood should, at some point, have to explain.

Only one establishment figure has had the temerity to ask the blindingly obvious so far:

Lord Justice Tugendhat: What evidence is there of an abduction?

Martorell (from the witness box): The McCanns told me.

This single bombshell admission in the Royal Courts of Justice should have woken the brain dead.

One day, Mr Redwood will have to answer the same question - somewhere, some time.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 11:11

Do we seem to have media silence this week?

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 11:18

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:So........people still believe it is a white wash eh....despite the imminent dig ?

I firmly believe that there is a very big and vile background to this which TPTB will try to whitewash to the bitter end. They have absolutely no choice.

However, I believe that because 'a lot of people' are now realising that there is something amiss in this case then TPTB have to come up with some sort of 'closure' to the case which will satisfy 'a lot of people' and therefore push it all back into the background. But not for those up us that know better.

I believe PTBP have to find a credible but safe option - whether this turns out to be some action against the Mccanns depends on if that is deemed safe to do so i.e. what the Mccanns could subsequently reveal about TBTB.

I can think of several options, there will be many more I am sure:-

The MSM now going to discredit the Mccanns to the extent that anything they say is discredited so they do not have TPTB over a barrel.
TPTB go for a 'get-out' option (i.e. a patsy) to keep the Mccanns happy and thus quiet.
Some sort of agreement is reached with the Mccanns about what the outcome is what is revealed in the outcome of the case and for ever thereafter.

I go for a mixture of all three.

So yes aiyoyo I would say very definitely a whitewash but in the above context. I wouldn't believe we are being told the truth even if the Mccanns were banged up tomorrow.

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

While whitewash can't be ruled out definitively, I should hardly think two none entities like the Mccanns would have any hold over some VIPs; or that people are beholden to them for keeping some secrets, or that a conspiracy is reason for the whitewash.

The MSM is guilty of giving Mccanns air time and space but I don't believe the MBM credits the Mccanns stories with any value whatsoever one way or another.
The way I see it, the MSM were merely allowing the Mccanns their stories and leaving it entirely to the public to decide for themselves whether or not to buy the Mccanns stories. The Mccanns are not representatives of the Police. And if the Police should wish to put out any info it is not beyond them to announce it.
So far the watertight investigation is not a bad sign....I feel that anyway.

To whitewash is one thing if operation is done discretely but to have spent money on an expensive showy display involving helicopter, radar, etc would be hard to justify a white wash. Even if the MEt's idea was to whitewash why would Portugal support them in this outlandish exercise if not because there is a good basis for the exercise as in there's a common goal shared by both sides. I can't see white wash as common goal.

by roy rovers 13.05.14 11:21

Any T9 pact of silence must be secured in the knowledge that unless one of them talks there will NEVER be a prosecution because they know for a FACT that the body is hidden where it will NEVER be found.

by aiyoyo 13.05.14 11:23

roy rovers wrote:Any T9 pact of silence must be secured in the knowledge that unless one of them talks there will NEVER be a prosecution because they know for a FACT that the body is hidden where it will NEVER be found.

Yeap !
But the Police seem convinced they will find it, they believe so anyway, hence the dig.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 11:24

Andrew77R wrote:
Off the record, would you be bold enough to hazard a guess of who the second person could be?

Not with Carter-Ruck watching !

by plebgate 13.05.14 11:26

roy rovers wrote:Any T9 pact of silence must be secured in the knowledge that unless one of them talks there will NEVER be a prosecution because they know for a FACT that the body is hidden where it will NEVER be found.

CF just posted this link re. Claudia - no body found but an arrest has been made.

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

by Guest 13.05.14 11:28

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Off the record, would you be bold enough to hazard a guess of who the second person could be?
Not with Carter-Ruck watching !

Haha - Yes indeed.

Any cryptic clues instead then..

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 11:28

Mirage wrote:
Only one establishment figure has had the temerity to ask the blindingly obvious so far:
Lord Justice Tugendhat: What evidence is there of an abduction?
Martorell (from the witness box): The McCanns told me.
This single bombshell admission in the Royal Courts of Justice should have woken the brain dead.
One day, Mr Redwood will have to answer the same question - somewhere, some time.

I may be wrong but I believe TB asked that question.
But a little time later Tugendhat J mused, in open court, and therefore on the record, about the legal situation if it turned out that Madeleine had NOT been abducted.
So in that sense he is an establishment figure who has dared to speak out.

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 11:31

Andrew77R wrote:
Any cryptic clues instead then..

132118120

Cryptic enough ?

by Guest 13.05.14 11:38

PeterMac wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
Any cryptic clues instead then..

132118120

Cryptic enough ?

Slightly too cryptic.

A simpler one wouldn't go a miss..

Is there a genuine clue amongst those numbers... Or is it just to keep me busy for a very long time.... ha!!!

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 11:39

roy rovers wrote:Any T9 pact of silence must be secured in the knowledge that unless one of them talks there will NEVER be a prosecution because they know for a FACT that the body is hidden where it will NEVER be found.

I don't see how that logically follows. Just because there is a pact of silence doesn't mean that the body is hidden where it will never be found.

Latest topics