Re: ExclusivePix - more Met Police photos, from the team that's always on hand to snap what the Met orders them to snap

by ChippyM 10.05.14 20:34

Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?

I don't want to believe in a Whitewash but I can think off some possibilities.

1) SY /PJ dig and find nothing, more money wasted, public outraged at waste of money, cased shelved, MM presumed dead, no-one specifically responsible.

2) SY/PJ dig and find something but forensics are inconclusive, no-one can be charged with her death. again public outrages at the charade and want case closed.

3) SY/PJ find something, pin it on a patsy.

by Atomic Peanut 10.05.14 20:48

ChippyM wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?
I don't want to believe in a Whitewash but I can think off some possibilities.

I'm sure others will agree with you Chippy M but I don't believe any of those are realistic.

1 and 2 just take us back to where we were in August 2008. The case was shelved, it was effectively over to everyone except those of us on the forums. There was no point resurrecting it just to whitewash it.

In the case of 3, there's no point LE fitting up a patsy because there will be no evidence against them. There was no sign of an intruder in 5A, so there will be no DNA or fingerprints to match the accused. And M didn't WAW, we are told, so an abductor couldn't have whisked her away from outside.

So the theory that some petty criminal/disgruntled ex OC worker/perpetrator of other bad deeds elsewhere on the Algarve/etc can be offered up as a sacrifice just doesn't stand up.

That convinces me that there is no whitewash. But quite what is going on is as mystifying to me as it is to most of you.

by Guest 10.05.14 20:51

Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-chief-calls-for-decision-on-funding-of-madeleine-mccann-review-8078769.html

Hogan-Howe wrote:There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is.

Depends on what they've decided. Certainly any establishment cover-up/involvement will be protected imo. If to acheive that means continued protection of the McCanns then they will remain in the clear. I have recently been wondering if the Portuguese investigation will dictate that the British may have to concede a partial sacrifice of the McCanns, but if Pat Brown is right, even that glimmer is extinguished.

Just my suppositions.

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:03

ChippyM wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?

I don't want to believe in a Whitewash but I can think off some possibilities.

1) SY /PJ dig and find nothing, more money wasted, public outraged at waste of money, cased shelved, MM presumed dead, no-one specifically responsible.

2) SY/PJ dig and find something but forensics are inconclusive, no-one can be charged with her death. again public outrages at the charade and want case closed.

3) SY/PJ find something, pin it on a patsy.

The McCanns better hope for Option 3 if there is to be a whitewash. Otherwise, they've had it as far as their case against Amaral is concerned.

Having said that, I don't see any of the options really helping them against Amaral. Surely, he would not settle for a whitewash having battled the couple all these years even when he had nothing!

by ChippyM 10.05.14 21:04

Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
ChippyM wrote:As another poster said , I refuse to believe in a white wash until the fat lady has finished singing!
Perhaps those of you who believe a whitewash is in progress would explain exactly how that whitewash will conclude?
I don't want to believe in a Whitewash but I can think off some possibilities.
I'm sure others will agree with you Chippy M but I don't believe any of those are realistic.

Very good points, why would they close the case when they could have done that with out the recent developments. I am at the moment optimistic that this isn't a whitewash

by SixMillionQuid 10.05.14 21:06

They already decided the McCanns and the T7 have no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, so does it matter what they conclude now?

They have to come to a conclusion soon and if they it's highly likely it was a burglary / pedo then can anyone argue its not a whitewash?

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:10

I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years? nah

by ChippyM 10.05.14 21:11

SixMillionQuid wrote:They already decided the McCanns and the T7 have no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, so does it matter what they conclude now?

They have to come to a conclusion soon and if they it's highly likely it was a burglary / pedo then can anyone argue its not a whitewash?

When exactly did they state the parents have no involvement?

What I've seen is some extremely carefully worded statements that haven't precluded all possibilities. It's been quite confusing though together with all the spin, so I go from optimistic back to not knowing what to think.

by Atomic Peanut 10.05.14 21:15

There have been many cases in history where the police have said one thing while actually believing something else. Until there is a publicised conclusion anything is possible.

Given that it isn't known for sure when M disappeared, nobody has an alibi. To have an alibi, the exact time of the incident has to be known.

That effectively applies to everybody in the world. Nobody has an alibi.

Therefore it isn't possible to rule anyone out - and I mean anyone.

by Guest 10.05.14 21:18

ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

Since when has Dr Amaral's position been any consideration of the British? It was our governmental intervention that did for him in the first place. His hope for justice lies with his own people, imo. I hope they don't let him and Madeleine down.

by SixMillionQuid 10.05.14 21:21

ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

My view is that the SY review is a PR exercise first mascarading as an official investigation. When they publicly announced the T9 as irrelevant it was clear to me where the investigation was going, all in time for the libel trial which is now suspended.

This PR exercise is and has always been to stop Amaral in his tracks. Once he's done then they'll come after us with a a copy of Operation Grange's report. Just the whiff of legal action is enough to send newspapers and internet forums into a nosedive. Job done. Look what happened to the Mirror forums, 3As. On Digital Spy you can the most outrageous things but say the words Madeleine McCann and the thread gets locked instantly.

by MF77 10.05.14 21:23

Hey folks, I'm quite a long way behiind current events, but I just wanted to ask where I might pose a few questions or thoughts about Madeleine's dead body, if we are to assume she is dead. Sorry for my ignorance.

duh

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:23

Dee Coy wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

Since when has Dr Amaral's position been any consideration of the British? It was our governmental intervention that did for him in the first place. His hope for justice lies with his own people, imo. I hope they don't let him and Madeleine down.

Well, they will have to consider his position when he starts making noises. I believe he has deliberately withheld certain information because he still has hope that the case will be solved. If there is a whitewash, they'll probably have to kill him to prevent him speaking out!

PS: I believe the British are watching the civil case in Portugal very closely.

by Guest 10.05.14 21:24

I would like to think that if this was a whitewash, then it would of been whitewashed properly back in 2008 when the case was shelved. The Mccann's would of been TOLD to shut up. Case slowly forgotten and it would of just gone down as an 'unsolved mystery'. Much like Ben Needham, although i hate to compare.

If the case files were not made public then i firmly believe that would of happened.

Once the files were made public and GA's refusal to back down and play ball, then they have been firefighting ever since. They were on a train that just couldn't stop. Needing (begging for) vast amounts of money to pay for the best PR's, lawyers etc etc to try and get them out of the mess they were/are in.

They will be the masters in there own downfall. The train is about to crash and burn.

Not long now and i'm hopeful that true justice will finally be served.

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:28

SixMillionQuid wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

My view is that the SY review is a PR exercise first mascarading as an official investigation. When they publicly announced the T9 as irrelevant it was clear to me where the investigation was going, all in time for the libel trial which is now suspended.

This PR exercise is and has always been to stop Amaral in his tracks. Once he's done then they'll come after us with a a copy of Operation Grange's report. Just the whiff of legal action is enough to send newspapers and internet forums into a nosedive. Job done. Look what happened to the Mirror forums, 3As. On Digital Spy you can the most outrageous things but say the words Madeleine McCann and the thread gets locked instantly.

But just look at the current climate: several police officers being investigated or serving prison sentences for past crimes, a notorious PR expert in prison, a serving cabinet minister prosecuted and sent to jail, a High Court judge sent to jail, newspaper editors charged with multiple offenses, the list goes on. What makes THIS case special in this current climate?

by ChippyM 10.05.14 21:30

MF77 wrote:Hey folks, I'm quite a long way behiind current events, but I just wanted to ask where I might pose a few questions or thoughts about Madeleine's dead body, if we are to assume she is dead. Sorry for my ignorance.

Hello! I would have thought opening a thread in the debate section, there might even be a thread there already, although i'm not 100 percent on that. It would be an interesting discussion.

Edit - there's a thread here; https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3789-where-would-a-body-be-hidden?highlight=hide+body

by SixMillionQuid 10.05.14 21:32

ChippyM wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:They already decided the McCanns and the T7 have no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, so does it matter what they conclude now?

They have to come to a conclusion soon and if they it's highly likely it was a burglary / pedo then can anyone argue its not a whitewash?

When exactly did they state the parents have no involvement?

What I've seen is some extremely carefully worded statements that haven't precluded all possibilities. It's been quite confusing though together with all the spin, so I go from optimistic back to not knowing what to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyp2Buvv8pM

At 5:40. So if Mr Redwood decides to do 180 degrees in the future they could argue why did he declare PUBLICLY they were of no interest? They could also argue he he didn't carry out a thorough investigation.

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:34

SixMillionQuid wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:They already decided the McCanns and the T7 have no involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, so does it matter what they conclude now?

They have to come to a conclusion soon and if they it's highly likely it was a burglary / pedo then can anyone argue its not a whitewash?

When exactly did they state the parents have no involvement?

What I've seen is some extremely carefully worded statements that haven't precluded all possibilities. It's been quite confusing though together with all the spin, so I go from optimistic back to not knowing what to think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyp2Buvv8pM

At 5:40. So if Mr Redwood decides to do 180 degrees in the future they could argue why did he declare PUBLICLY they were of no interest? They could also argue he he didn't carry out a thorough investigation.

The investigation is ongoing so he can argue back that at the time he made the declaration, they were not suspects.

by ChippyM 10.05.14 21:38

ShuBob wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:At 5:40. So if Mr Redwood decides to do 180 degrees in the future they could argue why did he declare PUBLICLY they were of no interest? They could also argue he he didn't carry out a thorough investigation.

The investigation is ongoing so he can argue back that at the time he made the declaration, they were not suspects.

Yes my thinking exactly, they were not officially suspects at the time he was speaking and still aren't. Given all the legal issues around this case he would hardly come out and say the Mc's are suspects without getting very thorough evidence.

by Guest 10.05.14 21:39

ShuBob wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

Since when has Dr Amaral's position been any consideration of the British? It was our governmental intervention that did for him in the first place. His hope for justice lies with his own people, imo. I hope they don't let him and Madeleine down.

Well, they will have to consider his position when he starts making noises. I believe he has deliberately withheld certain information because he still has hope that the case will be solved. If there is a whitewash, they'll probably have to kill him to prevent him speaking out!

PS: I believe the British are watching the civil case in Portugal very closely.

Amen to that! yes

I think the British tactic of a whitewash could have been undermined by the PJ investigation. They've been desperately banging on the door trying to intervene for the last 6 months but the Portuguese aren't having any of it and the door remains firmly closed.

This recent request of SY to dig is the only one of 278 requests to have been granted (I believe because it suited the PJ's ends). As such, the English could not refuse and we've seen the resulting pantomime this week.

Of course, this has cleverly communicated the PJ's investigative direction to the world, that a body is involved and the British have been forced into demonstrating that they have admitted this too. I hope I'm still right - Pat Brown has deflated me greatly.

by SixMillionQuid 10.05.14 21:41

ShuBob wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

My view is that the SY review is a PR exercise first mascarading as an official investigation. When they publicly announced the T9 as irrelevant it was clear to me where the investigation was going, all in time for the libel trial which is now suspended.

This PR exercise is and has always been to stop Amaral in his tracks. Once he's done then they'll come after us with a a copy of Operation Grange's report. Just the whiff of legal action is enough to send newspapers and internet forums into a nosedive. Job done. Look what happened to the Mirror forums, 3As. On Digital Spy you can the most outrageous things but say the words Madeleine McCann and the thread gets locked instantly.

But just look at the current climate: several police officers being investigated or serving prison sentences for past crimes, a notorious PR expert in prison, a serving cabinet minister prosecuted and sent to jail, a High Court judge sent to jail, newspaper editors charged with multiple offenses, the list goes on. What makes THIS case special in this current climate?

I can only assume there are some powerful people indirectly linked to the McCanns or the T7 that have something to hide and are prepared to pay to keep their sordid business secret. The phone hacking scandal and the McCanns phones not hacked!??? You just now that someone at the top has told journalists to back off.

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:42

Dee Coy, it looks like I made the right decision against reading Pat Brown's latest musing about this case.

by MF77 10.05.14 21:44

ChippyM wrote:
MF77 wrote:Hey folks, I'm quite a long way behiind current events, but I just wanted to ask where I might pose a few questions or thoughts about Madeleine's dead body, if we are to assume she is dead. Sorry for my ignorance.

Hello! I would have thought opening a thread in the debate section, there might even be a thread there already, although i'm not 100 percent on that. It would be an interesting discussion.

Thanks for the reply ChippyM, perhaps I'm not being clear enough, which often happens! smilie

It's just that I'm trying to discuss possible questions of scrutiny, about why she died in that room, how the T9 might have to get their story 'straight' (& not one of them implicate anyone else during the investigation), and who may have been involved in getting rid of the body.

I personally find it hard to believe that it was nothing more than an accident, and wanted to discuss the implications of this, if you can see what I mean?

by ShuBob 10.05.14 21:45

SixMillionQuid wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:
ShuBob wrote:I think people who believe in a whitewash are not taking into account the implications of such a conclusion for Amaral. Do they really think he'll just have to accept the conclusion and effectively be destitute having suffered all these years?

My view is that the SY review is a PR exercise first mascarading as an official investigation. When they publicly announced the T9 as irrelevant it was clear to me where the investigation was going, all in time for the libel trial which is now suspended.

This PR exercise is and has always been to stop Amaral in his tracks. Once he's done then they'll come after us with a a copy of Operation Grange's report. Just the whiff of legal action is enough to send newspapers and internet forums into a nosedive. Job done. Look what happened to the Mirror forums, 3As. On Digital Spy you can the most outrageous things but say the words Madeleine McCann and the thread gets locked instantly.

But just look at the current climate: several police officers being investigated or serving prison sentences for past crimes, a notorious PR expert in prison, a serving cabinet minister prosecuted and sent to jail, a High Court judge sent to jail, newspaper editors charged with multiple offenses, the list goes on. What makes THIS case special in this current climate?

I can only assume there are some powerful people indirectly linked to the McCanns or the T7 that have something to hide and are prepared to pay to keep their sordid business secret. The phone hacking scandal and the McCanns phones not hacked!??? You just now that someone at the top has told journalists to back off.

For decades, we were told Max Clifford could effectively bring this nation down with the secrets he held. He held on for a while.

by SixMillionQuid 10.05.14 21:46

ChippyM wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
SixMillionQuid wrote:At 5:40. So if Mr Redwood decides to do 180 degrees in the future they could argue why did he declare PUBLICLY they were of no interest? They could also argue he he didn't carry out a thorough investigation.

The investigation is ongoing so he can argue back that at the time he made the declaration, they were not suspects.

Yes my thinking exactly, they were not officially suspects at the time he was speaking and still aren't. Given all the legal issues around this case he would hardly come out and say the Mc's are suspects without getting very thorough evidence.

If he has them in his radar he would have kept silent on the issue or "no comment". By the time SY have gone through their process of elimination we'll all be dead. laughat

ExclusivePix - more Met Police photos, from the team that's always on hand to snap what the Met orders them to snap

Those ExclusivePix photos of Operation Grange at work in Portugal...