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

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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27392172

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.

by Nina 13.05.14 11:48

Andrew77R wrote:
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!!!

me too Andrew77R I give in flag

by Guest 13.05.14 11:50

Nina wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
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!!!
me too Andrew77R I give in

if a is 1....

by stillsloppingout 13.05.14 11:51

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
margaret wrote:
I don't think they'll find Madeleine, l think the huelva trip put paid to that. But maybe there is stuff hidden. Someone said on here before about the diversionary tactics the Mccanns use and it's true. All this time they have been at pains to suggest Maddie isn't in PDL anymore and this dig has them rattled so...?

Where are Gerrys clothes with cadaver odour? The blue tennis bag?

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.

Not as risky as you think .

Misdirection as long as he was brazen enough , he could hide his intentions in plain sight . i mean even if he had a press scrum inches from his car , nobody is going to say , " what have you got in those boxes Gerry ? Maddie " .

The car was chock full of leaflets , THEY WERE NOT FOLLOWED by the press , there was a detour and we know that from the mileage ,the bag was picked up inc Maddie from its current temporary hiding place [ under a stone, ] or the disused farmhouse that was mentioned in posts ages ago ] and re interred in marshland or sone other difficult terrain .

It must be this trip to heluva [ spelling ] because wasn't it a public holiday , and the leaflets were all in Portuguese.

Misdirection again Whoop's a public holiday , aren't i stupid , he knowing full well the roads would be empty and nobody would be around .

IF AND THE BIG IF they are worried about the pending searches [ they are NOT worried about the digs because IMO SY are on side , and would not dig anywhere that could incriminate , ] it is because in there initial haste they disposed locally of items relating to Maddie , and themselves [ and later may have forgot exactly where ] which if discovered they would have a lot of questions to answer .

Im no officer but . here is one directly to Lord Charles Q " why have you buried / disposed of items belonging to Maddie ,/ yourselves in a field etc ....... There is NO reasonable answer , to paraphrase Gerry they wood be fooked . Im sure even SY could not spin that one away [ unless of course the abducting cleaner was just doing his job ]

Find/ stumble upon even her tooth brush and they are doomed .

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 11:52

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

132118120

Cryptic enough ?

Hmm, this appears to be the phone number of a Ronald Pickleton (Mrs) of Swaffham, Norfolk. He maintains that he had nothing to do with it, but I agree with Wendy Murphy, I'm not buying it.

by ChippyM 13.05.14 11:52

plebgate wrote:
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.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27392172

Interesting. So that's 7 months after they did a second forensic investigation and 4 years after she went missing. So for those 7 months police kept quiet whilst analysing results and tracking down a suspect.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 13.05.14 11:55

ChippyM wrote:
Interesting. So that's 7 months after they did a second forensic investigation and 4 years after she went missing. So for those 7 months police kept quiet whilst analysing results and tracking down a suspect.

You mean that the police didn't announce their suspect to the media up front???? For shame!!!

by **PeterMac** 13.05.14 11:59

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
Interesting. So that's 7 months after they did a second forensic investigation and 4 years after she went missing. So for those 7 months police kept quiet whilst analysing results and tracking down a suspect.
You mean that the police didn't announce their suspect to the media up front???? For shame!!!

Indeed. Dreadful malpractice.
They did, in their defence, alert the suspect and give him / her 24 hours start.
Always give a chap a sporting chance, don't you know !

by plebgate 13.05.14 12:02

Someone did post recently and ask if it's possible that a new forensic search had been done on the QT in Apt. 5a?

by ChippyM 13.05.14 12:06

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
Interesting. So that's 7 months after they did a second forensic investigation and 4 years after she went missing. So for those 7 months police kept quiet whilst analysing results and tracking down a suspect.

You mean that the police didn't announce their suspect to the media up front???? For shame!!!

Not exactly what I meant no big grin

If just about every recent 'leak' about arrests has come from the McSpin team and not SY, maybe just maybe, that means SY could just be getting on with things, which evidently can take months.

by Guest 13.05.14 12:09

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

132118120

Cryptic enough ?

Hmm, this appears to be the phone number of a Ronald Pickleton (Mrs) of Swaffham, Norfolk. He maintains that he had nothing to do with it, but I agree with Wendy Murphy, I'm not buying it.

Never heard of this chap. Just did a quick search on here, files, google etc and nothing.

Any links for info WLBTS....

Log in for more topics