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

Doug D wrote:KM's take on CM's initial stint (KH1 p. 170)


‘At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked. Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were still providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked. It had been a month since Madeleine’s disappearance, so maybe they were simply trying gently to prompt us into appointing somebody of our own to help us.
Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine’s Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete’.

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then.  I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?

Doug D wrote:KM's take on CM's initial stint (KH1 p. 170)


‘At the beginning of June, Gerry had a call from the director of communications at the Foreign Office. There was concern in the government, he said, that Clarence was ‘becoming the story’. I am not quite sure what he meant by this. Clarence was certainly a visible presence and perhaps his open, affable style prevented him from being quite as anonymous as the Foreign Office would have liked. Perhaps it had drawn attention to the fact that they were still providing us with a media spokesperson and questions were being asked. It had been a month since Madeleine’s disappearance, so maybe they were simply trying gently to prompt us into appointing somebody of our own to help us.
Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine’s Fund to employ someone to replace Clarence once our campaign visits were complete’.

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then.  I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?

No Gollum, you clearly don't get the picture. 

I'm into truth. I'm into facts.  I'm into evidence. I'm into intelligent investigation, rational theories and informed conclusions. If the evidence leads me, by way of proof, to conspiracy then I can handle that. But don't lead me to a set of dirty windows and tell me someone recently washed them secretly for an insidious reason and proceed to give me a list of the most influential people in the area at the time. If the windows are dirtier than they were before, I don't care of you have an eyewitness that can put Prince Charles with a bucket and sponge two streets away. They ain't been washed if they're dirtier than before. 

I have a natural aversion to bull, and when someone says 'you don' t believe in conspiracy theories' with the insinuation that I'm intellectually defective for not doing so, it nauseates me that someone so mindlessly demeans the process of genuine investigation by being unable to tell the difference between the uncovering of inconvenient truths and the promotion of any and every batpoo insane speculation, wild accusation and witchhunting lynch mob. 

I believe in conspiracies that you've never imagined, but I base my beliefs, my conclusions on where the evidence takes me. 

When you start with the assumption of a wild, preposterous, pointless, self-defeating conspiracy you will never be satisfied with a mundane answer. You'll always assume you're correct no matter how implausible.

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:I ask again - what purpose does disingenuously reopening the investigation have which wouldn't be better served by having left it alone? Do you really think the majority of the red top reading public thought the PJ did such a good job that SY had to spend £10m to (unsuccessfully so far) try to change public perception? 

Again you're ignoring the context. The establishment were quite happy to leave it all alone until Rebekah Brooks threatened David Cameron with god knows what. It was this threat that caused the review to be opened. Having been forced to open the review the powers that be, or at least that part of them that wants something hidden, have to deal with the situation. What better way is there to do this than to ensure that the review's conclusion, whatever it might be, maintains the secret?

A better question would be why did the review get upgraded to an investigation when the Met has no jurisdiction over abductions in Portugal? (The only answer I have is that the Met cannot be investigating abduction)

ETA And can we have a response to the question re Clarence Mitchel that Hicks asked and that Gollum is pressing for? I'd like to read what you think as well

CynicAl wrote:

Gollum wrote:@ CynicAl,

Ok. ok then.  I get the picture, you're generally averse to conspiracy theories which is fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion the same as the next person.

What about Clarence Mitchell?

No Gollum, you clearly don't get the picture. 

I'm into truth. I'm into facts.  I'm into evidence. I'm into intelligent investigation, rational theories and informed conclusions. If the evidence leads me, by way of proof, to conspiracy then I can handle that. But don't lead me to a set of dirty windows and tell me someone recently washed them secretly for an insidious reason and proceed to give me a list of the most influential people in the area at the time. If the windows are dirtier than they were before, I don't care of you have an eyewitness that can put Prince Charles with a bucket and sponge two streets away. They ain't been washed if they're dirtier than before. 

I have a natural aversion to bull, and when someone says 'you don' t believe in conspiracy theories' with the insinuation that I'm intellectually defective for not doing so, it nauseates me that someone so mindlessly demeans the process of genuine investigation by being unable to tell the difference between the uncovering of inconvenient truths and the promotion of any and every batpoo insane speculation, wild accusation and witchhunting lynch mob. 

I believe in conspiracies that you've never imagined, but I base my beliefs, my conclusions on where the evidence takes me. 

When you start with the assumption of a wild, preposterous, pointless, self-defeating conspiracy you will never be satisfied with a mundane answer. You'll always assume you're correct no matter how implausible.

Doug D wrote:Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.

He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

Justine went out on 22nd June and stayed till September.

Mirage wrote:

Doug D wrote:Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.

He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

Justine went out on 22nd June and stayed till September.

That would be the Justine who memorably told Geraldo to stick to THE OFFICIAL LINE when he went into meltdown when asked about the dogs' evidence.

Here she is from circa 0.33 trying to save the situation. At around 0.37 she says:

"JUST SAY IT'S SPECULATION SO THAT YOU CAN THEN STICK TO THE OFFICIAL LINE"

OFFICIAL LINE? GRACIOUS. SURELY NOT. That would be a conspiracy theory too far, and all logicians know that cannot be the case.

You can see the cogs turning on KH's face. No wonder she shuts Justine up: "It's 'ot in 'ere. Give 'im a minute."

You see, if you don't dig around the political scene you won't dig anything up will you? That's logic of a sort. Depends on whether you want to sit and write piss poor put-downs of others' efforts. and dip into the insults bag when the sophistry wears thin.

Windy Miller. Listen and learn. Especially from others here who could leave you standing in the research department.

 

 

Mirage wrote:
You see, if you don't dig around the political scene you won't dig anything up will you? That's logic of a sort. Depends on whether you want to sit and write piss poor put-downs of others' efforts. and dip into the insults bag when the sophistry wears thin.

Windy Miller. Listen and learn. Especially from others here who could leave you standing in the research department.

 

 

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:I ask again - what purpose does disingenuously reopening the investigation have which wouldn't be better served by having left it alone? Do you really think the majority of the red top reading public thought the PJ did such a good job that SY had to spend £10m to (unsuccessfully so far) try to change public perception? 

Again you're ignoring the context. The establishment were quite happy to leave it all alone until Rebekah Brooks threatened David Cameron with god knows what. It was this threat that caused the review to be opened. Having been forced to open the review the powers that be, or at least that part of them that wants something hidden, have to deal with the situation. What better way is there to do this than to ensure that the review's conclusion, whatever it might be, maintains the secret?

A better question would be why did the review get upgraded to an investigation when the Met has no jurisdiction over abductions in Portugal? (The only answer I have is that the Met cannot be investigating abduction)

ETA And can we have a response to the question re Clarence Mitchel that Hicks asked and that Gollum is pressing for? I'd like to read what you think as well

I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk about context, talk about context. But be broad and thorough, don't just invent a context based on a summarised fragment of gossip abstracted from the annals of time. 

If you think that a government trying to bury a cold case reopened it because a scandalised newspaper editor 'threatened the PM with bad publicity' you're delusional. People serious enough to commit to being accessory to infanticide or pervert the course of justice aren't going to be threatened by someone whose neck is on a political or criminal block. To think that's all there is to Brooks' claim is naive and ignorant of the nature of both NI and the Tory Government. Arguably if RB was coercing DC to pervert the course of justice DC could terminate RB just on her involvement and blackmail alone. 

To establish the 'context' you have to know what she said and why she said it, and the background to it. You can't have Murdoch Ltd trying to save the Mc's and trying to drown them simultaneously. Did RB want the case reopened to corrupt it, or to conclude it? Without knowing that you can't know what will that interchange represented, and all you have are fragmented claims with no qualification.

MarcoG wrote:Government involvement in 2007, like Clarence Mitchell, with his characteristically open, affable style of lying, getting sent out to help the distressed family after the murder, sorry, loss of their child, doesn't mean that the searching and digging now done by Grange is part of a cover up of something very very secret.

PeterMac wrote:

Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

PeterMac wrote:

Doug D wrote: wrote:
Yes, CM flew back to PdL with GM on 22nd May, having apparently met him for the first time on 21st.
He then hung around with them for three weeks, before disappearing for a few months.

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:Government involvement in 2007, like Clarence Mitchell, with his characteristically open, affable style of lying, getting sent out to help the distressed family after the murder, sorry, loss of their child, doesn't mean that the searching and digging now done by Grange is part of a cover up of something very very secret.

Quite right but the government was involved in 2007 for a reason. Does that reason still exist today? My view is that it does and that Grange is underpinned by a need to hide the original reason for governmental involvement.

Quite why Grange came about is a moot point

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:I ask again - what purpose does disingenuously reopening the investigation have which wouldn't be better served by having left it alone? Do you really think the majority of the red top reading public thought the PJ did such a good job that SY had to spend £10m to (unsuccessfully so far) try to change public perception? 

Again you're ignoring the context. The establishment were quite happy to leave it all alone until Rebekah Brooks threatened David Cameron with god knows what. It was this threat that caused the review to be opened. Having been forced to open the review the powers that be, or at least that part of them that wants something hidden, have to deal with the situation. What better way is there to do this than to ensure that the review's conclusion, whatever it might be, maintains the secret?

A better question would be why did the review get upgraded to an investigation when the Met has no jurisdiction over abductions in Portugal? (The only answer I have is that the Met cannot be investigating abduction)

ETA And can we have a response to the question re Clarence Mitchel that Hicks asked and that Gollum is pressing for? I'd like to read what you think as well

I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk about context, talk about context. But be broad and thorough, don't just invent a context based on a summarised fragment of gossip abstracted from the annals of time. 

If you think that a government trying to bury a cold case reopened it because a scandalised newspaper editor 'threatened the PM with bad publicity' you're delusional. People serious enough to commit to being accessory to infanticide or pervert the course of justice aren't going to be threatened by someone whose neck is on a political or criminal block. To think that's all there is to Brooks' claim is naive and ignorant of the nature of both NI and the Tory Government. Arguably if RB was coercing DC to pervert the course of justice DC could terminate RB just on her involvement and blackmail alone. 

To establish the 'context' you have to know what she said and why she said it, and the background to it. You can't have Murdoch Ltd trying to save the Mc's and trying to drown them simultaneously. Did RB want the case reopened to corrupt it, or to conclude it? Without knowing that you can't know what will that interchange represented, and all you have are fragmented claims with no qualification.

Halfwit wrote:@CynicalAl.
 
I enjoy your posts but I can't debate with you and others, I lack the brainpower hence my username but I trust my instincts which in seventy years have got me out of scrapes, especially in the late sixties/seventies when I was carefree and naive. Just one example - my friend and I opened a tiny basement charcoal grill restaurant in Earl's Court. Within three weeks the protection gang came down to suss us out. Two of them asking questions the first time (we used to be there in the afternoons cooking starters and puds) then they came back with their Big Man who didn't utter a word. Just stood there with his overcoat on his shoulders trying to look like Marlon Brando.

Of course we'd wondered about the first visit but the second appearance was a bit scary with their stance. We just carried on with what we were doing and being friendly dumb blonde idiots. Eventually Marlon decided we weren't worth bothering with and gave the nod to his minions and we were never troubled again.

My point:-


 "driven by a need for control and the need to manipulate public perception and opinion, until they got so used to lying that it became a new truth to them. I suspect the first thing they'll do if arrested and convicted, is really grieve. I doubt they've even given themselves the chance, yet. "

To me is a very perceptive observation.

The alternative of course is that they may never be able to truly grieve.

Gollum wrote:

Halfwit wrote:@CynicalAl.
 
I enjoy your posts but I can't debate with you and others, I lack the brainpower hence my username but I trust my instincts which in seventy years have got me out of scrapes, especially in the late sixties/seventies when I was carefree and naive. Just one example - my friend and I opened a tiny basement charcoal grill restaurant in Earl's Court. Within three weeks the protection gang came down to suss us out. Two of them asking questions the first time (we used to be there in the afternoons cooking starters and puds) then they came back with their Big Man who didn't utter a word. Just stood there with his overcoat on his shoulders trying to look like Marlon Brando.

Of course we'd wondered about the first visit but the second appearance was a bit scary with their stance. We just carried on with what we were doing and being friendly dumb blonde idiots. Eventually Marlon decided we weren't worth bothering with and gave the nod to his minions and we were never troubled again.

My point:-


 "driven by a need for control and the need to manipulate public perception and opinion, until they got so used to lying that it became a new truth to them. I suspect the first thing they'll do if arrested and convicted, is really grieve. I doubt they've even given themselves the chance, yet. "

To me is a very perceptive observation.

The alternative of course is that they may never be able to truly grieve.

Unless I missed something in the small print, I don't believe there is any stipulation by the forum administrators that a particular level of intelligence is required before a registered member can comment on any topic.  Don't be put off, we are all here for the same reason, I hope!

I rather like the name Halfwit, it has a quality of simplicity and honesty.  On that basis I think I'll change my user name to dimwit!

MarcoG wrote:

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:Government involvement in 2007, like Clarence Mitchell, with his characteristically open, affable style of lying, getting sent out to help the distressed family after the murder, sorry, loss of their child, doesn't mean that the searching and digging now done by Grange is part of a cover up of something very very secret.

Quite right but the government was involved in 2007 for a reason. Does that reason still exist today? My view is that it does and that Grange is underpinned by a need to hide the original reason for governmental involvement.

Quite why Grange came about is a moot point

There's only a reason to think so, if you have a good reason to think that the original cover uppers, if involvement ever was more than servicing assistance to the parents that got corrupted at parents' level, still need to take such huge mediacovered action, in Portugal, apparently granted by a Portuguese judge, with so much manpower on the ground, supervised by Portuguese police, co-coördinated by the CPS, and paid for by the public through the politicians of today, in order to cover it all up.
Let alone that nobody breaks rank.
 
Only then.

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:Government involvement in 2007, like Clarence Mitchell, with his characteristically open, affable style of lying, getting sent out to help the distressed family after the murder, sorry, loss of their child, doesn't mean that the searching and digging now done by Grange is part of a cover up of something very very secret.

Quite right but the government was involved in 2007 for a reason. Does that reason still exist today? My view is that it does and that Grange is underpinned by a need to hide the original reason for governmental involvement.

Quite why Grange came about is a moot point

There's only a reason to think so, if you have a good reason to think that the original cover uppers, if involvement ever was more than servicing assistance to the parents that got corrupted at parents' level, still need to take such huge mediacovered action, in Portugal, apparently granted by a Portuguese judge, with so much manpower on the ground, supervised by Portuguese police, co-coördinated by the CPS, and paid for by the public through the politicians of today, in order to cover it all up.
Let alone that nobody breaks rank.
 
Only then.

I understand what you're saying but I don't believe the Portuguese police, are involved in the cover-up. Neither are the majority of the Met/CPS. It only takes a guiding hand at the top (such as restricting Grange to abduction theories only for example) to hide the reasons for the government getting involved in 2007. Don't forget we still don't know why they did get involved so the cover-up, if one exists, is working.

Sceptic wrote:

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:Government involvement in 2007, like Clarence Mitchell, with his characteristically open, affable style of lying, getting sent out to help the distressed family after the murder, sorry, loss of their child, doesn't mean that the searching and digging now done by Grange is part of a cover up of something very very secret.

Quite right but the government was involved in 2007 for a reason. Does that reason still exist today? My view is that it does and that Grange is underpinned by a need to hide the original reason for governmental involvement.

Quite why Grange came about is a moot point

There's only a reason to think so, if you have a good reason to think that the original cover uppers, if involvement ever was more than servicing assistance to the parents that got corrupted at parents' level, still need to take such huge mediacovered action, in Portugal, apparently granted by a Portuguese judge, with so much manpower on the ground, supervised by Portuguese police, co-coördinated by the CPS, and paid for by the public through the politicians of today, in order to cover it all up.
Let alone that nobody breaks rank.
 
Only then.

I understand what you're saying but I don't believe the Portuguese police, are involved in the cover-up. Neither are the majority of the Met/CPS. It only takes a guiding hand at the top (such as restricting Grange to abduction theories only for example) to hide the reasons for the government getting involved in 2007. Don't forget we still don't know why they did get involved so the cover-up, if one exists, is working.

But it is a totally different government (conservative/libdem) today than it was in 2007 (Labour)

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

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."

Your certainly desperate to shoot down anybody who merely hints at any sort of conspiracy / cover up. Why is that when there is clear evidence that an enormous amount of help by government officials etc. was put in place from the get-go. Anf what about the CM question you keep being asked to comment on.....