Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

canada12 wrote:The thing about Jimmy Savile is that he made a point of making himself big and famous - the bigger and more famous, the better. And he coupled that with a number of "good deeds" so that people put him on a pedestal. Publicly, he was famous and admired for his charitable deeds, the result being that if any of his victims did complain, they were dismissed because Savile was "untouchable".

It's as if he wrote the manual for making yourself untouchable and beyond reproach. Big yourself up. Put yourself "out there" so that everyone can see what a famous person you are. Couple that with charitable deeds and make sure your face is the one people associate with those charitable deeds.

Hmm.
Sound familiar?

1soapy wrote:Just a point of reference about the case being simple or complex. The principle of Occam’s razor does not mean, ‘simple’.

tigger wrote:

canada12 wrote:The thing about Jimmy Savile is that he made a point of making himself big and famous - the bigger and more famous, the better. And he coupled that with a number of "good deeds" so that people put him on a pedestal. Publicly, he was famous and admired for his charitable deeds, the result being that if any of his victims did complain, they were dismissed because Savile was "untouchable".

It's as if he wrote the manual for making yourself untouchable and beyond reproach. Big yourself up. Put yourself "out there" so that everyone can see what a famous person you are. Couple that with charitable deeds and make sure your face is the one people associate with those charitable deeds.

Hmm.
Sound familiar?

- and pretend to be very close to persons of repute, or at least invited into their presence.

A friend of mine would not believe anything bad about the McCanns because the Pope had received them.

That's why i don't believe  Prince Charles and the likes of Thatcher knew anything about Savil's crimes. It's the reason people in high places stick togeter,  every nutter in the world would be knocking on their door and claiming friendship.
If Savil gives the impression he's great mates with royalty, said royalty cannot make a public statement that Savil is lying.
The charity angle is the key which opens doors for the vilest of creatures.

aiyoyo wrote:

Angelique wrote:If we are going to attempt to apply TozerDerry's Cold Fusion approach we are going to have a problem straight away.

All we have to try and prove innocence is the conflicting statements from T9 and Warner employees and various other guests together with Forensic evidence which has proved inconclusive.

If none of these support each other were are not going to advance anywhere.

Assumption of guilt or innocence is based on evidence.
Cold Fusion approach works only if evidence is open to interpretation either way, having merits that both sides can use to support their arguments.
This case in question the evidence is a pretty much an open and close book, one that leans even from the outset heavily to parents involvement.  Hence members mindset they are guilty - it's an inevitable deduction.

Even a novice applying an open mind can't help arriving at that mindset, not when they did not search, kate's refused to answer police questions (lawyer advice is poor excuse as truthful answers of someone innocence cannot self incriminate) taken with cadaverine detection dogs markings, blank refusal to return for reconstruction, inconsistent testimonies, spin and all the rest, these are all strong circumstantial evidence against them.

So far I have not seen reasonable behavior or any evidence they are innocence. Even their action of hiring a series of PIs not experts in the field of searching for missing persons is not indicative of innocents desperate to find their child.  

Cold Fusion approach is useless for this case.

lj wrote:

nglfi wrote:

lj wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio.   Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors.  It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.
 

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

So the same may happen in this case? Who knows? In any case, I think it's best to wait and see.

I'll wait and see.

I just wonder for the non-whitewashers: what would be an acceptable outcome for you:

1) the McCanns are being arrested for whatever kind of charge.

2) a patsy suspect is being arrested for the abduction and murder of Madeleine

3) Nobody is being arrested, and the SY claims it's all PJ's fault because they don't want to play ball.

4) Nobody is being arrested and the SY says they have not found enough evidence to create an acceptable scenario.

5) else, please describe

Only that when the Portuguese police have enough evidence to arrest and charge the McCanns, they will. They are clearly working on it as we speak, whether or not they finally have enough evidence at the end is another question. They need the body to come to any definitive conclusions about who did what and how. Or a detailed confession from one or more of the T9.
Scotland Yard can effectively do what they like, they have no official remit over this investigation. If they want to help find evidence to help charge the culprits, then good. If they simply want to spend a load of public money to look busy, then it's a shame about the waste, but the PJ investigation continues unabated. For me the best scenario is that what SY are actually working on is the fraud aspect, where I believe they would have jurisdiction.

But I don't believe they are looking for a patsy, and I don't read anything into them saying the Macs are not suspects (well nothing whitewashy anyway!)

So I guess no 4 is sadly the most likely outcome - I'm not too positive of how much evidence can actually be found now, so if SY say this I don't think it will be for whitewash reasons, rather than that it is actually the case that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute.

Thank you for your answer, nglfi. Do you believe that SY did investigate everything that has to do with the McCanns and Tapas 7?

nobodythereeither wrote:

1soapy wrote:Just a point of reference about the case being simple or complex. The principle of Occam’s razor does not mean, ‘simple’.

I wish I'd never mentioned Occam's Razor!

To say it again - I used the term in relation to a possible whitewash, NOT to the case itself!!

aiyoyo wrote:

Angelique wrote:If we are going to attempt to apply TozerDerry's Cold Fusion approach we are going to have a problem straight away.

All we have to try and prove innocence is the conflicting statements from T9 and Warner employees and various other guests together with Forensic evidence which has proved inconclusive.

If none of these support each other were are not going to advance anywhere.

Assumption of guilt or innocence is based on evidence.
Cold Fusion approach works only if evidence is open to interpretation either way, having merits that both sides can use to support their arguments.
This case in question the evidence is a pretty much an open and close book, one that leans even from the outset heavily to parents involvement.  Hence members mindset they are guilty - it's an inevitable deduction.

Even a novice applying an open mind can't help arriving at that mindset, not when they did not search, kate's refused to answer police questions (lawyer advice is poor excuse as truthful answers of someone innocence cannot self incriminate) taken with cadaverine detection dogs markings, blank refusal to return for reconstruction, inconsistent testimonies, spin and all the rest, these are all strong circumstantial evidence against them.

So far I have not seen reasonable behavior or any evidence they are innocence. Even their action of hiring a series of PIs not experts in the field of searching for missing persons is not indicative of innocents desperate to find their child.  

Cold Fusion approach is useless for this case.

Doug D wrote:Have to agree with RD about Bobbin's post @ 8.14.

Admin/Bobbin

Could this be given its own thread as it's worthy of a wider audience and is already disappearing into the forum sunset?

candyfloss wrote:

Doug D wrote:Have to agree with RD about Bobbin's post @ 8.14.

Admin/Bobbin

Could this be given its own thread as it's worthy of a wider audience and is already disappearing into the forum sunset?

Bobbin can you copy the post and start a new thread if that is what members want.  I haven't seen it yet.

bobbin wrote:Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?
Something we haven't really covered in much depth.

As of the earliest reporting, did people, supporters, etc. enter the scene because they were 'unknowingly manipulated' or did they enter to 'spy'.
Rather than think of Kate and Gerry as being part of an over-reaching "master plan", were they in fact a middling couple of 'incidental' catastrophes, an event, exclusive to themselves and their immediates, but which drew the other players in (for the short term).

Initially, Kate, pretty, blonde, hewn features, frail, captured people's goodwill.
I remember an email arriving from a distant aunt, out of the blue, with the one word in capital letters, but with no explanation, "PRAY".
I wondered if she had somehow got to know of something terrible that I had done wrong, and I was about to face retribution, with the one hope only that my salvation might be elicited if I prayed hard enough and convincingly enough.

Within hours, and well before people started to get wise to what a conniving pair the McCs really were, the catholic church was at its full-membership-swing, asking everyone they knew to Pray (as it turned out, not for 'my salvation' but that the little catholic girl who had been abducted from her bed and stolen from her wonderful catholic family, would be found.)

Initially, at their first appeal, many people were taken in. This poor, poor, couple, how could something so tragic befall such an innocent, pretty (Kate) and solid but shocked (Gerry)

Others of us thought, er, not so sure here, something a bit 'not kosher'.

So all and sundry turned up to help. Good honest citizens, putting every personal consideration aside, just went out and out to find this little girl.

Then some more sundries turned up by way of 'uncle phil', uncle john and old uncle tom cobbly and all, with their cozzies, to soak up the sun, wine and local hospitality (except for the two participants of the 'granny express' whose buck-shee holidays were cut short because they started to put the cat amongst the pigeons and suffer their respective offspring to answer some ludicrously un-useful questions).

So we can see how the 'manipulating' couple got the catholic church on side, the public, the media, simply because they looked, acted and played out the 'oh so vulnerable / hurt 'me' 'us' thing'.

Then the politicians got involved. Gordon Brown, Tony Bl**r, the Home Office, the ambassadors, etc. and within seconds damage control were in there, in every shape, form and size.

Why ?
Well, the vulnerable couple had called out the P word.

Alarm is set ringing in anyone's ears, who might have a 'fear' of something untoward being 'spilled' on the now reddening carpet laid out before the sanctified couple before 'they' put their feet forward to be photo shot, smiling for the cameras, tripping their way lightly over the pavement, unified by their little hands, innocent green and yellow (good quality) wristbands, sparkling in the sunshine of the fresh Portuguese spring.

But the 'normal' P word network, looking around in angst at their known (yet unknown) counterparts were almost voicing the words "who are these people?" Which faction do they belong to, haven't heard of them on the circuit, what do they know, what do they have on us, what's their agenda, what might they 'say'.

Best action, get the damage control guys down there A.S.A.P.
Get them covered, bring them in, find out what, who, when, how, where.
Start getting a Control on what goes out in the mdia, get a handle on this before it goes viral.

And so it snowballed.
Backfilling and emergency plasters/gags were applied in haste.
The flames of potentially explosive situations were dowsed as soon as they started to show signs of 'glowing'.

Gaps appeared in narratives, weak links started to strain at the integrity and bonding strength of the whole chain.

Thorns in the flesh required a daily ritualistic session of applying the right sized tweezers and enough 'grip' to get thorns removed.
You can smell the panic. Gonçalo Amaral, that Portuguese plod is getting too close. Move him out.
What ! he's writing a book, diss him, papers, media, twist some crime records, dig out what you can, dig something, anything out if you can't find anything, just make it stick.

Back to 'manipulators'. They are as slippery as eels but more so.

I sometimes wonder if what we are looking at, is not so much a 'previously contrived, all out political agenda' but a 'local and possibly, reasonably independent one', which (purposely, to deflect attention away from the growing visual cracks in its own narrative) used the common enemy, 'the P word' and put the fear of god and discovery of their own dark, dark secrets into those who also know, that their own weaknesses are perpetually at risk of being exposed.

I believe it is possible that the McCs, arch liars and manipulators as they may appear to many, to be, had their own agenda, that Maddie was caught in the cross-fire, the McCs were caught 'plans thwarted', and good and honest citizens rushed in to help.

Those with fear in their minds leapt in to get a control on the potential disaster, the bigger disaster, (not the little disaster, the failure to get the windows jimmied as per plan, and inform uncle phil to keep her mouth shut in time) to 'spy out the land', to 'get a handle on the new-guys on the block', then 'control', 're-direct' , 'make disappear' anything that might cause risk of larger exposure.

Add to this, an ever hungry press, and in particular, the titian-haired lady and her boss, who could see a 'really good marketing ploy' with its long reaching tentacles and potentially disturbing impact in 'unwanted' quarters.

Manipulators get away with it because they can work to rules that the rest of us just simply can't understand.
They can lie without compunction.
They are committing no crime in their eyes.
It's a game of survival, they will do what they need, twist and turn to stay afloat, to win. The game is 'winning'.

It is not about justice or anything which rules the mindset of the 'non-manipulating'.

Because the 'socially responsible' person has rules, which are supposed to play out in law and in justice, it does not mean that the 'lies, twisting etc. of the manipulator will respond to those laws and say, all right gov, you've got me there.

I have been in two minds, whitewash, not whitewash, when in fact if AR is anything like the calibre of man that GA is, then dealing with slippery eels is one hell of a job and will need whatever it takes to finally hook and reel these blighters in.

I do know though that once caught, the general treatment is to nail them down firmly, to a piece of wood or a tree, before you can get a chance to remove that slippery skin and serve them up smoked and cold.

Andy Redwood (not the MET, with their soiled reputation that will take more than an age to repair) may be as much an individual as Gonçalo Amaral, working discretely behind the scenes, maybe laying a few 'false trails' to distract the eels, nevertheless he may well know what he is dealing with, and we may yet see a resolution which the 'socially minded' citizens need to see, to justify the cohesion that is needed by society to live together, to protect itself from external threats and not be dismantled from within, by usurpers, and abusers of goodwill.

lj wrote:

Gollum wrote:Am I being thick because I don't understand why the Portuguese need to be complicit to enable OG to whitewash the case, doesn't the term whitewash tie in with the Mccanns being protected by the British establishment which I think has been widely thought since 2007?  I expect one of the forum's invaluable researchers or long standing members has already written on the subject, disregarding Kate's book where she goes to great lengths to explain their departure from Portugal, iirc in late August or early September the PJ were said to be giving out hints about the change of position for the Mccanns.  If this be true then it seems unlikely that they would have been allowed to leave Portugal at that stage of the investigation but they did, very quickly, some higher authority must have sanctioned their departure and later removed Goncalo Amaral from the case.  Had they remained in Portugal IMO, without British intervention, the investigation would have continued and probably reached a favourable conclusion but as it was they escaped the clutches of the PJ to almost guaranteed freedom.

The Scotland Yard review and reinvestigation could be only to clear their names which at present remain under a cloud?

indeed, great post.

Halfwit wrote:

lj wrote:

nglfi wrote:Something I've always wondered, for those firmly on the whitewash side, why do people think the Portuguese would willingly go along with this, what would be their motivation? After all , this is and will always be a Portuguese investigation. One of the things that helped me finally get off the fence was when I considered the case more from the Portuguese side,  and I honestly couldn't think of any good reasons why they in particular would re open the investigation to whitewash it.

I don't think the POrtuguese are willingly going along with it. They did not 6 yrs ago, but nobody listened.

My thoughts too.

A rhetorical question. Has the perfect crime ever been committed? My answer - maybe - possibly - probably.

We'll never know.

The intricacies of the disappearance of Madeleine seem to be unfathomable. The lies and inconsistencies are glaringly obvious and yet nothing is further forward after all these years and horrendous expense.

SixMillionQuid wrote:

lj wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Sixmillionquid said:

Ah but this is all a trick to fool the T9 into thinking they're of no interest. They'll make a wrong move and then they'll be arrested. Watch you'll see!.

____________________
"It is my belief that Scotland Yard was set out on a mission, not one to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann but to rewrite the history of the case in such a way that the majority of the public simply forgets the past." - The Pat Brown Criminal Profiling Agency

hi sixmillionquid. Have you then changed your mind as to whether it is a whitewash or no?

My mind hasn't been changed, but I have been told there is no evidence of whitewash, and what SY is doing behind the scenes is compiling further evidence not available during the original investigation. So I'm expecting members of the T9 to be arrested soon...at some point.

So am I, I just wonder at what point we are allowed to say "told you so, told you, told you, told you so.

Hopefully before the sun turns into a supernova.

tigger wrote:

canada12 wrote:The thing about Jimmy Savile is that he made a point of making himself big and famous - the bigger and more famous, the better. And he coupled that with a number of "good deeds" so that people put him on a pedestal. Publicly, he was famous and admired for his charitable deeds, the result being that if any of his victims did complain, they were dismissed because Savile was "untouchable".

It's as if he wrote the manual for making yourself untouchable and beyond reproach. Big yourself up. Put yourself "out there" so that everyone can see what a famous person you are. Couple that with charitable deeds and make sure your face is the one people associate with those charitable deeds.

Hmm.
Sound familiar?

- and pretend to be very close to persons of repute, or at least invited into their presence.

A friend of mine would not believe anything bad about the McCanns because the Pope had received them.

That's why i don't believe  Prince Charles and the likes of Thatcher knew anything about Savil's crimes. It's the reason people in high places stick togeter,  every nutter in the world would be knocking on their door and claiming friendship.
If Savil gives the impression he's great mates with royalty, said royalty cannot make a public statement that Savil is lying.
The charity angle is the key which opens doors for the vilest of creatures.

Gollum wrote:

lj wrote:

Gollum wrote:Am I being thick because I don't understand why the Portuguese need to be complicit to enable OG to whitewash the case, doesn't the term whitewash tie in with the Mccanns being protected by the British establishment which I think has been widely thought since 2007?  I expect one of the forum's invaluable researchers or long standing members has already written on the subject, disregarding Kate's book where she goes to great lengths to explain their departure from Portugal, iirc in late August or early September the PJ were said to be giving out hints about the change of position for the Mccanns.  If this be true then it seems unlikely that they would have been allowed to leave Portugal at that stage of the investigation but they did, very quickly, some higher authority must have sanctioned their departure and later removed Goncalo Amaral from the case.  Had they remained in Portugal IMO, without British intervention, the investigation would have continued and probably reached a favourable conclusion but as it was they escaped the clutches of the PJ to almost guaranteed freedom.

The Scotland Yard review and reinvestigation could be only to clear their names which at present remain under a cloud?

indeed, great post.

Thank you!  I don't normally post or read very often, for me the forum is a bit like trying to navigate spaghetti junction on Easter Monday.  Things seem relatively quiet lately so I thought it would be easier for me to follow the gist of discussion and post more frequently, wrong again, I still can't keep up, from one day to the next discussion on any one thread takes on a new direction so my musings get lost in the mist of time.

Still it's the thought that counts.