Re: Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

by Guest 27.05.14 8:10

petunia wrote:What i don't understand is why a couple of unheard doctors before may 2007 can hold the government past and present to ransom so it seems..

Have a look at the last couple of pages on the 'comment left on Cristobell's thread' - some interesting reading there.

by AndyB 27.05.14 8:19

petunia wrote:What i don't understand is why a couple of unheard doctors before may 2007 can hold the government past and present to ransom so it seems..

I don't believe they can. I believe successive governments have wanted to keep something else that is connected to the T9 very secret and the McCanns are just collateral beneficiaries

by nglfi 27.05.14 9:11

In reply to Tony's answer to my post earlier (I'm on my phone and can't get back to it for a direct quote) -
Motivation for a Portuguese cover up - I appreciate Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation from forces above, but a week is a long time in politics, let alone several years. It was also Leicestershire police who suggested bringing the dogs in, and I believe they also made a statement that the macs could not be ruled out. Therefore, at least some elements from the British side always considered the truth as a possibility. I don't pretend to understand political machinations from above but I am hopeful that the re opening of the Portuguese investigation is headed in the right direction. As much as public opinion is seemingly in favour of the macs here (or the msm keeps trying to herd us in that direction), public opinion in Portugal is against them, and it is an open fact that they were once suspects (or still are).

Another point - let's assume for a moment that SY are whitewashing. Tony suggested that after pressure from RB, SY may have put similar pressure on the PJ to re open, seeing as how it was handled so 'badly' the first time. If SY are whitewashing though, and therefore know the macs are responsible, why would they persuade the PJ to open a genuine investigation, one which they have no control over? Re opening it is likely to lead further towards the truth, not away, particularly if the PJ are fed up with British interference. As I mentioned, surely it could only work if the PJ were also fully committed to the whitewash idea. If they are, why do they keep refusing rogatory requests and insisting on keeping full control. Wouldn't they be happy to let SY lead?

My apologies if my ideas have not come across very clearly or if I've misrepresented Tony's ideas at all, I'm on early shifts at work and it's a struggle to think when this tired!

by Atomic Peanut 27.05.14 9:31

nglfi wrote:Motivation for a Portuguese cover up
As I mentioned, surely it could only work if the PJ were also fully committed to the whitewash idea

As I understand it, the PJ (post-Amaral) established at the time that they believed they had solved the case.

It was shelved by the Attorney General because it was impossible to prove it to a level that they could take to court (given that 7 years of discussion on forums haven't achieved that either, it's easy to see why).

Assuming the PJ were correct in their analysis, and the highest Portuguese legal authorities were also satisfied with it, what would Portugal have gained by wasting time and money attempting to proceed to a final conclusion, rather than just washing their hands of the whole inconvenient business?

That isn't a whitewash or cover-up, it's just common sense, though I realise it won't appeal to those of you who like the thought of total closure.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.05.14 9:49

nglfi wrote:Another point - let's assume for a moment that SY are whitewashing. Tony suggested that after pressure from RB, SY may have put similar pressure on the PJ to re open, seeing as how it was handled so 'badly' the first time.

As I said earlier, there were repeated demands for Portugal to re-open their investigation. And ever since then, there have been repeated demands by SY for a joint investigation.

If SY are whitewashing though, and therefore know the Macs are responsible, why would they persuade the PJ to open a genuine investigation, one which they have no control over?

Leaving aside why there might be any kind of 'whitewash', what actual evidence do we have that the PJ investigation is a genuine one? My thesis is that it is not. My thesis is that it has been set up in name only, just to try and pacify SY. In support of my thesis is that the Portuguese investigation (if there is a genuine one) appears to be based in Porto, hundreds of miles away from the 'scene of the crime'. Further, there has been no visible sign of activity, no reports of people being interviewed or new statements taken, no hints of further appeals to the British government - nothing, nothing.

Re-opening it is likely to lead further towards the truth, not away, particularly if the PJ are fed up with British interference.

But is this a genuine investigation? Or just nominal?

As I mentioned, surely it could only work if the PJ were also fully committed to the whitewash idea.

I think the PJ long ago gave up hope of bringing anyone to justice in respect of Madeleine's disappearance; the costs and the logistics would be an expensive nightmare, for starters. My scenario is that they are doing the bare minimum to be seen to co-operate with SY.

If they are, why do they keep refusing rogatory requests and insisting on keeping full control. Wouldn't they be happy to let SY lead?

You must be joking! Would Bernard Hogan-Howe let the Portuguese take over the investigation of a Portuguese child who went missing in Hackney? They are refusing rogatory requests for the simple reason that they know, 100%, that Grange is bogus. REMINDER: Look at the words in yellow on the forum header.

My apologies if my ideas have not come across very clearly or if I've misrepresented Tony's ideas at all, I'm on early shifts at work and it's a struggle to think when this tired!

You represented my views fine, but had not perhaps grasped that I see the current PJ investigation as in name only, just to give the appearance of co-operation with SY

by Angelique 27.05.14 9:50

Atomic Peanut

It could be that someone at HMG has got the jitters. Maybe something has occurred and they want to just check one more time that all leads, evidence has been dealt with. This could be why SY want PJ to have a joint investigation, that way they get to see all the evidence that's being held.

The only way to get this resolved would be to re-start the investigation. Hence the Review now turned Investigation.

The PJ can only deal with request from SY by re-opening their Files. But PJ are still refusing to have a joint investigation. KM said this in an interview that it was, at the moment, a parallel investigation which is not what they want.

I agree that the PJ are happy to let the case rest and not prepared to waste any more money that is why SY are paying for any work they do in Portugal.

by AndyB 27.05.14 9:53

Atomic Peanut wrote:
nglfi wrote:Motivation for a Portuguese cover up
As I mentioned, surely it could only work if the PJ were also fully committed to the whitewash idea
As I understand it, the PJ (post-Amaral) established at the time that they believed they had solved the case.

It was shelved by the Attorney General because it was impossible to prove it to a level that they could take to court (given that 7 years of discussion on forums haven't achieved that either, it's easy to see why).

Assuming the PJ were correct in their analysis, and the highest Portuguese legal authorities were also satisfied with it, what would Portugal have gained by wasting time and money attempting to proceed to a final conclusion, rather than just washing their hands of the whole inconvenient business?

That isn't a whitewash or cover-up, it's just common sense, though I realise it won't appeal to those of you who like the thought of total closure.

As far as I'm aware no-one has ever suggested that the PJ shelved the investigation to cover it up. I don't even know of any opinion that differs from yours as to the reasons for the shelving as there's a long report that explains the reasons quite clearly. Care to explain how you interpreted nglfi's post in that way?

by Atomic Peanut 27.05.14 9:58

AndyB wrote:As far as I'm aware no-one has ever suggested that the PJ shelved the investigation to cover it up. I don't even know of any opinion that differs from yours as to the reasons for the shelving as there's a long report that explains the reasons quite clearly. Care to explain how you interpreted nglfi's post in that way?

Because of the use of the phrase "cover-up".

What's wrong (in pragmatic terms) with a conclusion that says "we think we've got a jolly good idea what happened, but they won't be bothering us any more, so let's move on to more important matters"?

by **Tony Bennett** 27.05.14 10:12

Atomic Peanut wrote:
What's wrong (in pragmatic terms) with a conclusion that says "we think we've got a jolly good idea what happened, but they won't be bothering us any more, so let's move on to more important matters"?

Nothing is wrong with that if it's true.

Everything is wrong wiih it, if it's untrue

by stillsloppingout 27.05.14 10:41

petunia wrote:What i don't understand is why a couple of unheard doctors before may 2007 can hold the government past and present to ransom so it seems..

Ian Watkins was not famous a decade ago . [ once he was Forces did not want to prosecute him ]
The Police are influenced by celebrity , throw in there unprecidented high powered contacts [ due to there initial skilful use of social media , add there Lawyers behind the scenes [ possibly a bit of extra marital hows ya father ] and it is about as bullet proof as you can get .

by Guest 27.05.14 10:59

stillsloppingout wrote:
The Police are influenced by celebrity ,

Katie Price aka "Jordan" is stopped by police for driving without insurance. Any lesser mortal would have been walking home....

by Guest 27.05.14 11:02

I saw this programme when it was on TV.

It transpired that she was actually insured - at least that's what was said at the end.

by Guest 27.05.14 11:03

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I saw this programme when it was on TV.

It transpired that she was actually insured - at least that's what was said at the end.

Apparently so, but without going too far off topic, I doubt that you or I would be given the opportunity to prove it. When it comes to the ordinary public, that database is considered infallible.

by Pershing36 27.05.14 11:13

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
The Police are influenced by celebrity ,

Katie Price aka "Jordan" is stopped by police for driving without insurance. Any lesser mortal would have been walking home....

She lives not far from me.

Even when it was well reported in the press she had lost her licence she almost knocked me off the road on the A24 probably doing well over a tonne.

The local Tesco sometimes cones off a Disabled bay when she chooses to make a shopping trip. Then lords it round with her security guards. Awful women.

by nobodythereeither 27.05.14 11:15

Tony Bennett wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:
Do you really think that they are going to make public a blow by blow account of what they are doing? How can you possibly tell what they may be "disregarding" and what they are "concentrating all their resources" on? What they choose to tell the public (or lead the public to believe) and what they are doing behind the scenes are likely to be very different, in my opinion.
You are very insistent that this is a genuine investigation, aren't you?
You seem to be very insistent that it is NOT a genuine investigation.

Yes. We are both insistent.

What exactly do you disagree with in my post above?

As I've repeated many times, those who think this is a genuine, no-holds-barred, honest search for the truth, base their view on hope and belief, just as NFWTD has just done. I'm not going to repeat once again all the evidence I've provided that Grange is a bogus investigation, but my view is certainly based on evidence - what we see and know about Grange so far.

You wrote: Do you really think that they are going to make public a blow by blow account of what they are doing? ANS: But do you not see before your very eyes, NBE, that that is precisely what they have done? They've told us:

* They're looking for Madeleine here in Britain, and spent taxpayers' money providing us with an artist's sketch of a happy-looking Madeleine aged 10
* They're looking for 'Smithman' (or two different Smithmans as they've provided e-fits of two different people
* They're looking for 4 blonde men
* They're looking for 'Smelly bin man'
* They're searching for items connected with Madeleine in a helicopter
* They're going to be digging in 3/4/5 places around Praia da Luz
* They're examining tens of thousands of mobile 'phones
* In 31 countries
* They're investigating 500+ sex offenders
* They've listed 60 suspects
And so on.

And on top of all that, and more, which they've told us about on the record, there are all the leaks, usually coming via 'a source close to Scotland Yard' or even 'a Scotland Yard source', such as:

* 6 men in a white can
* 3 burglars
* man with keys
* 'Tractorman'
* A soothing couple
And more.

You still sayt hey are not giving a 'blow-by-blow' account of what they are doing?

Or do you seriously mantain that this is a series of calculated lies to the public to disguise what they are really up to?

Please tell us which of these you think best explains their actions so far.

ETA: Trying to discuss things on here quite often feels like a combination of wading through treacle and banging one's head against a brick wall

Now, I'm sorely tempted to make a sarcastic reply at this point, but I will restrain myself, otherwise the Chief Moderator here will, quite rightly, jump on me like a ton of bricks.

I am trying to imagine what it must be like sitting down to type a post on this forum, feeling as though you are thigh-deep in treacle, unable to move forward, and only able to repeatedly bang your head against a brick wall, no doubt injuring yourself in the process.

It is an awful, graphic image. Nobody should feel this way on this forum.

If I personally have contributed in any way, large or small, to your feeling this way, please accept my sincere apologies. I shall try to lighten your load in the future.

Yes, sadly you are the main person contributing to my feeling this way.

And your sarcasm doesn't help, really.

Maybe I will just go back to reading - or stay off this forum altogether. I only come on it at all because there are a few logical people posting here.

It is clearly a very complex case (as I believe Theresa May said when the review started) otherwise yes it would have been solved by now, but really, quite apart from any other factors, a whitewash could have been easily carried out years ago without involving so many people in at least two countries.

Occam's Razor springs to mind when explaining the current investigation. But don't let me stop you spinning your ever more complicated web.

by Guest 27.05.14 11:23

I find Tony's sarcasm unacceptable, nobodythereeither.

Please let it stop, Tony.

by AndyB 27.05.14 11:30

Atomic Peanut wrote:
AndyB wrote:As far as I'm aware no-one has ever suggested that the PJ shelved the investigation to cover it up. I don't even know of any opinion that differs from yours as to the reasons for the shelving as there's a long report that explains the reasons quite clearly. Care to explain how you interpreted nglfi's post in that way?
Because of the use of the phrase "cover-up".

What's wrong (in pragmatic terms) with a conclusion that says "we think we've got a jolly good idea what happened, but they won't be bothering us any more, so let's move on to more important matters"?

Nothing at all but that's completely irrelevant.

If we go back to nglfi's post that you responded to, the only use of the phrase "cover-up" was this: "Motivation for a Portuguese cover up", which was a link back to TB's post to which nglfi was replying. The remainder of the post argues that there is no motivation for a Portuguese cover-up and that therefore the current Portuguese investigation is genuine. Please explain how you read it as nglfi claiming that the Portuguese shelved the original investigation, which wasn't mentioned at all, to cover something up.

(nglfi please correct me if I've misunderstood your post)

by aiyoyo 27.05.14 11:33

BTW, I don't believe the review was taken at the behest of Becky, femme fatale and persuasive she may be to hook wink Cameron. I believe that was just superficial reason staged between DC and RB to drop the McCanns into it.

Can't anyone seriously believe Cameron going to the Portuguese Public Ministry telling him Becky is holding our Home Secretary hostage, can you urgently agree to let have us a Review, and then got instant approval within 24 hours turnaround time?

DM and RB 24 hours - demand to accede - turnaround time may be one thing, without the approval (which needs to be worked on) of the Portuguese Public Ministry the Review is not possible. Hence I believe this must have been already set in motion, instigated by the Portuguese, and not the other way around.

by Guest 27.05.14 12:25

@ nobodythereeither

Surely by applying the principal of Occam Razor principle to the current investigation you are contradicting the Home Secretary's declaration that it is clearly a very complex case?

There is nothing complicated about a little child disappearing as a result of parental neglect, any complications IMO have been subsequently introduced by the very people who are responsible for her disappearance, her parents and their extensive support network!

by Guest 27.05.14 12:27

petunia wrote:What i don't understand is why a couple of unheard doctors before may 2007 can hold the government past and present to ransom so it seems..

Depends on the nature of the crime and how deep seated it might be.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 27.05.14 12:33

Gollum wrote:@ nobodythereeither

Surely by applying the principal of Occam Razor principle to the current investigation you are contradicting the Home Secretary's declaration that it is clearly a very complex case?

There is nothing complicated about a little child disappearing as a result of parental neglect, any complications IMO have been subsequently introduced by the very people who are responsible for her disappearance, her parents and their extensive support network!

Surely the question of whether the investigation is a whitewash is entirely different to the question of whether the case is complex.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.05.14 12:33

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I find Tony's sarcasm unacceptable, nobodythereeither.

Please let it stop, Tony.

Is it not time for some here to lighten up a touch?

Was it not more than a tad over the top - indeed quite ridiculous - for NTE to complain that this forum was 'like wading through treacle' and 'banging your head against a brick wall'?

A bit of gently poking fun is still OK, isn't it?

by russiandoll 27.05.14 12:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I find Tony's sarcasm unacceptable, nobodythereeither.

Please let it stop, Tony.
Is it not time for some here to lighten up a touch?

Was it not more than a tad over the top - indeed quite ridiculous - for NTE to complain that this forum was 'like wading through treacle' and 'banging your head against a brick wall'?

A bit of gently poking fun is still OK, isn't it?

and there we go again, with the condescension and the contempt.. please do as NFWTD suggests and a bit of lightening up on your own part would not go amiss.

I imagine the OTT remarks from NTE were when the cherry was placed on the cake of what you often dish out, Tony, which is not poking fun, but being provocative, with contempt for those who oppose your views, and a condescending attitude towards those you perceive as not having the intelligence to see that we are being conned with a whitewash.

by Guest 27.05.14 12:49

My sense of humour is very healthy usually but has been under the weather lately!

This wasn't an isolated incident though was it Tony?

Anyway, it's time to move on for the good of the forum and to stop Bonnybraes, Blacksmith et al from choking over their cauldrons!

If we all treat each other as we ourselves would like to be treated, we won't go far wrong.

by russiandoll 27.05.14 12:50

AGREED.

by Mirage 27.05.14 13:19

Ref the DM article I posted on page 56 about a meeting in Lisbon last October:
------------------------------------------------

"Portugal’s Attorney General confirmed on Thursday that the probe was being reopened at the request of police based in Porto who have spent the last two and a half years reviewing the case.

The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Rogerio Alves, said local police have finally admitted to the couple they no longer regard them as suspects, more than five years after the original investigation was shelved.

The couple were told in a police briefing last week in Lisbon, new lines of inquiry which have led to the reopening of the investigation in Portugal, absolve them of any responsibility.

Mr Alves said: 'The McCanns were already informed about the reopening of the inquiry and the reasons why it was being reopened.

'They also know that this new line of inquiry excludes any responsibility of the parents.

'The Portuguese police told them this at a meeting in Lisbon last week at which British police were also present.'What it means is that the police understand there are new avenues that should be explored.

'This brings Madeleine’s parents a legitimate expectation not only that the truth will be discovered but also that it will be possible to find Madeleine alive which is the sole aim of all the efforts they’ve been making."[/

-----------------------------------
Is there any evidence to show the Mcs were not given assistente status? I mean, the libel trial got a long way in before anyone even queried the WOC anomaly.

I appreciate this is Rogerio Alves talking, but f you reverse the situation and a lawyer deliberately mis-quoted Dominic Greave to a foreign newspaper on a case of global importance I cannot imagine it going uncorrected and the lawyer not hauled over the coals.

Whether or not the Mcs were granted assistente status, the information they were given at that meeting chimes with the messages coming from OG ever since, with one exception: They have closed down the expectation of finding a live child and are now looking for a body. This also chimes with the KH's preparatory press article - We just want too know the truth and put an end to it all.

Enter the helicopter search and the digs.

This is designed to wear people down to the point where they lose interest IMO. Now OG are going into purdah for an unspecified period. A prequel, I suspect, to announcing the result I'm afraid we are not going to like.

by Atomic Peanut 27.05.14 13:37

AndyB wrote:If we go back to nglfi's post that you responded to, the only use of the phrase "cover-up" was this: "Motivation for a Portuguese cover up", which was a link back to TB's post to which nglfi was replying. The remainder of the post argues that there is no motivation for a Portuguese cover-up and that therefore the current Portuguese investigation is genuine. Please explain how you read it as nglfi claiming that the Portuguese shelved the original investigation, which wasn't mentioned at all, to cover something up

If you read my post again you will see that I wasn't arguing with nglfi, I was just quoting in order to move the conversation on.

As I see it, Portugal was happy to wash its hands of the whole affair because they knew it wouldn't affect them again and there were more relevant (ie current) crimes to concentrate on. However, there have since been related issues in the UK, hence the involvement of NSY.

by Cristobell 27.05.14 13:39

Tony Bennett wrote:Cristobell wrote: Whilst I appreciate why you feel so passionately that this is a whitewash, don't you think actually digging up the ground in PDL is going a bit too far?

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(I am replying on behalf DCI Andy Redwood)

Not at all.

I think it makes for excellent publicity with which to continue to mould public perception.

The photo on the CMOMM forum header was ideal for us.

Suited and booted, striding purposefully through the streets of Portimao, important-looking briefcases in hand.

The helicopter ride was brilliant, we got loads of coverage. A military helicopter! An Alouette Mark III! That shows them all back home that we mean business.

There's nothing better now than pictures of 'ground penetrating radar machines', JCBs, people in orange suits using Kango hammer-drills to drill through bare limestone, here will be graphic proof that we are conducting a thorough investigation, and are (literally!!!) 'Leaving No Stone Unturned'.

Of course, we 've issued a bogus statement saying that we don't want any publicity, but what we'll do (just as we did for example when in December 2011 we took boxes of files from Metodo 3's offices in Barcelona) is to tip off our photographer from ExclusivePix to get some really good shots for the front pages of the tabloids.

Remember the words of advice from Hitler's chief propagandist and reputation manager, Josef Goebbels: "If you're going to tell a lie, make it a big one".

And one more thing Goebbels said: "Make it entertaining". His favourite film, which he watched 23 times, was 'Gone With The Wind', because of its brilliant entertainment quality.

In all his hateful propaganda films about those 'Untermenschen', the Jews, he made sure that the Germans were well entertained.

I've spent nearly eight million quid on this so far.

I'm going to put pictures of JCBs on our front pages, make no mistake.

I want the public to get good value for their money

In quoting me you have missed off my punchline Tony. Whatever they find during their digs might totally incriminate the parents and the 3 years work done by SY in covering up the original crime will be blown apart.

I too have studied the propaganda techniques used by the Nazi party during World War II, but I am not sure it is a logical comparison - they were after all going for world domination, this is a case of a missing child and two dodgy doctors - and it is highly unlikely that the governing authorities of two nations would go to such extremes, including digging up a popular holiday spot in high season to clear the McCanns.

The history of this case is complex for sure, and those of us who grew up in an age when you could trust a policeman, have seen things that have shocked us to the core. I'm sorry to say it, but I have a feeling that had Labour remained in power the McCanns would have been cleared by a Met Police Review - probably that small team suggested by Sharon, 6 officers and £20,000 quid - ending with a report pointing the finger at swarthy person or persons unknown, with an official seal of Innocence for Kate and Gerry and an imperialistic middle finger to the Portuguese. With the McCanns cleared they could continue to promote Labour ideals that will encourage the public to give up their freedoms for the greater good.

But it didn't turn out that way Tony. The government changed and their biggest police ally resigned. It is highly unlikely therefore that Theresa May gave the go ahead for a Review based on CEOP's earlier report. She was not persuaded enough by that report to authorise a review, that much is obvious. Something changed. New evidence? A new report? Both?

If this were a whitewash Tony, it would have finished at the Review stage, confirmed that all viable leads had been followed up and there was nothing that led them to believe this was anything other than stranger abduction. Apologised sincerely to Mr and Mrs McCann for letting them down and wished them well in their continued 'Search', putting the resources of the Met at their disposal for evermore, so the Fund could be used solely for legal fees.

From a whitewash perspective, moving from Review to full investigation would be insanity - the status could only change if there was something tangible to follow up on and the variety of suspects put forward thus far, are hardly 'tangible' or good reason enough to justify the mounting costs. I suggest, they are smoke and mirrors. You know as well as I, that all these leads and suspects have been going round in circles for the past 7 years. As you said yourself, there is no sign of an investigation 'on the ground' - the Portuguese police are not interviewing people in the local area (how many times must these people be interviewed, sheesh) - so they are clearly not looking for a smelly man, a bed hopper or even a Smithman, some might even glean from that, that they are not looking for anyone Portuguese or ex pat.

The idea that both SY and the PJ are taking all the time in the world to catch a gang of paedophiles, child traffickers or a dangerous lone predator is absurd. If a child murderer were on the loose, wouldn't there be some urgency to the investigations? I don't think SY or the PJ are looking for a dangerous child predator, the sleepy town of PDL, carries on much as it always has, and the Algarve just won an award for being a top holiday spot. The McCanns call to boycott Portugal hasn't worked. (At this point, if I were you Tony, I would highlight the recent report from SY pinpointing all the hotspots on the Algarve where a smellyman climbs into bed with young British girls, to support your whitewash argument, lol. What was that all about, other than a touch of Goebbels?

by nobodythereeither 27.05.14 13:43

Gollum wrote:@ nobodythereeither

Surely by applying the principal of Occam Razor principle to the current investigation you are contradicting the Home Secretary's declaration that it is clearly a very complex case?

There is nothing complicated about a little child disappearing as a result of parental neglect, any complications IMO have been subsequently introduced by the very people who are responsible for her disappearance, her parents and their extensive support network!

No, I'm not contradicting what the Home Secretary said. I think you have misunderstood me.

My reference to Occam's Razor was in relation to whether or not the investigation is a whitewash.

It is far simpler and more straightforward to view it as a genuine investigation into the disappearance of a child (however complex the actual investigation itself may be) than to view it as a very over-the-top, expensive, lengthy and complicated whitewash involving many people including the police of at least two countries.

by AndyB 27.05.14 14:06

Atomic Peanut wrote:
AndyB wrote:If we go back to nglfi's post that you responded to, the only use of the phrase "cover-up" was this: "Motivation for a Portuguese cover up", which was a link back to TB's post to which nglfi was replying. The remainder of the post argues that there is no motivation for a Portuguese cover-up and that therefore the current Portuguese investigation is genuine. Please explain how you read it as nglfi claiming that the Portuguese shelved the original investigation, which wasn't mentioned at all, to cover something up
If you read my post again you will see that I wasn't arguing with nglfi, I was just quoting in order to move the conversation on.

I don't need to reread your post. I read it clearly and you quoted nglfi. If you're not arguing with nglfi why quote them, especially considering that they didn't make the point that you disagree with?

Rereading your post as though the quote wasn't there: I don't see how gainsaying a point that no-one has made is moving anything on at all. I think we can all agree that the original investigation was shelved for the reasons in the archiving report but there is a debate to be had as to whether the current Portuguese investigation is genuine or not. Do you have anything constructive to contribute to that?