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

CynicAl 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

Lets be real for a moment... If CM was deployed by top level people to protect the Mc's then what those top people sent was the equivalent of the cinematically proverbial 'state funded attorney provided if you can' t afford your own' - slimy, greasy turd that if he was American would be wearing a polyester suit and crocodile skin boots. He's tepid, stomach churning and insincere and everyone knows how crooked and self-absorbed he is. 

FFS, an intelligent high level conspiracy would have sent them a female PR, to empathise with KM and have people thinking 'an attractive, modern woman in PR would definitely never cover up a crime like this.' 

He was (i) either there in his own haste, to cash in, (ii) sent to keep an eye on them, (iii) sent to give them the worst image possible by someone who didn' t like them.

I thought they did send a female prior to CM - trouble was she didn't believe their story
I think you're forgetting that no decent self-respecting  person would have wanted to act on behalf of the MC Canns - they had to  resort to a self-promoting, publicity-seeking opportunist.

SallyVern wrote:
I just don't think there is anything more to this than the Mc's watching/protecting their own hide and that, unbeknown to them, there was an operation going on in Portugal around the same time and somewhere along the line the two merged. A serendipitous moment for the Mc's I'm sure but an embarrassment, at least now, to governments and the police force.

All in my humble opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

The Mccanns were extremely lucky.

Something ELSE was at the forefront that needed intervention, monitored, assistance, controlled.

It was not SOLELY for the benefit of a couple of silly docs.

endgame wrote:

CynicAl 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

Lets be real for a moment... If CM was deployed by top level people to protect the Mc's then what those top people sent was the equivalent of the cinematically proverbial 'state funded attorney provided if you can' t afford your own' - slimy, greasy turd that if he was American would be wearing a polyester suit and crocodile skin boots. He's tepid, stomach churning and insincere and everyone knows how crooked and self-absorbed he is. 

FFS, an intelligent high level conspiracy would have sent them a female PR, to empathise with KM and have people thinking 'an attractive, modern woman in PR would definitely never cover up a crime like this.' 

He was (i) either there in his own haste, to cash in, (ii) sent to keep an eye on them, (iii) sent to give them the worst image possible by someone who didn' t like them.

Or (iv) the one who just happened to be available and willing at the time. I think there is a tendency in this discussion to assume that all the movers and decision makers were totally absorbed in this, totally aware of all the facts and spent hours if not days working through options and planning decisions every step of the way. The reality is that an awful lot is done on the hoof, off the cuff by people who are juggling a thousand other things at the same time and are being drip fed bits and pieces from various sources. People also make mistakes. What happens is not always what was intended. We must always allow for the possibility that what looks planned and premeditated can in fact be uncoordinated and instinctive.

I think thats so true and something we are all guilty of forgetting.  Those that have been involved in this whole 'thing' - from the highest establishment figures down to the TAPAS 9 are bound to have made a number of miscalculations, planning errors, poor decisions along the way. We can theorise and speculate all we like but this was not a sleek operation and no way could they have gauged the massive public interest and the publishing of the police files.

About Clarence Mitchell (again).

Of all the things that could be provided.... why did the Government decide to send in a media manager?

Why did they think the media needed managing?

If that isn't one those things that make you go hmmmm then I don't know what will.

A child is reported missing every 3 minutes in the UK by the way... do they all get a media manager?

CynicAl wrote:

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.

All things being equal. 

The difference between you and me is that I think this case runs on the time frame precedent already set.  You seem to think it should run on a time frame which satisfies your attention span, else you'll (possibly falsely) believe that the whole thing is a cover up. 

No one knows until the fat lass crows, but the available evidence simply does not support an organised, grand high level conspiracy which is exactly what would be needed to have a hope of putting this case into a box of obscurity, and exactlywhat is not in any way "in evidence."

I just checked the government coffers and found another £10 million that can thrown at this case. No one should complain because uncovering nothing of significance is money well spent. I'm assuming you're happy with this scenario?

http://www.theguardian.com/media/blog/2012/may/11/leveson-inquiry-rebekah-brooks-live

Brooks is asked about the serialisation in the Sunday Times and the Sun of a book by Kate McCann, the mother of Madeleine.
Gerry McCann told the inquiry that they were initially "horrified" about the serialisation, but were later convinced after News International pledged to back their campaign if they agreed to the serialisation.
Brooks can't remember how much News International paid for the book serialisation.
"Hundreds of thousands. It wasn't £1m. Half a million maybe?"
She adds: "I had always got on very well with Gerry and Kate McCann. I think if asked they would be very positive about the Sun. In this case I thought Dominic Mohan's idea to run the campaign, this review of Madeleine's case by the home secretary, was the right thing to do … I don't think I spoke to Theresa May directly. Dominic [Mohan] may have done."

12.52pm: Brooks says she did not take the McCann issue up with Downing Street.
Editor Dominic Mohan or Tom Newton-Dunn, the Sun's political editor, will have spoken to No 10 or the Home Office about reopening the Madeleine investigation after the Sun's campaign, she says.
Was there an ultimatum or threat to the home secretary?
"I'm pretty sure there will not have been a threat, but you will have to ask Dominic Mohan," she says.
Jay says he has been told that Brooks intervened personally with the prime minister and said the Sun would put Theresa May on the front page every day until the paper's demands were met.
Brooks says that is not true. "I did not say to the prime minister we would put Theresa May on the front page every day. If I'd had any conversations with No 10 directly they would not have been particularly about that," she adds.

12.55pm: Lord Justice Leveson intervenes. He asks whether Brooks was involved in a strategy to threaten No 10 in order to obtain a review of the Madeleine investigation.
"I was certainly part of a strategy to launch a campaign in order to get a review for the McCanns," Brooks says, disputing that it was a "threat".
Leveson: "Give me another word for it, would you?"
Brooks: "Persuade?"
Leveson appears unconvinced.

12.57pm: Jay suggests the government yielded to Brooks's pressure to reopen the McCann investigation. "It only took about a day," he notes, drily.
Brooks insists that this was a worthwhile campaign.

@ CynicAl

"The difference between you and me is that I think this case runs on the time frame precedent already set."

　

What do you mean?

@ CynicAl

"Also aware that successful cover-up depends on intelligent people behaving intelligently."

　

Look no further than Jimmy Savile. That's an awful lot of intelligent people behaving intelligently?

@ CynicAl

FFS, an intelligent high level conspiracy would have sent them a female PR, to empathise with KM and have people thinking 'an attractive, modern woman in PR would definitely never cover up a crime like this.'


Justine McGuiness for example?

Helenmeg wrote - I think thats so true and something we are all guilty of forgetting. Those that have been involved in this whole 'thing' - from the highest establishment figures down to the TAPAS 9 are bound to have made a number of miscalculations, planning errors, poor decisions along the way. We can theorise and speculate all we like but this was not a sleek operation and no way could they have gauged the massive public interest and the publishing of the police files.

This interview is very interesting (around 3 weeks in I think).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzKS6HnTKOM

Gerry himself says it was a "million to one chance" of this happening (foot straight in mouth!).

At 7.25 Gerry talks about "a conglomerate of circumstances that came together" and talks about using the media to "influence the campaign".

He also says that when 'it' happens again the 'template' they have set will alter it!!!

I can't decide whether this interview smacks of premeditation or their disbelief it looked like they were getting away with it.

BlueBag wrote:About Clarence Mitchell (again).

Of all the things that could be provided.... why did the Government decide to send in a media manager?

Why did they think the media needed managing?

If that isn't one those things that make you go hmmmm then I don't know what will.

A child is reported missing every 3 minutes in the UK by the way... do they all get a media manager?

You are quite right.  It's not who was sent out to Portugal as spokesperson, it's why!

i just don't see a grand conspiracy to protect the McCanns. 

Those of us who follow the case closely are a minority. The more a person digs, the more suspicious they become of the McCanns and the Tapas lot and that is how  found this forum. I think sometimes that people who follow the case closely can get a bit caught up in it and imagine that there simply has to be some top level person being protected or that this is a whitewash.

Personally, I feel that the fact that this happened on Portuguese soil is a complicating factor. Had Madeleine disappeared from her own bedroom in Rothley and the same scenario been presented by the Tapas crew and the McCanns we'd be looking at a very different case. I think the fact that government became involved in any shape in the early days had everything to do with the fact that the family were seen as British holidaymakers to Portugal who had been victims of a terrible crime. Also, because it happened 'out foreign', I'd imagine the British public were more conditioned to sympathise with the family than ask the type of questions that would have come to mind had it happened on British soil.

With the financial collapse in late 2007, and the economic uncertainty that has followed in the intervening years not to mention all the other issues being managed by political leaders I'd safely say that neither the governments led by Blair, Browne or Cameron could give much of a hoot about the McCanns and I'd wager that the lack of focus on them has everything to do with the confused circumstances of what happened, the lack of evidence either way and the fact that the people involved were highly intelligent and therefore less likely to mess up whatever it was that happened. I think the McCanns have been very lucky, not the beneficiaries of some grand conspiracy.

I recently tried to interest a lawyer friend of mine in this case (he finds it boring). I put discrepancy after discrepancy to him and each time he replied 'circumstantial evidence'. At the end of the conversation he conceded that he'd need to read up on the case but intimated that sounds to him as though there just isn't enough concrete evidence and that this is what is holding everything up. He said circumstantial evidence just wouldn't be enough to bring this to a courtroom.

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl

FFS, an intelligent high level conspiracy would have sent them a female PR, to empathise with KM and have people thinking 'an attractive, modern woman in PR would definitely never cover up a crime like this.'


Justine McGuiness for example?

The general consensus on the forums when Ms McGuiness was at the helm of the McCann PR machine was that she was inept. If only we'd known then what Clarence Mitchell would become!

IMO she didn't help the couple at all and I got the impression she wasn't a fan of Gerry's. Remember after she left she sued when a "source close to the McCanns" told a Sunday newspaper she had effectively fleeced them of fund money and she also wrote a not-so-helpful article about her time with the couple.

ShuBob wrote:The general consensus on the forums when Ms McGuiness was at the helm of the McCann PR machine was that she was inept. 

More likely that she saw through the crock of sh#t charade and didn't want to be part of it. 

They needed a lying weasel to back them up. Enter Clarence.

Some of CynicalAl`s thoughts I agree with, particularly `if there was need for a cover-up, it would have been achieved long time ago`.

And haven`t you all wondered why the McCann`s seem to be fighting the `establishment`?

Say the establishment want it covered up but the McCanns don`t.  It`s the McCanns that have kept it prominent.

There doesn`t need to have been anything dodgey going on at the OC on that holiday - hardly think Diane Webster would have been there if there was.  Also if there had been a high profile person there at the time, indulging in anything dodgey, dozens of people would have seen him, including the 3 sons of that company director related to Margaret Hodge. 

A simple explanation IMO is that GM (and maybe the other T7) have got dirt on someone high profile and they could use it as leverage to demand help from government.  They could have been phoning for help on the Tuesday/Wednesday, threatening to go to the press if they didn`t get assistance.  The government assessed GM as dangerous so arranged to snatch the child`s body in order to show GM what happens when he issues threats.  And when that happened GM went to the press.  And that`s when the government rushed in like a tsunami and eventually sent in CM (I`ve read it was Peter Mandelson that sent him but no proof of this) to take control, shut GM up and issue appropriate statements to the press.

The McCanns are still fighting the establishment IMO - they want their daughter`s body back.

But how the hell this expensive dig fits into this and who`s instructions SY are following I can`t work out !

All suggestion only.

I don't understand why Mr Amaral would want to undermine in such a public and thoroughly unprofessional manner the efforts of the Portuguese Authorities and the British Police.  I believe there is a proper investigation going on, so do many others on the forum with some very good posts published by cynicAL, the person with Ireland in their name and someone else who's name escapes me (sorry).

He seems to have lost his cool.  He's entitled to his opinion of course but it's the manner of delivery that's inconsistent with his previous persona.

View-from-Ireland wrote:i just don't see a grand conspiracy to protect the McCanns. 

Those of us who follow the case closely are a minority. The more a person digs, the more suspicious they become of the McCanns and the Tapas lot and that is how  found this forum. I think sometimes that people who follow the case closely can get a bit caught up in it and imagine that there simply has to be some top level person being protected or that this is a whitewash.

Personally, I feel that the fact that this happened on Portuguese soil is a complicating factor. Had Madeleine disappeared from her own bedroom in Rothley and the same scenario been presented by the Tapas crew and the McCanns we'd be looking at a very different case. I think the fact that government became involved in any shape in the early days had everything to do with the fact that the family were seen as British holidaymakers to Portugal who had been victims of a terrible crime. Also, because it happened 'out foreign', I'd imagine the British public were more conditioned to sympathise with the family than ask the type of questions that would have come to mind had it happened on British soil.

With the financial collapse in late 2007, and the economic uncertainty that has followed in the intervening years not to mention all the other issues being managed by political leaders I'd safely say that neither the governments led by Blair, Browne or Cameron could give much of a hoot about the McCanns and I'd wager that the lack of focus on them has everything to do with the confused circumstances of what happened, the lack of evidence either way and the fact that the people involved were highly intelligent and therefore less likely to mess up whatever it was that happened. I think the McCanns have been very lucky, not the beneficiaries of some grand conspiracy.

I recently tried to interest a lawyer friend of mine in this case (he finds it boring). I put discrepancy after discrepancy to him and each time he replied 'circumstantial evidence'. At the end of the conversation he conceded that he'd need to read up on the case but intimated that sounds to him as though there just isn't enough concrete evidence and that this is what is holding everything up. He said circumstantial evidence just wouldn't be enough to bring this to a courtroom.

I too was aroused by suspicion once I delved deeper and read up on this case as many, many others have too. The scent being emitted wasn't a healthy one with more and more questions being raised and no answers forthcoming.  Unsurprisingly, when one looks at youtube paying attention to the varying comments on the varying videos concerning the McCanns one can clearly see where the weight of opinion lies in taking direct aim at the parents and it appears to be growing now on a colossal scale.  Initially, and like most others I'm sure, I was devastated once the news hit the headlines that Maddie had disappeared. With the media storm that followed it seemed that blame was being put in the direction of the authorities in not handling the case correctly from the outset. I too was curing the Portuguese authorities.

I'm not a legal expert by any stretch but I feel, like most people probably would, that I have a decent amount of common sense that tells me when something smells or isn't quite right. I can't get my head around why the McCanns have not been asked / forced to assist with this investigation. Surely, in a review of any case, all evidence, circumstantial or not, needs and should be investigated thoroughly. From where I'm standing the 'circumstantial' evidence just seems to be being pushed aside and completely disregarded. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

If evidence that's already been gathered, for one example the expert sniffer dogs, is being regarded as circumstantial and simply tossed to one side then what evidence has there to be for it to be labelled compelling? 

As draconian as it may sound, if this was my call then the McCanns would be put through the mill starting with lie detection and an explanation as to why pivotal questions were not answered by Kate. For me that would be a good starting block. 

If they've nothing to hide then step forward please. They're probably hoping that it's all just going to go away. But the word is out and general public opinion is gathering momentum even more so. The fact that they have hidden behind their so called celebrity status and built themselves up so much means that the eventual fall will be even more so dramatic.

all imo................by the way.

The Rooster wrote:I don't understand why Mr Amaral would want to undermine in such a public and thoroughly unprofessional manner the efforts of the Portuguese Authorities and the British Police.  I believe there is a proper investigation going on, so do many others on the forum with some very good posts published by cynicAL, the person with Ireland in their name and someone else who's name escapes me (sorry).

He seems to have lost his cool.  He's entitled to his opinion of course but it's the manner of delivery that's inconsistent with his previous persona.

Deliberate diversionary tactic?

Sorry Canada 12, I misread your post.  Why would he want to engage such a tactic?

Hello Rooster - I assumed canada 12 was in fact suggesting GA was engaged in diversionary tactics

canada12 wrote:

The Rooster wrote:I don't understand why Mr Amaral would want to undermine in such a public and thoroughly unprofessional manner the efforts of the Portuguese Authorities and the British Police.  I believe there is a proper investigation going on, so do many others on the forum with some very good posts published by cynicAL, the person with Ireland in their name and someone else who's name escapes me (sorry).

He seems to have lost his cool.  He's entitled to his opinion of course but it's the manner of delivery that's inconsistent with his previous persona.

Deliberate diversionary tactic?

Yep. Look here, not over there!!

Garrincha wrote:Hello Rooster - I assumed canada 12 was in fact suggesting GA was engaged in diversionary tactics

Yes, that's right. Exactly what I was suggesting. I still believe the PJ and SY are acting in unison and I also believe that everything we've seen in the media is carefully designed to keep the suspects (and the general public) in the dark while the real investigation is going on behind the scenes.

I think GA is being deliberately distracting by bringing in the idea of MI5 being at the heart of it all.

Well wouldn't that be bloody marvellous if they're all singing from the same hymn sheet.  But I don't know if they are! Johnny Blacksmith seems to have taken great exception to that interview.  I really think someone has informed, cracked, grassed or whatever.  Well... let's stay positive.

Dee Coy wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Mirage, I reckon there's several contributors within the Bureau. They often sign off with different initials and have varying writing styles. There's the hideously vitriolic Antony Sharples, the clever insightful one and the hilariously witty one. And the cynical one?   

Thanks Dee Coy. I've heard that said. Thing is, they should sort themselves out if that's the case. Either they are promulgating a common view or, if they're not, they should put their individual names to their articles. What are they men or mice?. "Confusion is good" is Gerry's specialty. I thought they were a serious outfit once upon a fairy tale.  I hate fakes, I really do.

 There seems a lunar aspect to their outbursts. I will go consult my almanac.  

Certainly lost a lot of credibility with today's offering. Reminds me a bit of when religions become so powerful they start believing the words of the self-aggrandizing men within them and forget what Jesus et al actually believed and preached. Or when the upwardly-mobile start to believe their own snobbish hype and deny the two-up two-down they were brought up in and don't invite their parents to their weddings.

If they have to speak in tongues to look "in the know" it's clear they lost the plot. BS flipflopping and tongue speaking is becoming quite pathetic.