Re: Latest interview with Dr Amaral - copied from Joana Morais - with thanks

by Guest 10.06.14 0:37

aiyoyo wrote:

It would appear the 'little bureau' is run by heartless 'little man' who abandoned comrades for his own aggrandisement.

Good luck to Amaral - yes.
Good bye - No

Good bye Bull Shit littleman !

ETA: GGS, he was binned earlier. We are not allowed recycled rubbish here.

AGREE 100%.

by perpendicular circus 10.06.14 0:41

maebee wrote:
CynicAl wrote:sallypelt

Good points. The fund, the actions of the Mc's don't even merely point to greed. They point to control. Everything about what they do is about controlling information. PR agents? Controlling information. Carter Ruck? Controlling information. A freaking call centre hotline in India? Controlling information. They want to know what anyone has on the case before they hear it from SY. They need to know first. No sign of "please help us... Call the police or Childline." Always 'call our operation.' Halligen, probably hired as a leak tester. Metodo3, hired as an illusion. They want to know what people think then try to control it.

Indeed. As the man himself said "We want to create information": http://www.mccannfiles.com/id306.html

Wanting to know what people think, then trying to control it is the core of this case. CM was deployed for that reason , that was/is his role. Spreading complicity was GM's role and it worked, so far. Someone said earlier something that reminded me of the days when I used to frequent the Mirror forums, back in the day , and that was that Gerry was deflated and wanted out at some point, then the great strategy came about and he was in for it. .
Like Cynical Al and others I doubt the great conspiracies , I think this event hit a perfect time , a perfect unease and exploited it. All Blair and Brown wanted was to be part of the great populace wave they assumed was in support of the parents, they wanted to ride that wave, hence the deploying of CM. But he went "native" , he espied a good chance when he saw it , like all the other chancers who have come since , the PI's , the agencies, the great solvers to be.
Amaral has both overplayed and underplayed his hand here. Even today he refrains from using Mark Harrison's name .
The case against the parents was made by British cops assigned to the case , lent, whatever , such as Lee Rainbow , the profiler, Mark Harrison the body finder in chief and Martin Grimes and his dogs. Their role was known to forum afficianados and made clear after the wikileaks tape . Known by the diplomatic service , who advised a slight retraction of support . Know to Exton in his sub-contracted role for Halligen.
Then Redwood came into the game , because Cameron was pushed shoved whatever by Rebekkah Brooks . We don't know how diligent he intends or wants to be , how fixed or flexible is his thinking, but we do know he is relying heavily on Exton's reports. We know , from Exton that this report was critical of the parents and we know he suggested that Madeleine's bedtime wanderings might have played a part . What else did he consider? The man is no fool, he taped and had voice analysis of JT , did he do the same to the parents? Why did they suppress his report ?
All of this I knew, you knew, then Slopping out said something that gave me a jolt . He mentioned the wallet , the credit cards and cocaine . Now we tend to assume they had a grand plan , that is our error. They were thinking on their feet, hoping to get by day to day , at first. The wallet has bugged me for 7 years . I used to think cadaver scent . But of course they were concerned about their other misdemeanours . What did Gerry and Matt have in common, other than a tendency for constrained parenting , and a desire to have been professional footballers? What a great way to deliver drugs would be a person wandering around the town with a baby buggy. Why did Matt feel the need to wake up Jezz to tell him to go back to sleep , again? Why would SY want to be talking to drug suppliers ? And if you needed help in a town far from home and you had just bought or sold (another thought) some gear, how stongly could you pressurize your buyers into assistance and what would they be prepared to do ?

by Guest 10.06.14 0:42

CynicAl wrote:sallypelt

Good points. The fund, the actions of the Mc's don't even merely point to greed. They point to control. Everything about what they do is about controlling information. PR agents? Controlling information. Carter Ruck? Controlling information. A freaking call centre hotline in India? Controlling information. They want to know what anyone has on the case before they hear it from SY. They need to know first. No sign of "please help us... Call the police or Childline." Always 'call our operation.' Halligen, probably hired as a leak tester. Metodo3, hired as an illusion. They want to know what people think then try to control it.

So can you please answer the question posed by Hicks about Clarence Mitchell?

by utahagen 10.06.14 0:48

Aiyoyo wrote: "It would appear the 'little bureau' is run by heartless 'little man' who abandoned comrades for his own aggrandisement."

I still don't know what Blacksmith Bureau meant in his last post. Does he now no longer think the McCanns will be charged?

PLEASE someone explain this to me!

by Guest 10.06.14 1:17

Utahagen Imo he still believes the mc will be charged. He appears to think that Goncalo is treating the investigation as a cover up again now and not an investigation to find the real culprits.

That's my terrible interpretation anyway!

by lj 10.06.14 1:23

About the drug trafficking: I thought all drugs were legal in Portugal. Why would there be trafficking?

by lj 10.06.14 1:24

Dr Amaral wrote:This is madness. These are completely mad people.

Now that's a statement I can completely agree with.

by lj 10.06.14 1:32

stillsloppingout wrote:So there you have it . when Mi5 are involved its usually to pull somebody out of the sh** Hence all the D notices etc .

For this to happen IMO it can only be because the person is a senior cabinet minister [ of the time, NOT opposition ] , or a high end member of the Royal Family . [ then process of ilimination ]

Ps this post by Amaral needs to be posted on social media .

I don't mind posting it on facebook, but wouldn't we need permission from at least astro? Admin, Mods?

by Loving Mom 10.06.14 3:33

CynicAl wrote:Hmmm.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons...

IMO
CynicAl is making the most sense. By applying the facts to the case, he is by far the most logical in stating this does not resemble a cover up or whitewash at all.

by Loving Mom 10.06.14 3:54

Loving Mom wrote:
CynicAl wrote:Hmmm.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons...

IMO
CynicAl is making the most sense. By applying the facts to the case, he is by far the most logical in stating this does not resemble a cover up or whitewash at all.

Furthermore, according to the PJ's conclusion, there was not an abduction and that the Mc's know it. Since PJ reopened the case, it would only be logical that the Mc's will be brought to trial, they have every intention of seeking justice. What exactly the PJ will charge them with may be a lesser charge than they'd like to charge them with but I believe justice will be sought in the near future.

by lj 10.06.14 7:05

aiyoyo wrote:
Gonçalo Amaral: What is dangerous and serious is this attempt to find a new thesis, a so-called new theory about someone who goes to commit a theft and is scared by a three-year-old child and kills her and takes her out of there, I think it's convoluted.

But it’s nothing new. I remember that within the investigation, back then, and I recall that I spent six months in that investigation, not seven years, or three or four, like Scotland Yard – during that time, there was this thesis, too. And it happens that it was brought forward by a colleague who was a member of British Police, of Scotland Yard. He was the only member of Scotland Yard who was present in that work group of the Polícia Judiciária and the British police, he was Scotland Yard.

And when he advanced that hypothesis, it was discussed and completely set aside because it made no sense. Now they even added a bit more spice, to spice it up, that they are traffickers, that apart from trafficking, one day they thought of breaking into a house. Nobody proves that house was broken into, that there was a theft, there are no traces of a break-in.

So the 'burglary gone wrong' hypothesis (and a dead Maddie taken instead of valuables )was already purported by a Scotland Yard police member back then in 2007 ?

Uhmmmm...this is news, first time I heard it.

Sems they don't easily let go of their pet-idea

by Hongkong Phooey 10.06.14 7:23

Loving Mom wrote:
CynicAl wrote:Hmmm.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons...

IMO
CynicAl is making the most sense. By applying the facts to the case, he is by far the most logical in stating this does not resemble a cover up or whitewash at all.

Well that's your opinion (which you're entitled to) mines is he's wrong and is posting long winded efforts to wear down the 'opposition'. I'll stick with Dr Amaral, he knows a lot more about the case and is concise with his thoughts.

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 7:36

utahagen wrote:Aiyoyo wrote: "It would appear the 'little bureau' is run by heartless 'little man' who abandoned comrades for his own aggrandisement."

I still don't know what Blacksmith Bureau meant in his last post. Does he now no longer think the McCanns will be charged?

PLEASE someone explain this to me!

Usually BS's verbose style is him showing off his writing skills, but ending up talking in riddles with very little or no value whatsoever.The odd times he does do short pieces at least one can still glimpse a relatively clear gist of what he tries to say, and this piece is one of them.

Basically in that piece he's saying those people who believe that OG is a farce and a whitewash are wrong. He did not state that he knows or he's sure that 'mom, dad and their drinking buddies' will be charged.

Imv BS is only as certain as he can spit his words in long and convoluted riddles.
He comes across as a bigoted sod who flows along with the current, comes and goes with the tide flowing along nicely and conceitedly with no conviction one way or another.
You will never know where his stance stands, but he wants to give the impression he is far superior and knows better.

The OG operation for all intent and purpose thus far does appear wishy washy, and no one can get a clear conviction of their direction. I have no doubt their doubters and believers alike share common goal, that is-justice to Madeleine. If, in the finished, the MET managed to put in the dock those responsible for Maddie's demise they would have done their fiduciary duty well.
Optimists and pessimists viewpoints are all natural mix in a debate forum, no right and no wrong, just wait and see what pans out.

by SixMillionQuid 10.06.14 7:37

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Loving Mom wrote:
CynicAl wrote:Hmmm.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons...

IMO
CynicAl is making the most sense. By applying the facts to the case, he is by far the most logical in stating this does not resemble a cover up or whitewash at all.
Well that's your opinion (which you're entitled to) mines is he's wrong and is posting long winded efforts to wear down the 'opposition'. I'll stick with Dr Amaral, he knows a lot more about the case and is concise with his thoughts.

Yep, seen it happen before, then they disappear in a puff of smoke...and then reappear in a different guise with the same arguments.

If I believed this was a genuine investigation I would be expecting certain individuals, whom we all know, to be arrested. If that does not happen then someone has some explaining to do, especially to me.

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 7:47

lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Gonçalo Amaral: What is dangerous and serious is this attempt to find a new thesis, a so-called new theory about someone who goes to commit a theft and is scared by a three-year-old child and kills her and takes her out of there, I think it's convoluted.

But it’s nothing new. I remember that within the investigation, back then, and I recall that I spent six months in that investigation, not seven years, or three or four, like Scotland Yard – during that time, there was this thesis, too. And it happens that it was brought forward by a colleague who was a member of British Police, of Scotland Yard. He was the only member of Scotland Yard who was present in that work group of the Polícia Judiciária and the British police, he was Scotland Yard.

And when he advanced that hypothesis, it was discussed and completely set aside because it made no sense. Now they even added a bit more spice, to spice it up, that they are traffickers, that apart from trafficking, one day they thought of breaking into a house. Nobody proves that house was broken into, that there was a theft, there are no traces of a break-in.

So the 'burglary gone wrong' hypothesis (and a dead Maddie taken instead of valuables )was already purported by a Scotland Yard police member back then in 2007 ?

Uhmmmm...this is news, first time I heard it.

Sems they don't easily let go of their pet-idea

Maybe that's one theory that crossed their mind which needs to be eliminated anyway, but weight they gave to it or not should depend on evidence, and should not be entertained to the exclusion of all other evidence.
That's part and parcel of investigative process I suppose.

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 7:53

lj wrote:About the drug trafficking: I thought all drugs were legal in Portugal. Why would there be trafficking?

All drugs are legal in Portugal? uhmmm...can't be right.

by Guest 10.06.14 7:59

Looks as if not going along with the almost psychotic view of a grand conspiracy whitewash, is becoming viewed here as 'working for the enemy'. But who benefits from the idea of an all corrupt investigation?

To quote the literate Tony Bennett, ' "cui" bono'. Terribly sorry, but this is all getting a bit silly.

by AndyB 10.06.14 8:01

CynicAl wrote:Hmmm. I'm playing catch up with posts, but now I'm reading things that are only confirming my fears about the suspension of logic.

I've repeatedly asserted that a high level conspiracy to cover-up and pervert the course of justice from the outset would have resulted in this case looking very, very different, having been dead and moot for several years by now, never to be resurrected, with the principals who could open their mouths and spoil it all being as quiet as the grave, or else in the grave.

The reason why is that if you're going to be secretive, you don't want loose ends, loose nuts, loose cannons or loose women.

I thought I'd heard it all...

Until I read through some of the posts.

It was bad enough that we're throwing darts at a list of the names of those in cabinet in 2007 and playing six degrees of Gerry McCann with them - talk about clutching at straws.

But then I detected more of a hint of the suggestion that this was a high level cover-up because the government are trying to hide the fact that a high level government minister was in PDL, bonking his brains out on a swinging holiday at OC, and was there when it all happened (no suggestion if he was involved) and it is all covered up because he doesn't want anyone to know he was there.

If he didn't want anyone to know he was there, why go to OC with Joe Public and his wife? Who was he going to bonk? Would he wear a hood? Would our intelligence services not know where he was? Could someone recognise him? Would anyone be able to resist a kiss and tell?

Surely high level government ministers can indulge their sexual fantasies in private villas on private islands flown by private jet facilitated by private individuals and entirely managed... IN PRIVATE.

No?

Or am I just being too unreal?

Its not that you're being unreal its that you seem to be missing the context, which is the breadth and depth of the corruption and depravity at the heart of the British establishment. Do you live in Britain? Have you ever lived in Britain? If not it would go a long way to explaining your resistance to the idea of a cover-up or, to put it another way, why you lack the readiness with which of many of us explain many of the mysteries in this case as being down to establishment corruption of one sort or another.

An example of this is the question posed to you by Hicks earlier in this thread. I've also quoted part of Gollum's reply because it makes the same point that I would make. Can we have your explanation for Clarence Mitchel's behaviour?

Gollum wrote:@ Hicks Today 8:25 pm
"What in your opinion was the role of Clarence Mitchel? Do you suppose he just decided on a whim to go to Portugal and assist the McCann's due to his altruistic nature?"

You beat me to it, that was my first thought or at least one of them. This is not a James Bond movie, it's a real life situation and mass cover-ups do happen without the need to bump off everyone who might be aware of the crime. Suppose for example it all revolves around the mass paedophilia horror that is prevalent in the UK, it is the victims that might squeal that are bumped off, if not dismissed as mentally unbalanced, not the vile perpetrators of the crime. A crime that crosses all borders of society, so effectively impossible to dispose of every one who knows something, if I make myself clear. Or suppose a society such as the freemasons is at the root of a cover up, it's customary practice I believe for members of the sect to cover up a crime committed by one of their fellow members.

by AndyB 10.06.14 8:05

aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:About the drug trafficking: I thought all drugs were legal in Portugal. Why would there be trafficking?

All drugs are legal in Portugal? uhmmm...can't be right.

Its legal to have a small amount of any substance such as 25g of cannabis, 2g cocaine etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

by AndyB 10.06.14 8:13

MarcoG wrote:Looks as if not going along with the almost psychotic view of a grand conspiracy whitewash, is becoming viewed here as 'working for the enemy'. But who benefits from the idea of an all corrupt investigation?

To quote the literate Tony Bennett, ' "cui" bono'. Terribly sorry, but this is all getting a bit silly.

Less of the abuse please Marco. Perhaps we could have your view of the reasons for Clarence Mitchel's sudden departure for Portugal when it was very possible that Madeleine could turn up at any moment

As to who benefits, that all depends on what it is that is being covered up but I think you're asking the wrong question. The correct question is why did the establishment get so involved so quickly, ignoring concerns about the parents that were raised by their own diplomats? I would genuinely be interested in an explanation for it that doesn't involve a cover-up of something

by ChippyM 10.06.14 8:15

AndyB wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:About the drug trafficking: I thought all drugs were legal in Portugal. Why would there be trafficking?

All drugs are legal in Portugal? uhmmm...can't be right.
Its legal to have a small amount of any substance such as 25g of cannabis, 2g cocaine etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

and you would get a fine or treatment for personal use of a certain amount not prison. Dealing would still be a criminal offence.
Personally I don't see any reason someone would have to 'lose' credit cards to cover up drug use as you can't be done for trace amounts either in Portugal or UK .

by Guest 10.06.14 8:16

So... the Clarence Mitchell question....

How did he get the McCann job?

Did he work his notice period from his Government media manipulating job?

Did he get paid more or less in his new job?

Did he get paid?

How many other missing child cases have ever had an (ex) Government man appointed as Spokesman/media manipulator/PR guru?

Anyone who thinks there is not some involvement from above need to ask themselves about Clarence Mitchell.

Maybe I'm mistaken and Clarence is an altruist?

by Liz Eagles 10.06.14 8:28

BlueBag wrote:So... the Clarence Mitchell question....

How did he get the McCann job?

Did he work his notice period from his Government media manipulating job?

Did he get paid more or less in his new job?

Did he get paid?

How many other missing child cases have ever had an (ex) Government man appointed as Spokesman/media manipulator/PR guru?

Anyone who thinks there is not some involvement from above need to ask themselves about Clarence Mitchell.

Maybe I'm mistaken and Clarence is an altruist?

These snips from the mccannfiles might answer a couple of questions - although they are Clarrie's quotes so take from that what you will.

Mr Mitchell said his job in the Cabinet Office as head of the media monitoring unit was "untenable" from the moment he accepted an invitation from the family, supported by their legal team and financial backers, to represent them.

"More importantly, I have [resigned] because I feel so strongly that they are innocent victims of a heinous crime that I am prepared to forego my career in government service to assist them."

[color:b22f=000000]............................................................................................

Mr Mitchell was reported to have been earning around £70,000 in his post at the Central Office of Information.

Later he told Sky News that his new job was being paid for by a "generous financial backer who wishes to remain anonymous". He was not receiving money from Mr or Mrs McCann or the Find Madeleine appeal.

[color:b22f=000000].........................................................................................

[color:b22f=000000][size=11][size=13][color:b22f=000000]"Every time that a British subject has problems abroad Consular assistance is offered. As it was regarding a missing child and not the theft of documents, the help provided by the Consul of Portimão was greater. Since the case dominated the media, The Foreign Office, in London, thought of me because I had experience as a reporter and I knew key English people. It wasn't Tony Blair nor the present Prime minister, Gordon Brown, that sent me. I am not their spokesperson nor do I call them asking for advice.[color:b22f=000000]"

[color:b22f=000000]...............................................................................................

[color:b22f=000000]There's a very interesting E[color:b22f=000000]xpresso interview on the link

[color:b22f=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

[/size][/size]

by SixMillionQuid 10.06.14 8:43

So this mysterious financial backer had their own personal interests in seeing things spun or the media?

How can you jump from one paid job into another job where you dont know if you're going to get paid or how long your services will be required? Unless it was planned out fully before he jumped ship.

by Guest 10.06.14 8:46

"More importantly, I have [resigned] because I feel so strongly that they are innocent victims of a heinous crime that I am prepared to forego my career in government service to assist them."

So Clarence is an altruist after all.

The McCanns were very lucky people.