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

by HelenMeg 10.06.14 8:59

SixMillionQuid wrote:
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.

Well, that s it in a nutshell. Any genuine investigation would and will result in the arrest of certain individuals. Those who conspired to cover up the death of a child. As yet it can still go 2 ways.

The fact that there was political interference in 2007 says that there has been an effort to cover something up. Will DC continue to cover things up ?

by Halfwit 10.06.14 9:13

aquila wrote:[quote= "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."]

[/quote]

It warms my heart to see his altruism made public. :puke:

by HelenMeg 10.06.14 9:16

roy rovers wrote:Gordon Brown's intervention in the early days was badly misjudged. Then he was such a control freak that he called the PJ off to avoid being made to look like a pillock. By the time reality dawned and the British establishment / police understood the truth the British press and public had fallen in love with poor Maddie and the Crown Prosecution Service advised that the threshold of proof was going to be very high. That's what Andy Redwood is trying to get to - some decent proof but it's looking like he'll retire looking like a pillock too. All IMHO.

That is a plausible and concise explanation of what may have occurred. We do have to remember that we are talking about real humans who made decisions at the time. Flawed humans who sometimes make stupid decisions which kick off into other stuff .
It could easily be as simple and straightforward as you have outlined and the simplest explanations are often nearest the truth.

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 9:42

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

Hmmm...blue bag, you are getting there.....slowly but surely....

How did he get the McCann job?

By kissing McCanns asses.

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

Didn't look it, too sudden a departure.

Did he get paid more or less in his new job?
Dunno what he got in old job, but it was reported he got paid £70K/year in new job and his role is to lie through as many teeth he has in his mouth. An easy job, so very overpaid by money collected from old age pensioners and school children pocket money savings.

Did he get paid?
What, now?
Oh gawd,.....must be, can't see him doing it just for a jolly FOC.

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

Now then.....now then.....don't ask naughty question.....when you already know or guess the answer.......

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

I think there is involvement from the "ABOVE", undeniably plenty evidence of that, not conspiracy imv but in their mistaken belief that doctors and a bunch of professionals needed help in a foreign country little realising their aiding were abetting unwittingly 'mom and dad' LIE.

Maybe I'm mistaken and Clarence is an altruist?

He went beyond professional, he got personal, and got dragged into their cesspit.
It's a career suicide but probably not by choice but by mistake initially, now it's just free fall voluntarily into it.

by Guest 10.06.14 9:51

aquila wrote:
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:7313=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:7313=000000].........................................................................................

[color:7313=000000][size=11][size=13][color:7313=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:7313=000000]"

[color:7313=000000]...............................................................................................

[color:7313=000000]There's a very interesting E[color:7313=000000]xpresso interview on the link

[color:7313=000000]http://www.mccannfiles.com/id255.html

[/size][/size]

But how did Clarrie know that the McCann job would not end any minute with the finding of Madeleine?
Either he was given a very substantial retainer to cover this eventuality. Or he knew she would not be found.

by bristow 10.06.14 9:55

by aiyoyo 10.06.14 9:56

SixMillionQuid wrote: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.

Very good point SMQ.

If Maddie were to be found shortly after he started with the McCanns he would soon find himself out of job.

It does not make sense to accept a job to represent two unknown individuals (vs not a corporation) in a missing child case, unprecedented in many aspects, with too many unknown factors.

No long term job security and definitely no prospects of advancement/promotion in any shape or form.
She could be found alive relatively quickly and he would out of job.
She could be found dead also relatively quickly or 7 years later and he would still be out of a job.

For a job with the McCanns, where would his office be I wonder.
I can't imagine Rothley's garden shed being his office, so where did he go to report in for work to earn his £70K/year salary.

by Guest 10.06.14 10:11

AndyB wrote:
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

That was not a lot of abuse I think, Andy. Just a bit sharp wording.

There's no reason to take the actions , the investigation by the police now for a whitewash. If you take a little distance from this all and look at it, you need a lot of imagination to consider this a cover up.
As to Clarence Mitchell, he's shady, isn't he. His actions over the past seven years look to me, a simple member of public, like the actions of a consigliere.
The whole British role in the original investigation seems shady, though that doesn't mean that that was all one conspiracy from high up. Most of the time that conspiracies occur in general, they're small and simple.

Now, to cry whitewash everytime the Mitchell-pleasing press make up something to publish, is only good for the perpetrators, don't you think. Telling the taxpayer that the police is throwing his money away to cover up for 'very very high people all the way up there', is effectively telling the public to demand an end to the investigation.

I think that's silly.

by Guest 10.06.14 10:11

dantezebuBut how did Clarrie know that the McCann job would not end any minute with the finding of Madeleine? wrote:Either he was given a very substantial retainer to cover this eventuality. Or he knew she would not be found.

Good point.

I don't think he had a retainer, altruists aren't like that.

by AndyB 10.06.14 10:38

MarcoG wrote:
AndyB wrote:
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
That was not a lot of abuse I think, Andy. Just a bit sharp wording.

There's no reason to take the actions , the investigation by the police now for a whitewash. If you take a little distance from this all and look at it, you need a lot of imagination to consider this a cover up.
As to Clarence Mitchell, he's shady, isn't he. His actions over the past seven years look to me, a simple member of public, like the actions of a consigliere.
The whole British role in the original investigation seems shady, though that doesn't mean that that was all one conspiracy from high up. Most of the time that conspiracies occur in general, they're small and simple.

Now, to cry whitewash everytime the Mitchell-pleasing press make up something to publish, is only good for the perpetrators, don't you think. Telling the taxpayer that the police is throwing his money away to cover up for 'very very high people all the way up there', is effectively telling the public to demand an end to the investigation.

I think that's silly.

My objection was to the description of those of us that consider a huge cover-up a possibility as "almost psychotic" but I accept that you meant no offence.

I'm not crying whitewash every time Mitchell spins some nonsense to the media I'm crying it response to the unprecedented reaction of the powers that be to an offence in a foreign jurisdiction, set in the context of an establishment, at least part of which is depraved and corrupt and willing to go to any lengths to hide their depravity.

I don't follow your logic when you say that telling people that there is a cover up is telling them to demand an end to the investigation. If it tells them to do anything surely it tells them to demand an end the cover-up and investigate honestly

by canada12 10.06.14 10:45

Regarding coverup, whitewash, protection of someone higher up...
Just a thought, but how do we know that Clarence Mitchell wasn't there at that time Madeleine disappeared?
Perhaps Clarence Mitchell is the reason for the "coverup" and for all the "protection".
Perhaps Clarence Mitchell was quietly let go of his job with the government, and found himself in a bit of a tight spot.
IMO, the only reason Clarence Mitchell would know that a PR job for the McCanns would be long term is if he was part of the original problem and KNEW exactly what was going on.
And the best way to protect himself would be working as spokesman for the McCanns, to control everything coming out of Rothley, TM, and the press.
Idle speculation, just an opinion. But as valid as any other speculation right now.

by mouse 10.06.14 10:49

MarcoG said "Now, to cry whitewash everytime the Mitchell-pleasing press make up something to publish, is only good for the perpetrators, don't you think. Telling the taxpayer that the police is throwing his money away to cover up for 'very very high people all the way up there', is effectively telling the public to demand an end to the investigation."

I think that's silly."

I don't agree. Throwing money away on an investigation chasing up new leads to burglars, gypsies, dead or alive paedos is wasting money and I would want an end to that type of investigation. However if SY said they would be happy to work with the PJ and re-interview Team Mccann I would be supporting them all the way, but it doesn't appear to be going that way. On the other hand I would be interested in an inquiry into our police investigation and what the money has actually been spent on to-date. And what the original line of investigation was, and the realistic outcome/conclusion they hoped to obtain with the tax payers money.

No - I certainly don't want to shut down a real investigation. Sadly, I feel I'm still waiting for one to re-start.

by Guest 10.06.14 11:03

AndyB wrote:

My objection was to the description of those of us that consider a huge cover-up a possibility as "almost psychotic" but I accept that you meant no offence.

I'm not crying whitewash every time Mitchell spins some nonsense to the media I'm crying it response to the unprecedented reaction of the powers that be to an offence in a foreign jurisdiction, set in the context of an establishment, at least part of which is depraved and corrupt and willing to go to any lengths to hide their depravity.

I don't follow your logic when you say that telling people that there is a cover up is telling them to demand an end to the investigation. If it tells them to do anything surely it tells them to demand an end the cover-up and investigate honestly

I see it wasn't nice of me to say that, I'm sure people who think there's a whitewash are overall just as eager to get to the end of this in justice.
The tone of my reaction was a reaction to some people accusing CynicAl, who writes extremely long posts which, when printed out, exceed in volume a six meter bookshelf, of being something like an agent for going hard against the whitewashtheory. I was reading this thread, those condemning postings, and it felt a bit sectarian.

I think CynicAl's postings contain a lot of logic, and fair reasoning, as far as I've managed to read.

As to who benefits from public distrust in the investigation. I think that if the police want anything solved in this case, they have to succeed now. From now on. If this fails, SY will never again get the resources funded by the public, the political cooperation nor the Portuguese alongside to ever find out and make public what happened to poor Maddie McCann.

The guilty parties have in my only modest opinion managed once to nail the police, in the person of Amaral, to a false pole of shame. I would hate to see something like that happening again.

by Guest 10.06.14 11:16

@mouse
I have never believed that the police really are chasing burglars, foreign paedos, dead monteiros, binmen, rastafarians, and Dutch barechested hooligans.
It's mostly tabloidsuggestions. And the police are sometimes giving nonsense clues to the public.

by CynicAl 10.06.14 11:22

stillsloppingout wrote:

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?
Hi AL

I will respond . in this instance you are being too unreal , and i should know i have photographed a few .

Senior Politicians or members of the elite whether it's footballers celebrities etc , nearly always perform these activities in plain sight so to speak , [ high end ] normal holidays ,[ high end ] normal nightclubs , normal brothels !!! ,there circle is secure ,so they don't need to go to the ends of the earth and politicians apart from prescott are mosty none descript[ unless your the footballer with the 3 D Notices !! ] the gay community call it the velvet curtain btw.

This initial protection IMO for an alleged person sha**ing , manifested into what it is today due to the brilliant media campaign , Gerrys cunning and skill [ sic ] which snowballed into an all powerful machine , throw in a few million to pay for lawyers , TV and Press muted because Journo's are too scared to speak out as the papers today are on there arse , and there dare not toe the line .

Add the use of the new platform , social media ,twitter ,blogging used to keep the message on side ,[ paid ] media monitors , there celebrity status , a police force who know they have no realistic chance of conviction .

so next step they will make a few more people aguido's to neutralise that stigma . then the chief will retire . Amaral latest show confirms he starting to lose his cool, and that will also help there corner .

So a little spark can ignite an inferno .

PS The private islands, villas, are more for the non**s . i did a watch outside one in the Canary Islands in 2003

Oh, ok then.

I accept a whole new paradigm in this case then.

It is evidently routine for high level government ministers (who get outed publicly for all kinds of scandalous behaviour with surprising regularity) who harbour certain interests in consensual legal sexual indulgence to attend low grade holiday resorts in tourist traps to bonk predominantly english women, complete strangers who could turn out to be constituents in full view of the public, attended to by yahoo charlie holiday resort reps, at low season when their presence is likely to be noticeable, in a place where the neighbours are listening through the floors to pick up every word or movement uttered by a fractious child and where everyone on holiday seems to know everyone who lives there... And then suddenly gets so nervous that their presence there will be known that they actively engage in facilitating a capital crime, covering it up, and perverting the course of justice in a botched and uncontrollable cluster#### of a cover-up rather than be known for dipping their pen in someone else's ink.

To top it all off, having spent 5 years thinking 'mission accomplished, how great it is to have the power and influence to whitewash a situation like this' they get the inexplicable urge to resurrect the case in order to freshen up the whitewash, promoting in the process a sudden swell in the numbers of people who think they smell a rat.

Of course, this minister is such an intellectually challenged, crotch driven maverick that he thinks that blackmailing and coercing everyone in town whomight have seen him into silence and having MI5 maintain that silence is easier than making use of the fact that high level ministers, even the fattest and ugliest, can get a steady supply of eager married women to have affairs with them in the controllable secrecy of a nice hotel accustomed to the indiscretions of elite guests. Even more odd is that with the full arsenel of wetwork that MI5 can muster at his personal disposal, which is so thorough that he believes none of the people he silenced will ever blab, he couldn't just silence them but had to facilitate a capital crime and pervert the course of justice, increasing his liability a thousand-fold. And MI5,the cabinet and SY allowed this to happen, thinking it would be safer all round and better for the government's reputation.

No explanation for why, if this was a Labour minister, the Tories weren't trying to set him alight publicly or vice versa. Oh... I forgot... He must have been a freemason. And that's where all the disgraced, sexually outed, scandalised, publicly humiliated ministers have all gone wrong... They mustn't shake hands the right way.

The reason for a conspiracy, any conspiracy, is for control. Control of information mostly. Yet this case is astoundingly beyond control. It has too many mavericks, too many published truths, too many ingrate perpetrators playing ego games with the threat of mutually assured destruction. And absolutely no untimely demises of any of the liabilities.

It also raises another likelihood...

GA knows exactly who was there. He knows exactly what was covered up. And he too is staying silent.

We've gone from 'McCann and the priest' know what happened to 'MI5 covered it up as part of a massive internationally reaching government conspiracy.

One more question. If this is a big government conspiracy from day one because of someone who was present in the resort at the time, then how do we trust Martin Grime, Mark Harrison, the favourable contributions alleged by British police investigators, the suspicions of British diplomats, and the PJ files? If this was all manipulation and control, why is it not controlled from outset? Why didn't the aluthorities covering it up arrange quiet words in the shell-like of those actually investigating and have them throw the results, cast light away from the Mc's, frame a patsy when they had the chance? There were easier, cheaper, less risky ways of doing this, which at least had a chance of fulfilling the aim of making this case go away cleanly, quietly, discreetly and permanently. Are you suggesting that this powerful, irresistible, inescapable tour de force torrent of water was unleashed and then raged uphill, round numerous meanders where it pretended to be indistinguishable from a stream before racing downhill through a delta of channels before trying to reform into another uphill surge?

It either was an irrepressible, all-powerful high level conspiracy, or it wasn't. But it isn't both, because one negates the other.

by Guest 10.06.14 11:27

mouse wrote:However if SY said they would be happy to work with the PJ and re-interview Team Mccann I would be supporting them all the way, but it doesn't appear to be going that way.

Good point.

Where is the SY reconstruction?

That surely is basic crime investigation?

by Mirage 10.06.14 11:32

@CynicAL.
I hope you won't mind my pointing out some comments you have made that seem contradictory to me.

I noticed in one reply to a poster you mentioned a suspension of logic. I found that a little tough when really all of us are grappling with a case that does not make complete sense from any one angle. The point of this forum is to tease out what we can and I am perfectly sure when many of us go down the odd fruitless cul de sac, we realise it ourselves without being hung out to dry as t'were. And it is surely that learning together on this forum, sans the didacticism to be found outside this particular debating chamber, that should be cherished; notwithstanding the odd spat.

Anyway, these are some observations I have drawn from your own words. And incidentally, I have recently complimented you on your post on the Digging thread which was altogether different in tone and a pleasure to read. Anyway some quotes of yours, plus my thoughts in blue:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm grateful (and fearful too) for the fact that I do hold a worldview on life which features the notion that a divine justice is approaching that no Pope on the planet has ever been able to pre-empt or avoid." AND:
“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.”

In the first quote, you have a belief, strongly stated, which lies outside the parameters of accepted logic. No one demeaned you for your strongly held, but, ultimately unprovable, belief. In the second quote, you do exactly that to others.

"However, the nature of politics is that this is a hot potato in every constituency. This is a question that could be asked in Luz, but not in Leicester."

You are spot on. You have identified the nature of politics. This (the McCann case) is indeed a hot potato. It is a political hot potato. The MPs who would be fielding their constituents’ questions are afraid to address them. So, by a process of logic, who controls the MPs ? The Whip’s office. Who briefs the whips? The chief whips? Well, you get the picture. And this is why it is right that those of us with an interest in politics and with that particular ability to join political dots are right to look at the seats of influence within certain windows of time.

"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."

Just because you repeatedly assert something might have ended up differently with a high level cover-up does not render it fact. Any component any element of this case appears to contain all the characteristics of the known volatile gases and the complete cast list of every Shakespeare play simultaneously reading the directive “Exeunt all” The planned elements collided with the unplanned serendipitously to produce one outcome or many levels of outcome depending on your viewpoint. It is all these mishaps and inconguities have caused this site to come into being –well, as far as we can ascertain - to put them under every microscope we can lay our collective hands on.

As for professional jobs. Imagine a suicide victim getting up and moving to slump under a tree, post mortem. Imagine emergency services being alerted before the call comes in to a police station that a body has been discovered. Imagine. And the loose ends don’t get tied up. They fester and feed into the whole Iraq war business and it never goes away.

“We daily put faith in borderline sociopaths to know our most intimates. We routinely accept that doctors are safe. And we teach our children to trust a policeman. “

Why stop at doctors and policemen? Up until relatively recently we put our faith in top TV entertainers. In politicians, in priests, scientists, bankers and prime ministers and so on. Sociopaths are known to climb to the top of power structures and dominate. That is why some of us have deduced it is no longer safe to assume anything about political leaders and the ruling elite. These people are risk takers par excellence. As such, they don’t follow normal patterns of behaviour so it is no use looking at them through the normality prism.

Sociopaths are often reactive when backed into a tight corner but have sufficient chutzpah to hide in plain sight Think Huhne, think Aitken, think Archer This means when you get loads of them together acting reactively to save their own backsides you get the sort of omnishambles we are likely witnessing; the thing you think can’t possibly happen.

If anything comes out of this dig, it will most likely be at the very moment there is a tipping point (probably in public opinion) and all the sociopaths will slide seamlessly to one end of the see saw whilst the Mcs get thrown into the air. Should this occur they will be abandoned quicker than a dog can shake off fleas. Then you might see the sociopaths devise a once in a lifetime collective arse-covering exercise that will be much more worthy of an intelligence led operation.

And finally, you said:

“Someone has been very clever levering this deplorable duo into the hearts of the nation, and I have no idea how it has been so successful, because neither of them are remotely endearing and there are no public displays of despair to stick in the mind. I can only think that it is the over-saturation of the media with Maddie's image and the repeated portrayal of quiet, dignified, middle class doctors against the odds, victimised, which drives the sympathy home. “

Rather than this just being the opportunism and brazen behaviour of a couple who got lucky, then? Or a couple who pressed a few productive buttons? You really do think a “someone” has been applying leverage, after all. A certain someone who has worked tirelessly to do this on behalf of two nobodies who lost a child through contemptible neglect abroad. A "someone" who set out to deliberately project an image of them onto a nation. That sounds like high level interference to me. And still you can say this was no organised cover-up? You have certainly identified a commonality with the rest of us in saying you have "no idea how it has been so successful".

So, you see, that is the reason some of us were looking at the politicians and political events of the day in order to try and find an answer to that conundrum you pose. Not so illogical is it?
----------------------------------------------

It looks as if we must all keep digging our own little patch for these answers then contrast and compare in seemly manner....... hopefully. yes

by mouse 10.06.14 11:36

MarcoG wrote:@mouse
I have never believed that the police really are chasing burglars, foreign paedos, dead monteiros, binmen, rastafarians, and Dutch barechested hooligans.
It's mostly tabloidsuggestions. And the police are sometimes giving nonsense clues to the public.

BIB - And how could you possibly know that?

by Guest 10.06.14 11:41

mouse wrote:
MarcoG wrote:@mouse
I have never believed that the police really are chasing burglars, foreign paedos, dead monteiros, binmen, rastafarians, and Dutch barechested hooligans.
It's mostly tabloidsuggestions. And the police are sometimes giving nonsense clues to the public.

BIB - And how could you possibly know that?

I know I would. Or would it be a good idea to tell your media-manipulating 'persons of interest' exactly what you're up to?

by Hicks 10.06.14 11:41

CynicalAL, I ask again......what was the role of Clarence Mitchel? Mitchel gave up his career to assist the McCann's. How could he be so sure that Madeleine's disappearance would continue past his resignation?

by mouse 10.06.14 11:45

In response to MarcoG

So no facts then - just your opinion and what you would do if your were running the Investigation.

by Guest 10.06.14 11:49

mouse wrote:In response to MarcoG

So no facts then - just your opinion and what you would do if your were running the Investigation.

What are your facts, mouse? Where is your proof of police chasing crazy leads, improbable suspects and telling them months in advance? Of course they're not telling you and me what they already know. Come on.

by AndyB 10.06.14 11:54

MarcoG wrote:
AndyB wrote:

My objection was to the description of those of us that consider a huge cover-up a possibility as "almost psychotic" but I accept that you meant no offence.

I'm not crying whitewash every time Mitchell spins some nonsense to the media I'm crying it response to the unprecedented reaction of the powers that be to an offence in a foreign jurisdiction, set in the context of an establishment, at least part of which is depraved and corrupt and willing to go to any lengths to hide their depravity.

I don't follow your logic when you say that telling people that there is a cover up is telling them to demand an end to the investigation. If it tells them to do anything surely it tells them to demand an end the cover-up and investigate honestly
I see it wasn't nice of me to say that, I'm sure people who think there's a whitewash are overall just as eager to get to the end of this in justice.
The tone of my reaction was a reaction to some people accusing CynicAl, who writes extremely long posts which, when printed out, exceed in volume a six meter bookshelf, of being something like an agent for going hard against the whitewashtheory. I was reading this thread, those condemning postings, and it felt a bit sectarian.

I think CynicAl's postings contain a lot of logic, and fair reasoning, as far as I've managed to read.

As to who benefits from public distrust in the investigation. I think that if the police want anything solved in this case, they have to succeed now. From now on. If this fails, SY will never again get the resources funded by the public, the political cooperation nor the Portuguese alongside to ever find out and make public what happened to poor Maddie McCann.

The guilty parties have in my only modest opinion managed once to nail the police, in the person of Amaral, to a false pole of shame. I would hate to see something like that happening again.

Don't worry about it Marco. I was perhaps being a little over sensitive and there's nothing wrong with you being forthright in expressing your opinions. I agree that if we're going to find out what happened to Madeleine it has to be now but all the indications are that SY are going about it the wrong way and give the impression of looking for facts to retro-fit a theory.

I agree with you to an extent about cynicAl but I think he thinks that those who believe in a cover-up are of the opinion that its all encompassing and designed to protect the McCanns. I don't think for one minute that the McCanns are influential enough to get that protection and I don't necessarily think it's so all-encompassing. I believe it far more nuanced than that. As an example, consider the paedophile ring that is alleged to reach as high as no 10. I believe that this ring exists, or at least existed in the past, and that it includes in its number MPs, senior civil servants, judges and senior police officers (as well as other less significant figures). That doesn't mean that all MPs, civil servants, judges and senior police officers are paedophiles, far from it. Where the conspiracy spreads on a political level is that, Tom Watson aside, those people that are aware or have suspicions are silenced by party leaders through fear of the public backlash. Politicians are reviled by a large percentage of the population and the revelation that some of them have been raping babies carries a high risk of public disorder. Add to this the actual paedophiles are subtly applying pressure and influencing things to go there way (e.g. "Oh no minister, there no need for an enquiry, it will be too distracting") so if its investigated at all its only half-heartedly and the paedos get away with it. It happens not because they are protected personally but because the consequences for those that have their hands on the levers of power are potentially so severe that the paedophilia remains hidden.

My current beliefs stem from my wondering if the anomalous behaviour of the powers that be in relation to Madeleine McCann's disappearance could be explained by a similar process to the cover-up of establishment paedophilia: That something other than the McCanns is being protected for fear of the consequences should it be revealed, and I think that it can be explained this way. I would be very happy if someone could convince me that I'm being paranoid and that there is a perfectly innocent explanation rather than cover-up but my mind is always going to be coloured by the knowledge of what they're currently getting away with, the full scale of which I think maybe difficult to grasp unless you live in Britain

by Guest 10.06.14 11:58

@ CynicalAl today 10:22 am

　

"One more question. If this is a big government conspiracy from day one because of someone who was present in the resort at the time, then how do we trust Martin Grime, Mark Harrison, the favourable contributions alleged by British police investigators, the suspicions of British diplomats, and the PJ files? If this was all manipulation and control, why is it not controlled from outset?"

　

It was controlled from the outset, at least as far as was possible. You seem to forget that this case occurred in Portugal, I'm sure it would have been a whole different ball game if Maddie had disappeared in England. It's all very well to spout off about mass cover ups on a general scale but your grand gestures forget to take into consideration all the mysterious happenings surrounding the case, within the investigation and without. These issues have been discussed over and over again for the past seven years with many a differing view point put forward. Please don't presume to know better than the rest having ignored all the strange occurrences known to the world.

　

The GNR and PJ were on the case PDQ and had already started to smell a rat before the intervention of the British rendering the situation rather difficult for control from another country. Enter Clarence Mitchell! So what is your answer to the recent question posed by Hicks as regards Clarence Mitchell. A sentence or two will suffice.

by mouse 10.06.14 12:06

MarcoG wrote:
mouse wrote:In response to MarcoG

So no facts then - just your opinion and what you would do if your were running the Investigation.
What are your facts, mouse? Where is your proof of police chasing crazy leads, improbable suspects and telling them months in advance? Of course they're not telling you and me what they already know. Come on.

Difference being - I don't pretend to have any facts. I don't speculate on what might be going on in the background of an investigation, or what I hope to be happening - it could be anything from either side of an argument, and won't get us anywhere. I only come onto the forum to post when interesting factual information comes to light - this thread being about Goncalo Amaral and what he actually said recently - the only voice I listen to through the thick fog of speculation caused by the media - and I'm afraid SY to a certain extent. I mean what was the crime watch prog all about ? All it only served to do - was cause more confusion. And some might say achieved that aim.

Anyway, GA is on record now of casting huge doubt about this investigation - So I'll go with him. But perhaps you disagree with him?

Log in for more topics