DCI Andy Redwood is to retire later this year and PJ now believes it was a foreigner who committed a crime whilst he was in Portugal.

russiandoll wrote:T and J.. you replied to another member :


Your claim here seems to me to be without any foundation whatever,Firstly the searches currently underway are based in ILORs that are based on the theory of burglar abduction. Secondly redwood stated that GM had been eliminated as suspect based on forensic analysis of timeline. Thirdly there is political pressure to 'conclude' the case as stated by David Cameron. Lastly, the PJ got their fingers badly burned last time they followed that line of enquiry with the case coordinator nearly destroyed through litigation for purporting a theory based on available evidence. I founded my statement on this evidence.

 The burglar related ILORs are press reports and nothing about the reasons for the ILORs has been stated by SY as far as I know.
.....

 True. The letters exist, but what they were requesting or who they were regarding has never been made public.  Any reference to burglars was all speculation cleverly snaked around the ILOR by 'sources'.

Benion wrote:This is my first post on this forum, so apologies if I have put it in the wrong place....

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/crime-desk/donal-macintyre-s-crime-cafe/maddie-search-expanded-as-effort-branded-pr-exercise-to-distract-from-corruption-troubles

I was really hopeful when Op Grange started that they were going to do a thorough review of the case. Whether or not an abduction took place, surely the police should examine all lines of enquiry, which would include the hypothesis the parents concocted the abduction. This has not been done, it is a total waste of time.

Welcome to the forum and great first post.

"The Met will look for a face saving exercise and by pushing for arrests that the Portuguese authorities may not support, could give them a neutral way out.

By promising to solve the case in a fire engine fashion, overtaking and by implication deriding the work of other investigators on the
case, then it has  perhaps, set itself up to fail and to fall from a great height."

I think they anticipated failure a long time ago. So how do you spin failure into a success?
A couple fake arrests and a few select parazzi photos showing pixilated British officers questioning a burglar in PdL. Then the headline in the MSM will be "Hero Brit Cops Catch Maddie Snatcher - while the sardine munchers look on!". Operation Grange quietly disappears in a high, in the MSM.

ChippyM wrote:

russiandoll wrote:T and J.. you replied to another member :


Your claim here seems to me to be without any foundation whatever,Firstly the searches currently underway are based in ILORs that are based on the theory of burglar abduction. Secondly redwood stated that GM had been eliminated as suspect based on forensic analysis of timeline. Thirdly there is political pressure to 'conclude' the case as stated by David Cameron. Lastly, the PJ got their fingers badly burned last time they followed that line of enquiry with the case coordinator nearly destroyed through litigation for purporting a theory based on available evidence. I founded my statement on this evidence.

 The burglar related ILORs are press reports and nothing about the reasons for the ILORs has been stated by SY as far as I know.
.....

 True. The letters exist, but what they were requesting or who they were regarding has never been made public.  Any reference to burglars was all speculation cleverly snaked around the ILOR by 'sources'.

Given the press track record of stating things that are rubbished but later turn out to be correct [about 50/50] I'd say that either of these views is equally possible but given that the reporting comes from the Portuguese press and has a ring of authority about it and it broadly ties in with the way AR has progressed the case I don't find it difficult to accept that the ILOR's are quite likely based on the theory of burglar abduction. Posters generally accept that press reports about three sites in the ILOR's etc. are correct so you can't just pick and choose. I do accept however that the use of the term "burglar" as such may be "imaginative".

The case may fail but I do not believe that there is any powerful government type conspiracy taking place and ordering a cover up.  If the government or other very powerful group were involved in Madeline disappearance, as some on here seem to think, then the mccanns would have met their demise a long time ago - they would have been portrayed as unable to live without her- thus the end of the whole saga and the "powers that be" would just have walked away.  As this did not happen I truly believe that its just a mccann/tapas issue.

Woofer wrote:Retiring - that`s hard to believe - he`s only about late 40s surely?

Police can retire after 25 years' service, so he could easily be retiring at 44 onwards.  This current operation, with all the supine approbation of the UK media,  will do him no harm in finding new work after retirement to add value to his pension e.g. TV punditry, the lecture circuit etc.

Okeydokey wrote:

Woofer wrote:Retiring - that`s hard to believe - he`s only about late 40s surely?

Police can retire after 25 years' service, so he could easily be retiring at 44 onwards.  This current operation, with all the supine approbation of the UK media,  will do him no harm in finding new work after retirement to add value to his pension e.g. TV punditry, the lecture circuit etc.

If he can crack this I will personally pay his pension out of my own pocket.

I hope that this development, and the retention of Exclusivepix to record events for posterity, suggest that a career defining outcome to this investigation is anticipated.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

I hope that this development, and the retention of Exclusivepix to record events for posterity, suggest that a career defining outcome to this investigation is anticipated.

Your take on the photo pros there is interesting - very much hope you're right :)
Got to be honest, retiring with a whitewash that will one day - one day - come unstuck, would surely be pretty foolish.

Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

@riskybusiness

Completely correct. Asserting that the past seven years are the evidence of a grand conspiracy at the highest levels which is so completely harmonised and in which success is assured is as ridiculous as asserting that the world's richest men achieved their success by tossing bucketloads of pound coins out of a plane and hoping that some of them would land fruitfully in the slots of one-armed bandits. The very reason that I have no truck for the belief in a big bang and the spontaneous generation of life is because it has never, ever been demonstrated that any form of fruitful organisation and order can arise from chaos. For something to run to plan, for something to even have the appearance of accomplishing a complex and intelligent purpose, the appearance of having been designed, it necessarily has to have been directed - even in its chaos, directed.

The melodramatists on sites like this might try to sell you on the idea of the overarching conspiracy. They're selling the idea that the appearance of chaos and confusion over the last seven years is deliberate, intended to confuse and obscure, to allow the perpetrators to make their getaway. These same people utterly resist the idea that an intelligent plan might create and utilise the appearance of chaos and confusion over the past seven years to confuse and obscure, to lull the perpetrators into a false sense of security.

They'll tell you the latter, which is logical, is preposterous and the former, which is illogical, is a near-certainty.

If such a conspiracy existed with such complete power to hide, protect, cover-up, manipulate, disappear, misdirect, mislead, deceive and indeed indoctrinate, then could we reasonably expect to be able to find a single scrap of evidence anywhere which pointed at the very situation that the conspiracy existed to cover-up? A cover-up that leaks inconvenient information like streams from a cracked dam is no cover-up at all. It, like Savile, is only a matter of time; the time waiting for the dam to crumble with age, fractured by weakness, giving way and pouring forth the evidence of its own failure.

If the conspiracy existed it would have been far more effective. You would not have a media that seems to be champing at the bit to unleash a flood of 'I told you so's'. Indeed, the media would have been harmonically joined in chorus, celebrating the virtues and innocence of the family and their friends from the beginning, and the evidence of their culpability would never have been raised. More than that the PJ would never have received any kind of advice from any British police forces to cause them to refocus their attentions on the family. No sniffer dogs would have been called in, and the public would have been sold a breadcrumb trail of false sightings prompting an ultimately fruitless chase across the planet in which, sadly, the authorities would have always been two steps behind until eventually the search had to be called off, leaving only a missing girl and a remote location into which one of many ruthless child traffickers had disappeared for all time. That would have been a plan of conspiracy that no rogue journalist or altruistic cop could have possibly endangered. Instead what we have, if conspired at all, is a comedy of errors. There is no evidence to support the idea that even our own hideous government is so inept, our police so ridiculous that such an episode of keystone cops was anything but par for the course. And that's without mentioning how insulting the insinuation that the Portuguese government and police force are equally incompetent, by nature or by design.

Indeed, the corruption to cover-up must certainly cost more than the £10M spent on the latter investigation? Which budget paid for all the bungs that must have been required to keep every curious journalist, every sensationalist editor, every police officer, judge, lawyer, politician, representative, government figure all singing from the same songsheet? What about one of the many co-conspirators deciding to get greedy and demanding more money for continued silence? Where are the piles of bodies of those made an example of? Or coercion? Where are the police officers who quit under the strain of having been told 'cover up for these two doctors, or we'll kill you and your family...' Are there really so many dozens of personnel who've actively handled this case who go home every night and kiss the wife and kids and bear not a second thought to the murder they're covering up for people they don't know which might be a case cracked open any day now by an internet blogger or a disgruntled ex-journalist?

This is a fragile, fragile thing. One person to speak is all it takes. And lets face it, there are no shortage of people to speak, or to hint at, their skepticism. Hardly a secure conspiracy.

If a cover-up at all, it can only be a time-dependent one. A delaying of the inevitable.

If it is a cover-up, it is Lt. Frank Drebin stood before an exploding ordnance factory saying 'Nothing to see here... please... nothing to see here.' In fact, even worse than that, he waits until the crowd are nearly out of sight before screaming 'Look over here!' and then, having waited for the people to flock around again, repeats calmly 'nothing to see here.' Inexplicable. Preposterous.

I can't say there's a master plan to solve the crime, and all of this is diversion and strategy. I just don't know. But I definitely can say that this is not a master plan to make the crime fade into the mists of distant memory, because what's happening is the opposite.

If a conspiracy, flawlessly executed from a high level, then the Mc's are the most dispensible piece of the puzzle. Easier to eliminate them and lay the blame where the available evidence becomes satisfied by the narrative, and let that which can be hidden be laid to rest. Very easy to simplify their involvement, and then find a terminal solution to bring closure for the public, and security for the high level people apparently in need of protection.

I might be frustrated by being unable to tell what this investigation is. But I can tell what it isn't, far more easily.

Only one thing I can think of will change my mind.

If Redwood announces that he's retiring from the Met in order to take up a leadership role on behalf of a private venture... FindMadeleine.

Okeydokey wrote:

Woofer wrote:Retiring - that`s hard to believe - he`s only about late 40s surely?

Police can retire after 25 years' service, so he could easily be retiring at 44 onwards.  This current operation, with all the supine approbation of the UK media,  will do him no harm in finding new work after retirement to add value to his pension e.g. TV punditry, the lecture circuit etc.

We MIGHT even see him doing the 'rounds' of the TV studios, commentating on, as a 'former' Met Police Detective Chief Inspector, the 'mysterious disappearance' of Madeleine McCann!

tasprin wrote:Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

'remembered' for WHAT, at the moment, exactly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'This investigation is ANYTHING but 'normal' and it has NEVER been 'normal' from the day Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'
BBC reporter in PDL.

CynicAl wrote:@riskybusiness

The very reason that I have no truck for the belief in a big bang and the spontaneous generation of life is because it has never, ever been demonstrated that any form of fruitful organisation and order can arise from chaos. 

This is a strange statement because the hot big-bang model is overwhelmingly favoured by professional cosmologists. There is no big conspiracy amongst them to suppress evidence that contradicts this model and the model contradicts no known physical principles! 
You seem like a very intelligent and fair person so I can only assume that what you have in mind as being the 'big bang' actually is not part of what we actually know from observing the universe.

Maybe redwood is good cop carefully gathering info. Bad cop comes when he retires and could change the direction overnight.

jeanmonroe wrote:

tasprin wrote:Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

'remembered' for WHAT, at the moment, exactly?

Nothing *at the moment* of course - but the outcome will surely define which way he is remembered. If he cracks the case, if he lets it whimper into nothing, if he whitewashes it.

I am reassured that there is more publicity than ever and that forums like this and media like Twitter and Facebook can ensure that the PJ files (and the next set of PJ files?) and all other evidence, discussion and opinion continues to be shared and not let go. A complete whitewash is impossible so long as people continue to resist it. Only my opinion of course.

gbwales wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

tasprin wrote:Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

'remembered' for WHAT, at the moment, exactly?

Nothing *at the moment* of course - but the outcome will surely define which way he is remembered. If he cracks the case, if he lets it whimper into nothing, if he whitewashes it.

I am reassured that there is more publicity than ever and that forums like this and media like Twitter and Facebook can ensure that the PJ files (and the next set of PJ files?) and all other evidence, discussion and opinion continues to be shared and not let go. A complete whitewash is impossible so long as people continue to resist it. Only my opinion of course.

And on that i concur.

Anyone care to 'remember' what DS Hamish Campell and Commander Simon Foy, DCI Redwood's EX superiors, for YEARS at OG have been 'remembered' for since their 'retirements'?

I certainly have not heard of their defining careers 'achievement' as 'solving' of the Madeleine McCann 'disappearance'

jeanmonroe wrote:

tasprin wrote:Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

'remembered' for WHAT, at the moment, exactly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'This investigation is ANYTHING but 'normal' and it has NEVER been 'normal' from the day Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'
BBC reporter in PDL.

AR is retiring later this year so we should know by then exactly 'what' it is he'll be remembered for: whitewash or genuine investigation. Given the cost I can't see him being replaced by someone else and imo SY must expect the case to be wrapped up (one way or the other) by time he goes.

Cynical... another great post from you. Thank you.

Indricotherium wrote:

CynicAl wrote:@riskybusiness

The very reason that I have no truck for the belief in a big bang and the spontaneous generation of life is because it has never, ever been demonstrated that any form of fruitful organisation and order can arise from chaos. 

This is a strange statement because the hot big-bang model is overwhelmingly favoured by professional cosmologists. There is no big conspiracy amongst them to suppress evidence that contradicts this model and the model contradicts no known physical principles! 
You seem like a very intelligent and fair person so I can only assume that what you have in mind as being the 'big bang' actually is not part of what we actually know from observing the universe.

Well, you kind of make my point...

Which was, actually my point to begin with...

You note that the 'hot big bang model is overwhelmingly favoured by professional cosmologists.'

I'd point out at this point that the process to which you refer is called 'peer-review' science, which is no more and no less than a group of scientists informally collectivised on the basis of their common opinions and agreement, who elevate the scientific ideas that they agree with, solely on the basis that they agree with them, confirmed by their fellows who also agree. That's a simplification, granted. But its as arbitrary as the canonisation of scripture - the idea that those who accept texts or ideas as sacrosanct will take a leading authority by which they only ever confirm what they believe as sacrosanct and 'recruit' persons to their ranks and bestow them the honour of being regarded as authorities on the basis that they also are believers and repeatedly confirm their belief.

It is impossible to argue that such a 'model' of establishing 'consensus' is not skewed by agenda nor indeed by conspiracy. Just like your 'big bang', it can't be ruled out, therefore it should be assumed to be possible, no?

In fact, just in the field of climate change science alone, an abundance of testimony exists wherein perfectly qualified - indeed, some exceedingly qualified - scientists have had their doubts, their ideas, their consensus-defying audacities rejected and downplayed entirely arbitrarily based solely on the fact that their conclusions are at odds with 'consensus.' When 'consensus' is given the means to silence an ongoing conversation or the development of more suitable ideas because they pose a challenge to 'consensus', that by definition is conspiracy.

It is clear that the prevailing version of 'science' which is most prevalently taught and upon which policies which shape this planet are made is a version which is defined by a very narrow view, held by a claimed majority of supposedly qualified people. Yet ironically modern science itself takes pride in its rejection of the caricature of 'the majority of flat-earthers' in favour of the few audacious enough to defy consensus.

If I were to tell you, for example, that majority opinion is not necessarily the best, I'm sure you'd agree. This case is an example. It appears that the statistical majority of the population believe everything the media has told them. A minority, however, have disbelieved everything the media has told them and uncovered enough suppressed or rejected information to prove that they made the right decision, and by standing audaciously against the consensus they may be lonely and ridiculed, but they're right.

The nature of consensus is a problematic one, because it inherently exists only by the exclusion or marginalisation of a differing position. On that basis the 'consensus' has an inherent gravity by which it only ever draws into its sphere of power and influence the people who conform to it, thus becoming self-perpetuating. The agreement of those people who form and conform to consensus to exclude by all means or reject that which challenges the consensus position is, by definition, conspiracy.

You could, at this moment, line me up one thousand cosmologists... I'll pause there. You used the term 'leading.' That's like calling Etonians the 'leading intellects' of the country. They are only leading because they're part of an elite group that self-affirms and self-perpetuates a dangerous myth that they are actually the best people for the job. So I'll settle for qualified cosmologists. You can't really get more qualified than a PhD, so we'll settle for a thousand PhD cosmologists, if there indeed are that many in existence. So... you've got your thousand PhD cosmologists and they're lined up against me. And I will produce my ace in the hole, with which I will defeat you... I'll produce one PhD cosmologist who presents an idea that your thousand totally disagree with and have ruled out of the 'consensus' view, and rejected for peer-reviewed journals. All my one PhD has to be, is right... Just one. And let's face it, that's the way science is done... One person who didn't accept something as a given and challenged it until he produced a definitive answer, no matter how controversial. You could have the thousand, but while I have the one who is prepared to challenge, your consensus isn't safe. That's not to say that it isn't dominant. It isn't to say that it isn't the one forcibly taught to generations of schoolchildren.

I'll give you another example.

It is being argued on this forum that there is a consensus by the authorities in this country that a singular narrative of the disappearance of MBM is accepted and repeated as the 'official' position on the case. Left unchecked the media will see that this is done, in spite of the fact that we know that there are individual journalists who have suspicions but are compelled to go with the flow in order to maintain their own position in the media establishment. So in ten years schoolchildren who were not alive when MBM went missing could well be being taught that very same version of events.  In fact, K&G could actually be going round schools still fundraising and talking about 'protecting children just like you' and promoting their ideas for child protection and the fight against international trafficking on that very basis - the promotion of a popular myth. But you, when your kids go home, might have something different to say. They'll challenge you. They'll tell you that their teachers taught them, that the government affirms it, that K&G are TV stars who say that its true, that its in books and on wikipedia. And you'll introduce them to another side of the world where you explain to them that they can't believe everything their teachers tell them, that they can't believe something just because the government tells them, that their TV celebrity personalities can't be trusted and that books and wikipedia are not bound to contain inherent truth. You're going to appeal to them to think for themselves, you're going to present them with the alternatives that you believe, you're going to tell them to be sure whatever they believe can be proven, and to beware, beware, beware of whatever a big, powerful, consensus-led, government-backed group of people tell them is the truth, without looking at the alternatives objectively and open-mindedly.

Now, hopefully you're not taking a position that most pro-Mc's take. You're not following consensus and because I defy it, you're presuming that I must be uneducated, not exposed to the right teaching, unaware of the latest information, or so obtuse that facts wouldn't matter anyway.

Not sound if you were.

All it takes is for one qualified person to defy the consensus found among one thousand equally qualified persons, and the consensus is no longer safe. Indeed, if the currency is simply 'truth', then all it takes is one UNqualified but insightful person to defy the consensus, and the consensus is not safe.There will always be the risk that the one person, we'll call him Albert Einstein, which seems like a good name for an audacious scientist, will prove the thousand wrong. But what's an even greater shame, is that if the 1000-strong consensus cannot actually prove itself conclusively right. Disproving the one should be a doddle. Proving the thousand should be a doddle. Funny that consensus so often doesn't work that way.

It likes to have the appearance of being right when all it has is the appearance of being powerful. Consensus put Hitler in power. Consensus says that MBM was abducted by a complete stranger. I think you'll agree with me that we can give consensus a wide berth.

Another interesting thing about consensus is its power to control corruptly, and its complete absence of value to the real world. Especially in science. Science shouldn't need consensus, because it shouldn't be teaching on the basis of consensus. I hope never to have to undergo brain surgery at the hands of people who need a consensus on how to proceed. I hope that my doctors are using factual, material science, practical and testable, to do something that has such a predictable outcome that it can be expected to solve a problem. Otherwise there's a problem, because the consensus that goes to work on my brain, if the rest of science is anything to go by, can be easily skewed by where the money is coming from, what research grants pay well, which big pharm companies offer incentives, which ethics can be suspended, which sociopaths are holding the knife and the drill and how much risk they're prepared to take with me in order to satisfy their curiosity about whether their consensus will come good in my case.

It is interesting that you justified the scientific consensus to which you deferred authority in a very Gerry McCann kind of way. You claimed that there could not be a conspiracy to singularly promote one model, and that the one model didn't contradict any 'known physical principles.' Gerry McCann ridiculed those who claimed that the visible evidence suggested his knowledge or involvement in what took place and his involvement in covering it up. If I recall his typical response was 'find the body.' In other words, there's no body been found yet, and even though you all think it's preposterous that I'm ignoring the evidence presented and talking about looking for a living child in a variety of places around the world, since you can't prove that I'm wrong we'll establish 'consensus' as me being right until the physical evidence proves me wrong.

This is an interesting defence. And I see those theories we mentioned, your 'consensus authority science', the same way.

Any intelligent person knows that in the disappearance of a child, circumstances being key, all things being equal, the strongest statistical likelihood is that someone known and probably close to the child was involved in their demise. We also know that in most cases the child does not come back alive. We know these things because while we're not omniscient and able to predict each outcome, we've seen enough examples and had enough experience to know that in the overwhelming majority of cases it was someone known to the child who killed them, by accident or by design.

Similarly, there is no way to test big bang or spontaneous generation as theories. They've never been witnessed, never been reproduced, never been tested and falsified. You immediately appealed to the idea that those ideas - you said - do not contradict known principles of science. Well, first up that's not a safe model of academic research but its also not an honest one. It attempts to combine the real world of here and now physics with an unknown world of there and then theoretical physics, chemistry and so on. That's like saying that because the idea that if I cut off your head you will be instantly ushered into a land of jellybeans and candy where joy and happiness reign forevermore does not contradict the known principles of science, it is beneficial to assert a teaching based on promoting the the concept as a viable possibility. You cross-over the material with the ethereal, the quantifiable with the unquantifiable, the known with the unknown. It creates the illusion that one idea can be materially equated with another idea, merely by association, and that the former - a known - can justify the latter - an unknown - simply because the former can be demonstrated.

On that basis the assertion becomes as arbitrary as a religious belief. That's another subject altogether.

The other problem with this kind of intellectual dishonesty is that it is ill-informed. Big Bang and Spontaneous Generation are actually completely at odds with every observable law of science, and inevitably always will be, because even if they took place they certainly redefined the laws of science from what they were to what they are now and what they are now utterly precludes those events ever occurring again, because in order to occur there actually had to be NO laws of science, NO matter, NO form of design dependent on order for success, there literally had to be nothing, and so they can never be demonstrated again because there can never again be nothing in which to demonstrate the spontaneous generation of something. In equivalency, this is the theory that MBM disappeared when Puff the Magic Dragon arrived in her room, invited her to climb on his back and take a teleportation to a land called Hon-Ah-Lee, asserted as being 'more plausible' than the common, observable pattern of familial infanticide that we see in everyday situations around the world, just because you can't prove that the appearance and absconding of magical dragons with children isn't a common occurrence that we just don't know about and have no trace of, because as adults we can't see it.

You'd be right that I'm an intelligent person (debatable, I suppose), but wrong to assume that when I say 'Big Bang' I mean anything other than the prevailing 'all-in-one' theory of the origins of life, the universe and everything. When I observe the universe I see what's happening in it now, only relative to my position. I can't tell you what was happening in it yesterday. I can't tell you what's happening beyond it. In fact there's so much about it that I can't tell you, and neither can anyone else, that the idea of being able to assert some theory which denotes some kind of control or mastery of it seems pretty ridiculous.

Similarly, I don't know what's happening in this case. Not specifically. What I do know is that the body of evidence does not support a grand cover-up narrative. It also does not support a grand crime-fighting narrative. The observable facts of the matter, the bits we can test and repeat and rely on, are entirely at odds with either narrative being completely true. Truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle in a collision of honesty and dishonesty, of the well-intentional and the mal-intentional, of order and of chaos, of chance and of deliberacy. That's the place where consensuses are formed and lead the way, carrying prevailing theories on the shoulders of polarised interest groups. But on a more specific level, I may not know what the 'investigation' is, but I can see from the 'observable laws' of how these things work out all over the world, that the strongest chance exists that this is a common or garden case of domestic infanticide or tragic accident, resulting in a very badly cobbled attempt to shirk from responsibility, later modified into a profitable venture, killing (no pun intended) two birds with one necessary stone.

Whew, that was intense. Hope you're as confused as I am. The deep issues of physics combined with a bit of cold case investigation. Does it get any more Saturday afternoon than that?

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

Woofer wrote:Retiring - that`s hard to believe - he`s only about late 40s surely?

Police can retire after 25 years' service, so he could easily be retiring at 44 onwards.  This current operation, with all the supine approbation of the UK media,  will do him no harm in finding new work after retirement to add value to his pension e.g. TV punditry, the lecture circuit etc.

If he can crack this I will personally pay his pension out of my own pocket.

I hope that this development, and the retention of Exclusivepix to record events for posterity, suggest that a career defining outcome to this investigation is anticipated.

As I understand the system of tax in the UK, you will be paying for his pension from your own pocket - or certainly contributing to it.

endgame wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

russiandoll wrote:T and J.. you replied to another member :


Your claim here seems to me to be without any foundation whatever,Firstly the searches currently underway are based in ILORs that are based on the theory of burglar abduction. Secondly redwood stated that GM had been eliminated as suspect based on forensic analysis of timeline. Thirdly there is political pressure to 'conclude' the case as stated by David Cameron. Lastly, the PJ got their fingers badly burned last time they followed that line of enquiry with the case coordinator nearly destroyed through litigation for purporting a theory based on available evidence. I founded my statement on this evidence.

 The burglar related ILORs are press reports and nothing about the reasons for the ILORs has been stated by SY as far as I know.
.....

 True. The letters exist, but what they were requesting or who they were regarding has never been made public.  Any reference to burglars was all speculation cleverly snaked around the ILOR by 'sources'.

Given the press track record of stating things that are rubbished but later turn out to be correct [about 50/50] I'd say that either of these views is equally possible but given that the reporting comes from the Portuguese press and has a ring of authority about it and it broadly ties in with the way AR has progressed the case I don't find it difficult to accept that the ILOR's are quite likely based on the theory of burglar abduction. Posters generally accept that press reports about three sites in the ILOR's etc. are correct so you can't just pick and choose. I do accept however that the use of the term "burglar" as such may be "imaginative".

I'm not picking and choosing, neither do I believe unsubstantiated rumours from the Portuguese press Or the Uk press.

   Yes you could accept the idea that the burglars are the focus of ILOR because it sounds plausible but it has never been officially stated, so there is no point using it as a basis on which to say a white wash is going on. The propaganda merchants are always taking small snippets of verifiable information and weaving them in amongst plausible sounding nonsense, it wouldn't work so well if it wasn't at least plausible.

 If SY do arrest some burglars in the next few weeks then that would mean the 'sources' were right and not just spinning BS...I won't hold my breath though as SY have been waiting to swoop for months according to thses sources!

jeanmonroe wrote:

tasprin wrote:Whichever way it goes, he'll always be remembered for this case.

'remembered' for WHAT, at the moment, exactly?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'This investigation is ANYTHING but 'normal' and it has NEVER been 'normal' from the day Madeleine McCann 'disappeared'
BBC reporter in PDL.

The investigation isn't normal, not the disappearance. A hint about MI5/6? 

Just reading on the bloody footprint there and the status of the investigation in October 07 was a more detailed search of Coast between Praia da Luz and Burgau, land between the Ocean club and the beach and forests and isolated villas around the Bravura dam in Odiaxere. Maybe AR is on the right track after all IMO  

daffodil wrote:
As I understand the system of tax in the UK, you will be paying for his pension from your own pocket - or certainly contributing to it.

Correct. I pay towards my own pension !

Whichever way it goes, would not surprise me if it will be  Going, Going, GONG.