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

Popcorn 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.

I am no fan of Clarence Mitchell (or the Conservative party, for that matter), but if his presence at someone's side is guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, it seems odd that the Tories should have selected him to represent them at the next election.

Well, being objective for a moment, all the things that make him a terrible choice for a PR in a case like this are generally prerequisites for politics in the Tory party.

And I didn't say that his very presence was guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, I'm suggesting that he might not necessarily have been paid to give them a good image. If for a moment you were agreeing that he was a terrible choice and did a poor job for them, serving to make them appear more guilty, then you can also imagine for a moment that if the mysterious benefactor who paid his salary had an ulterior motive to have direct access to the McCann camp, to steer the direction of their PR team unhelpfully, then it is also arguable that the hasty procurement of CM pre-empted the more considered procurement of someone recommended and hired directly, by someone who wanted a more favourable, better considered outcome. Someone wanted the media to be steered in a fairly common direction, and yet the evidence is that the media is not actually all co-operating, and never really has been, but has been operating under the constraints of gagging orders and superinjunctions.

Thinking outside the box for a minute, CM has actually fulfilled a vital, tangible role for one group of people specifically... When the Mc's, who were clearly despised by several media outlets at the very least, and are clearly doubted by many more, began issuing superinjunctions, the natural instinct of a newspaper, especially a tabloid, should have been to shut them down - that is to ensure that their 'cause' received as little publicity as possible. After all, even the government cannot compel newspapers to print stories designed to promote and support the very people who shut them down for printing any of the lucrative gossip that swirls around. It has not been uncommon for media outlets to shun the awkward, primadonna media whores in this way, or for paps to turn their backs on the attention-seekers who stomp their feet about press intrusion, sending the message 'don't bite the hand that feeds you... if we didn't take your picture and publish your quirky itinerary and splash your gossip on our pages you'd be nothing.'

So what did CM do?

In the midst of superinjunctions he clearly organised a veritable orgy of spurious information that he gave the media the go-ahead to publish. He kept them in business when it came to the McCann's. If it wasn't for the BS that he conjured up, they'd have had nothing to print about the Mc Case to keep it in the public gaze, because sure as hell the only things the Mc's have been doing for seven years is attending tea parties, searching five star hotels and doing sponsored runs.

We all assume that the agenda that initially set CM in motion as a McSeniorStaffer was a benevolent one.

It may have been ambivalent, it may have been antagonistic, but it was certainly a possibility that it was all about spin and counter spin, the control of information, the acquisition of the scoops before anyone else knew.

Maybe.

Again, more plausible than any fantasist who says 'CM is M'.

CynicAl wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
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.....

Not sure what web forum you're reading, but on the one I'm participating on I'm doing anything but shooting anyone down. I'm actually entrenched, under siege and holding my position. Quite how one person is supposedly annihilating a hoarde of tag-teamers is beyond me. You're either conceding that I'm superman or this is the same wild hyperbole that sees a government conspiracy under the beds and in the closets at 5a.

If there is evidence of help by government officials it is anything but clear and the help anything but enormous. You have no proof that if it were any other people in any other place in 2007 they would not get similar help. I know you'll now rush to mention Ben Needham. You have no idea that the reason why the McCanns got such 'disproportionate' assistance at the outset wasn't because someone in the FCO didn't say "oh sh##, not again... You do know we need to do a lot more than we did with Needham... We can't afford another set of parents claiming that we haven't searched from the depths of hell to the heights of heaven to find their missing child." You also don't know that the authorities didn't look extensively at that case on the basis that the vast majority of children go missing at the hands of someone they know. '

ZZZzzz.

So I take it from this response you do consider Goncalo Amaral a conspirital loon.
Im trying to think of another British family that have been afforded a smidgen of the level of government AND media assistance as the McCanns have. I'm struggling!

jeanmonroe wrote:Would that be the Morocco, just 35 minutes away, from  Portugal/Spain, that the McCanns took 40 (FORTY) DAYS to 'arrive' in?

Depemding on when the cadaver scent first appeared in 5a - say may 1st, the 9 th of June would be exactly 40 days. And by an amazing coincidence thry had a meeting in Sagres with family and friends, some of whom flew in the previous day.
Gerry doesn't tell us much in his blog, then tells us on the Monday or Tuesday - think it was the twelth that it's exactly 40 days she was abducted.
40 days after a person dies is meant to be for a memorial service iirc .

Two days later Gerry tells the journalists that they need time to grieve.

CynicAl wrote:

Popcorn 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.

I am no fan of Clarence Mitchell (or the Conservative party, for that matter), but if his presence at someone's side is guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, it seems odd that the Tories should have selected him to represent them at the next election.

Well, being objective for a moment, all the things that make him a terrible choice for a PR in a case like this are generally prerequisites for politics in the Tory party.

And I didn't say that his very presence was guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, I'm suggesting that he might not necessarily have been paid to give them a good image. If for a moment you were agreeing that he was a terrible choice and did a poor job for them, serving to make them appear more guilty, then you can also imagine for a moment that if the mysterious benefactor who paid his salary had an ulterior motive to have direct access to the McCann camp, to steer the direction of their PR team unhelpfully, then it is also arguable that the hasty procurement of CM pre-empted the more considered procurement of someone recommended and hired directly, by someone who wanted a more favourable, better considered outcome. Someone wanted the media to be steered in a fairly common direction, and yet the evidence is that the media is not actually all co-operating, and never really has been, but has been operating under the constraints of gagging orders and superinjunctions.

Thinking outside the box for a minute, CM has actually fulfilled a vital, tangible role for one group of people specifically... When the Mc's, who were clearly despised by several media outlets at the very least, and are clearly doubted by many more, began issuing superinjunctions, the natural instinct of a newspaper, especially a tabloid, should have been to shut them down - that is to ensure that their 'cause' received as little publicity as possible. After all, even the government cannot compel newspapers to print stories designed to promote and support the very people who shut them down for printing any of the lucrative gossip that swirls around. It has not been uncommon for media outlets to shun the awkward, primadonna media whores in this way, or for paps to turn their backs on the attention-seekers who stomp their feet about press intrusion, sending the message 'don't bite the hand that feeds you... if we didn't take your picture and publish your quirky itinerary and splash your gossip on our pages you'd be nothing.'

So what did CM do?

In the midst of superinjunctions he clearly organised a veritable orgy of spurious information that he gave the media the go-ahead to publish. He kept them in business when it came to the McCann's. If it wasn't for the BS that he conjured up, they'd have had nothing to print about the Mc Case to keep it in the public gaze, because sure as hell the only things the Mc's have been doing for seven years is attending tea parties, searching five star hotels and doing sponsored runs.

We all assume that the agenda that initially set CM in motion as a McSeniorStaffer was a benevolent one.

It may have been ambivalent, it may have been antagonistic, but it was certainly a possibility that it was all about spin and counter spin, the control of information, the acquisition of the scoops before anyone else knew.

Maybe.

Again, more plausible than any fantasist who says 'CM is M'.

I wasn't aware of any superinjunctions. Could you remind me of what they were?

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:This is not a cover-up. Its a clusterf##k. At most some important people waded into this less than intelligently, ended up looking dumb, and compartmentalised their own involvement to mitigate or minimise their misjudgement, and contributed to the collective collossal cock up that they wish would go away. To make something go away you do not make a bigger monster of it and then parade it on daytime TV and then stick it in an MTV music video before handing it over to ConspiracyTV to make a documentary out of it. To make something go away you make it go away, and resist the urge to leave memorials.

You seem to have the mistaken idea that I believe that the review was opened as part of the cover-up. I don't believe that it was. However, I do believe, as you also appear to believe, that there was other stuff going on in PdL in 2007 that caused the initial interference by the British state. From there it isn't much to believe that the interference could be continuing and that the current investigation is just a sham to protect whoever or whatever caused the interference in the first place.

The thing that puzzles me about you is that you are obviously intelligent and claim to be aware of the systemic corruption and master plots to cover up the truth that inform my view point yet you seem to regard it as an impossibility that there is a cover-up going on here. Why?

Let me just recap...

"Initial interference" in PDL.

What was interfered with?

Did SY suggest that PJ should look at the Mc's as murder suspects?

Did SY arrange for consultants to attend PDL to work with PJ on the theory that the parents were prime suspects?

Did SY arrange for the dogs and Martin Grime to attend PDL?

Did any British police, intelligence or diplomatic sources suggest looking at characters native to PDL as possible enablers, accessories or associates?

Did the British authorities suggest the need to surveille the McCann's?

Did British diplomatic sources on attendance at the scene advise their supervisors that the McCann's behavioural and testimonial inconsistencies were indicative of guilt or involvement and warn diplomatic services to be cautious in continuing to extend services and assistance?

Did an apparent 'handover' take place from British diplomatic assistance to the natural course of a PJ investigation?

So what was the 'interference' then? Where was the extraordinary help to the McCann's. It is my understanding that they were entitled to lawyer up when made arguidos (or before) and that they did so independently by private retention, not by state provision. Correct me if I am wrong. It is also my understanding that it was their right, however vexatious, to decline questioning and to flee Portugal at the first opportunity. Again, it is my understanding that the state neither intervened to facilitate this, nor had grounds to prevent it. Rumours abound about the exact nature of the escort on the McCann's return. Some view this as a tacit and public approval of them. I don't. I take it, if true, as a necessary precaution for the transportation of four people who have become the focus of a lot of negative publicity, two of which are infants. I also would not be surprised if any escorts were advised to observe the McCann's closely.

IF you'd have said there is a 'conspiracy' to cover anything up at all which would convince me, I would argue that it actually didn't come until nearly a year later. And it did not intend to cover up the McCann's actions, or even to make the Maddie Case go away permanently, but rather to delay the inevitable. It is extremely apparent that someone in government does not want two sniffer dogs and Martin Grime to be credited with having made a major find at HDLG. The only aspect of the PJ case that has been completely formally discredited by British authorities is the sniffer dog search, and I have never believed that those dogs and Grime's work was discredited to protect the smugly gruesome twosome. If a cover-up (likely, effective and evident from the outset, much like Savile) exists pertaining to HDLG, it was the dogs who became inconvenient. Perhaps they had to be discredited which meant that the PJ and SY were compelled not to proceed on the basis of the current dog evidence. I can believe that the MBM investigation was back-burnered until equally strong, or replacement evidence was found and that may have been anticipated as being in the form of witnesses, new dog searches examining new locations but not the old ones, but nothing short of the guarantee that the evidence which re-activated the investigation would be titanium.

I could also speculate that inherently the PJ, having gotten sick of the ridicule, and perhaps with an agenda to liberate their former colleague of his scandalised reputation, want to run with the dogs as key evidence, and that SY have actually been activated by diplomatic agreement with PJ as an 'exhaustive' final attempt to find, by any and all means, incriminating evidence which either suffices, or forces a confession or golden tip-off, so that the dog evidence becomes unnecessary.

I do not now, nor have I ever mooted that 'conspiracies' do not exist, or that governments are honest and trustworthy. I don't mind finding and uncovering a conspiracy. It won't shatter my preconceptions of the world. It will actually fulfil them. But I won't twist or invent evidence to make the preposterous fit into a framework at the expense of facts, reason and plausibility.

I maintain my view that there is nothing in evidence in the MBM case (no persons present in PDL, no protected special-status citizens, no globally powerful freemasonic brotherhood which got rattled) which would call for a 'government conspiracy', or which would warrant one, and no evidence that one took place. If it did, it yielded no discernible benefit, because it changed virtually nothing.

Even if the dog evidence testimony was interfered with by way of discreditation in order to cover-up HDLG (which was clearly a foundational, institutional, clear, apparent and effective cover-up), as I understand it the dog evidence was insufficient to run with the case at the time in Portugal, so the only thing that was actually lost was the public perception of what constituted safe evidence of guilt.

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.

Quite.

Coincidence, not conspiracy.

It wasn't only government that were going out of their way to accommodate the Mccanns at their time of woe....Like all couples get a visit to the Pope don't they?.....This, for me, was when I think it all started to take a surreal turn. Not only did I not believe the MC's account of their daughter's disappearance, but all the strange stuff that had started to go on around them really screamed What the ?!!!?....Like Kate or Gerry had a demand list and it was being ticked off...Because who else gets treatment like this? 


Snipped from Daily Mail 1st June 2007.....

"The McCanns slotted in the Vatican visit before embarking on a wide-ranging publiciy campaign to spread the search across Europe, and farther afield if necessary. Around her neck, Kate was wearing a set of home-made yellow and green rosary beads with Madeleine’s name spelt in them. During the ceremony, a butterfly landed on her yellow and green hair ribbons, flew away – then returned minutes later to her lapel. She said: "It was strange, but lovely. It was like a small sign of hope."


As they boarded the plane back to Portugal, they were still excited about the previous few hours. They said the moment they met the Pope, it felt as though "time stood still". 



They looked at photographs of their meeting with the Holy Father and reflected. Mr McCann said: "It was absolutely fantastic. There’s no doubt that for us it is still sinking in, but it’s a totally uplifting experience."
He looked at his wife and told her: "I was struggling at times, as the Pope approached. But you were really strong."


Behind the undisguisable elation at yesterday‘s meeting, however, the McCanns are said to be desperately worried that they will be seen as some kind of celebrity couple, embarking on
a free world tour under an international spotlight. After yesterday’s remarkable scenes, it wasn’t hard to realise why. They had flown to Rome on a billionaire benefactor’s luxury jet, stayed overnight in an ambassador’s residence, and travelled with a police escort and media entourage. Then they were granted the kind of access to the Pope that most Roman Catholics could only imagine. The attention they attracted was akin to a royal visit.


So you had to keep reminding yourselves that these were decent, ordinary people in tragic, extraordinary circumstances. And that the sole motivation for anything they have done these last four weeks has been to get their little girl back safely in their arms.


Yet they will have to be extremely careful that this turning point in their campaign does not sway public opinion against them. They must find a delicate balance between keeping Madeleine in
the public mind, and avoiding criticism of the astonishing combination of slick organisation, high-profile backing and seemingly limitless help that has been afforded them.
But it didn’t take more than a moment in conversation with the two doctors to bring it all back to reality, as they began to speak about the nightmare they are enduring behind their public front.


Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 

Follow us: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Reading this article now brings that weird moment back when you thought....wait a minute....What is going on. (It was Phillip Green who was the millionaire who flew them to Vatican City) 

So do we honestly think these people were treated just like anyone else, that they weren't using a lever somewhere to get what they wanted? I think I can remember Gerry even having the cheek to complain at the size of an aircraft they were using somewhere - I don't think it was this occasion though, on probably another one of their campaign stops. 

Goodness only knows what GA thought of this at the time.

CynicAl . Some beg to differ from your opinion. I do for one. Each to his own.

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?

Well, if I was the government and I was told that something happened abroad where a child went missing in curious circumstances having been left in her holiday apartment by absentee parents who were amongst a group of doctors and professionals and might have been engaged in less than savoury activities, knowing the likelihood statistically speaking that someone in that group had an involvement in the act, and knowing that the media were already receiving calls about it, I think part of my deployment team would be someone who was slimy, underhand, insincere and an expert in media management and PR - not to cover up, but to manipulate the media so that (i) my concerned counterpart in Portugal isn't immediately made to look like the head of a nation of sex fiends (which is what the McCann's were insinuating by insisting on abduction) (ii) the British didn't look like a bunch of yahoo Charlies who were doing something naughty while their daughter was going missing.

To be fair, the minute the McCann's contacted the media before anyone else, this became a game of catch up and a game of chess. And when the suspicions fell, it became a game of poker too.

I would never be surprised to find CM one day writing a book about how he turned up on the scene and just KNEW that something was wrong, and cared enough about MBM to sacrifice his job and his career and his reputation to stay as close to the Mc's as possible until he could contribute to bringing them down permanently.

Pure speculation, but that's about how fixed and defined I think his role is. If he was a plant, I would not be remotely surprised.

So the minute the McCann's started courting the press instead of the police, the government position automatically needed a media manager, even if only to keep them from running as wild as they'd like, doing it all themselves.

Endgame:
 
‘I wasn't aware of any superinjunctions. Could you remind me of what they were?’
 
Quite!
 
What superinjunctions?

I thought they were the playthings of the R.....d's, B.....m's, L.....r's & G..g's of this world.

SixMillionQuid 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."

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?

I'm not happy that money goes out of the government coffers for all kinds of things. I don't get a choice though. Democracy isn't perfect.

I don't have any grounds to go and take over the direction of this case, to force the CPS to prosecute, to tell the Portuguese what to do. This case will run its course and it will reach a solution. What that solution is, time will tell. But it isn't over yet. The balls are still in the air. They haven't come to rest. And flooding the internet with spurious allegations and nonsense about grand high conspiracies for which there is NO credible evidence, detracting from the simple case solution, for which there is an uncanny amount of evidence, is counter-productive and dangerous.

endgame wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Popcorn 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.

I am no fan of Clarence Mitchell (or the Conservative party, for that matter), but if his presence at someone's side is guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, it seems odd that the Tories should have selected him to represent them at the next election.

Well, being objective for a moment, all the things that make him a terrible choice for a PR in a case like this are generally prerequisites for politics in the Tory party.

And I didn't say that his very presence was guaranteed to deliver them a bad image, I'm suggesting that he might not necessarily have been paid to give them a good image. If for a moment you were agreeing that he was a terrible choice and did a poor job for them, serving to make them appear more guilty, then you can also imagine for a moment that if the mysterious benefactor who paid his salary had an ulterior motive to have direct access to the McCann camp, to steer the direction of their PR team unhelpfully, then it is also arguable that the hasty procurement of CM pre-empted the more considered procurement of someone recommended and hired directly, by someone who wanted a more favourable, better considered outcome. Someone wanted the media to be steered in a fairly common direction, and yet the evidence is that the media is not actually all co-operating, and never really has been, but has been operating under the constraints of gagging orders and superinjunctions.

Thinking outside the box for a minute, CM has actually fulfilled a vital, tangible role for one group of people specifically... When the Mc's, who were clearly despised by several media outlets at the very least, and are clearly doubted by many more, began issuing superinjunctions, the natural instinct of a newspaper, especially a tabloid, should have been to shut them down - that is to ensure that their 'cause' received as little publicity as possible. After all, even the government cannot compel newspapers to print stories designed to promote and support the very people who shut them down for printing any of the lucrative gossip that swirls around. It has not been uncommon for media outlets to shun the awkward, primadonna media whores in this way, or for paps to turn their backs on the attention-seekers who stomp their feet about press intrusion, sending the message 'don't bite the hand that feeds you... if we didn't take your picture and publish your quirky itinerary and splash your gossip on our pages you'd be nothing.'

So what did CM do?

In the midst of superinjunctions he clearly organised a veritable orgy of spurious information that he gave the media the go-ahead to publish. He kept them in business when it came to the McCann's. If it wasn't for the BS that he conjured up, they'd have had nothing to print about the Mc Case to keep it in the public gaze, because sure as hell the only things the Mc's have been doing for seven years is attending tea parties, searching five star hotels and doing sponsored runs.

We all assume that the agenda that initially set CM in motion as a McSeniorStaffer was a benevolent one.

It may have been ambivalent, it may have been antagonistic, but it was certainly a possibility that it was all about spin and counter spin, the control of information, the acquisition of the scoops before anyone else knew.

Maybe.

Again, more plausible than any fantasist who says 'CM is M'.

I wasn't aware of any superinjunctions. Could you remind me of what they were?

That is the whole point - a superinjunction nobody in the public domain knows it exists, as it is a criminal offence to report that there is one in place as this will alert the public that somebody is surpressing something and the court has judged that it is not in the public interest for the public to know that

Gollum wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 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.

Curious. During Leveson no one believed a word uttered by a representative of NI.

Now you want to extrapolate RB's comments, verbatim, and run with a vast fleshing out of them, without any further qualification or substantiation whatsoever.

Apparently you believe her, because she was under oath. But presumably you don't believe in the goodness, virtue and innocence of NI and RB, so you also don't believe that she spoke truthfully under oath. How do you tell which was truth and which was lie, except to say that one piece of information suits a preconception you have and the rest suits a contradictory preconception you have?

Gollum wrote:@ 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?

"It takes a long time. Seven years so far. Nothing is going to be rushed. Because it isn't being rushed. So it becomes pointless to make ridiculous judgements based on certain processes not coming to pass quickly, in the light of the precedent that the case is taking a long time. Patience required. The balls are still in the air."

CynicAl wrote: And flooding the internet with spurious allegations and nonsense about grand high conspiracies for which there is NO credible evidence, (more credible evidence than not in my view) from the simple case solution, (not) for which there is an uncanny amount of evidence, (where?) counter-productive and dangerous (for who?)

Mine in brackets.

Sceptic:

‘That is the whole point - a superinjunction nobody in the public domain knows it exists, as it is a criminal offence to report that there is one in place as this will alert the public that somebody is surpressing something and the court has judged that it is not in the public interest for the public to know that’

But that is the whole nonsense about them, nearly everybody knows.
 
As a reporter for, say, ‘Tinpot Town News’, I decide to write an article about a verifiable story that I have come across. If nobody knows I’m not allowed to report it, do I and my editor then get into trouble for printing something that I’m not allowed to print, but that nobody bothered to tell me about because it’s secret!

It’s all ludicrous which is why they (nearly?) all get out into the public domain.

Gollum wrote:@ 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?

Yes. But from the outset.

Why do you find this concept so difficult. I'll try to simplify.

If all my secrets are published today, as a result of media, police and judicial inquiry, and published in reports, and those reports are available for the next seven years with unrestricted access in spite of my taking legal recourse to confound attempts to publish or redistribute them, you cannot argue in seven years time that the government conspired on my behalf to cover-up my secrets. Nothing has been suppressed. Nothing is hidden. The very process of having investigated me is public knowledge. The findings are public knowledge. They might be speculated over and debated over but the very act of speculation and debate in public affirms that nothing has been secreted away or hidden or covered-up.

If none of my secrets are published today because media did not report on what they happened to know about me, if police had refused to investigate and judicial inquiries had hastily dismissed cases brought against me, reports written were shredded and seven years from now you found out upon my death that suddenly people had flooded forward to accuse me, to confirm that they'd been to the authorities but been warned off, ignored, threatened and that I'd spent seven years placing media injunctions to prevent negative gossip, entertaining high ranking police officers, playing golf with high ranking judicial figures, entertaining the Queen, you could conclude that everything had been suppressed, that I'd been involved in something dark and sinister and that high-powered friends had effected a vast cover up in my favour.

The former is the McCann case.

The latter is Savile.

Chalk and cheese.

What is there about the McCann case that has been suppressed, covered-up, not accessible, and therefore prevents us from logically forming a negative conclusion about their actions?

If nothing significant is missing, nothing has been covered up.

So that's where Brunty has been hanging out - the NOTW trial apparently. Outside the court now.

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?

What does she have to do with a high level government conspiracy?

Seems she has her own cloud of murky accusations and libel cases that she's pursued.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Recommended by someone she knew at Mark Warner, because she was a freelance PR consultant with a political background. You do realise that PR's get hired for their contact book, aren't you? For knowing who to talk to and how to talk to them? For how to manage certain functions?

You do know that as murky and slimy as PR's are, they do a job of work, not witchcraft.

Oh... and headhunted directly by the McCann's.

Where's the grand high government conspiracy?

A grand high government conspiracy surely does for people what they cannot do for themselves? Otherwise the conspiracy is unnecessary. Seems that the McCann's got everything they needed fairly routinely.

flamingboy wrote:

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.

Rest assured, if I had my way the interrogation would be as painful as possible. The problem is that torture doesn't necessarily yield a good result. It easily becomes arbitrary retribution for the sake of it.

And the other problem we have is that our legal system pre-empts the police going on a fishing expedition armed with a telephone directory and a pair of pliers. Suspects have the right to be cautioned. Evidence has to be presented to press a suspect. Suspects get lawyers. And when coppers stand over suspects and demand 'talk', lawyers have a habit of standing up and saying 'this questioning is now over.' And that's if the police can get far enough to get an arrest warrant.

If there were a cover-up, with no intention to ever prosecute a case against UK citizens, the involvement of the CPS would have been a complete (and unwelcome) waste of time. Their involvement suggests a committment to the gathering of evidence to a standard higher than that currently on offer. Remember that we have no precedent for a case like this, presenting evidence gathered exclusively by a foreign police force who are currently facing questions about the effectiveness of their process from the outset. The Grime/HDLG/Dogs controversy to begin with, means it is unlikely that the government will allow a prosecution which relies on the earliest dog evidence as a mainstay of the case. The CPS are either suggesting that the PJ get the evidence they need to request extradition, or that enough evidence is uncovered by a secondary SY investigation to fully allow a titanium prosecution under completely British jurisdiction.

It might not be as simple as the evidence being regarded as circumstantial...

Remember that there are still people who think Barry George was as guilty as hell. Same with the West Memphis 3. Their aquittal, or conditional releases, were rooted in questions being asked about the legitimacy of the due processes. If there is ANY doubt at all that the PJ have flawed investigation, even if they arrived at the right answer, the CPS will not risk another high profile dismissed case, or overturned judgement. This is big fish. They want to make sure the line is sure, before they go in for the reeling and try to land the bugger.

My instinct tells me that SY are covering some new ground, and also covering some old ground. I've suggested previously, it's frustrating and time consuming, but there's some validity to the idea of them anticipating and neutralising the presentation of 'alternative theories' and alternative suspects who have not been thoroughly ruled out.

CynicAl wrote:
If all my secrets are published today, as a result of media, police and judicial inquiry, and published in reports, and those reports are available for the next seven years with unrestricted access in spite of my taking legal recourse to confound attempts to publish or redistribute them, you cannot argue in seven years time that the government conspired on my behalf to cover-up my secrets. Nothing has been suppressed. Nothing is hidden. The very process of having investigated me is public knowledge. The findings are public knowledge. They might be speculated over and debated over but the very act of speculation and debate in public affirms that nothing has been secreted away or hidden or covered-up.

If none of my secrets are published today because media did not report on what they happened to know about me, if police had refused to investigate and judicial inquiries had hastily dismissed cases brought against me, reports written were shredded and seven years from now you found out upon my death that suddenly people had flooded forward to accuse me, to confirm that they'd been to the authorities but been warned off, ignored, threatened and that I'd spent seven years placing media injunctions to prevent negative gossip, entertaining high ranking police officers, playing golf with high ranking judicial figures, entertaining the Queen, you could conclude that everything had been suppressed, that I'd been involved in something dark and sinister and that high-powered friends had effected a vast cover up in my favour.

The former is the McCann case.

No it isn't. The cover-up isn't about hiding the McCanns involvement in their daughters disappearance. Its about hiding the secret that caused the establishment involvement from the very beginning. A secret that very much remains hidden.

canada12 wrote:

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.

I was wondering if, like SY once were frustrated with a lack of PJ information and started throwing out wild ideas, he was short on information for where this is actually going, and went on a fishing expedition in the hope of staying current.

It very much helps his self-confidence, maybe his libel case, for him to be seen as a fixture in Portuguese reporting on this case - still relevant, still making the same case, still doing interviews, when you-know-who are holed up in Rothley apparently hiding behind social media.

Succes de scandale.

CynicalAl wrote:

My instinct tells me that SY are covering some new ground, and also covering some old ground. I've suggested previously, it's frustrating and time consuming, but there's some validity to the idea of them anticipating and neutralising the presentation of 'alternative theories' and alternative suspects who have not been thoroughly ruled out.
.

  

The trial is confirmed to continue on Monday. Will GM remain holed up, or stick his head above the parapet?

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:
If all my secrets are published today, as a result of media, police and judicial inquiry, and published in reports, and those reports are available for the next seven years with unrestricted access in spite of my taking legal recourse to confound attempts to publish or redistribute them, you cannot argue in seven years time that the government conspired on my behalf to cover-up my secrets. Nothing has been suppressed. Nothing is hidden. The very process of having investigated me is public knowledge. The findings are public knowledge. They might be speculated over and debated over but the very act of speculation and debate in public affirms that nothing has been secreted away or hidden or covered-up.

If none of my secrets are published today because media did not report on what they happened to know about me, if police had refused to investigate and judicial inquiries had hastily dismissed cases brought against me, reports written were shredded and seven years from now you found out upon my death that suddenly people had flooded forward to accuse me, to confirm that they'd been to the authorities but been warned off, ignored, threatened and that I'd spent seven years placing media injunctions to prevent negative gossip, entertaining high ranking police officers, playing golf with high ranking judicial figures, entertaining the Queen, you could conclude that everything had been suppressed, that I'd been involved in something dark and sinister and that high-powered friends had effected a vast cover up in my favour.

The former is the McCann case.

No it isn't. The cover-up isn't about hiding the McCanns involvement in their daughters disappearance. Its about hiding the secret that caused the establishment involvement from the very beginning. A secret that very much remains hidden.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

It is ridiculous to say that because no one reported seeing Bill Gates in PDL at the Ocean Club that therefore a massive conspiracy has taken place at the highest levels to ensure that whatever else is made public knowledge about events at the Ocean Club in PDL, it is never known that Bill Gates was there. Doing so entitles you to be as stupid as you like with the wild theory nonsense, and claim that the absence of proof is proof that the proof is absent by an act of deliberacy.

If the McCann case physically (witnesses, locations, events) crossed over with something so grave that it took government involvement to make it vanish from the record, NOTHING would have been left to chance. It would be apparent that EVERYTHING had been made to go away. You can't maintain a partial secret, you can't maintain a partial conspiracy. You can't say to the witnesses 'OK, you can be interrogated, and you can even make up stories, and we know that you want your focus to be your dead child and how you were no way involved in her death, but that's secondary at the moment, just remember Minister Anonymous was NEVER HERE...'

It's ridiculous.

Either there was a massive cover up. Or there wasn't. Massive cover ups would be utterly pointless if the people in the frame are still left in the frame. What were they offered? 'Don't mention Minister Anonymous or we'll kill you. Meanwhile we don't care what the public or the portuguese police think of you... you'll just have to lump that one and live with the guilt your whole lives.' The two end up cancelling each other out. If almost everything can be known about the case, except the coincidental presence of some mystery person, and the only detail that is covered up is the presence of the mystery person, then neither the mystery person nor the cover up are in any way incidental to the case. You might as well say 'your life is going to be ruined and you'll be eventually charged, but always stay silent about Minister Anonymous, or you die.' No need for all the supposed tinkering and conniving and calculating and counter-productive cover-up operations.

Snifferdog wrote:CynicAl wrote: And flooding the internet with spurious allegations and nonsense about grand high conspiracies for which there is NO credible evidence, (more credible evidence than not in my view)  from the simple case solution,  (not)  for which there is an uncanny amount of evidence, (where?) counter-productive and dangerous (for who?)

Mine in brackets.

...conspiracy for which there is NO credible evidence...
YOU SAID: (more credible evidence than not, in my view)
I RESPOND: If there is more credible evidence than no credible evidence, then the credible evidence for a grand high conspiracy would be in evidence. That would then be counter-intuitive to the existence of a grand high conspiracy. And we would be able to see a discernible effect of the grand high conspiracy on the available information pertaining to the case. The information is freely, widely and exhaustively available and speculated on on a daily basis throughout the internet and, with great cunning, in the media. This is the most apparent, non-hidden set of hidden things in human history.

...simple case solution...
YOU SAID: (not)
I RESPOND: As simple as it gets. And Gerry McCann stated it for the record. Find the body, and arrest them. Find the DNA, and arrest them. Put another way, find enough evidence to stand up in court, and stand up in court. If we had the evidence to secure a conviction, a conviction is what we'd be securing. And that is the ONLY basis I am aware of upon which the CPS would take an active role in this matter, and consult overseas in the process.

...uncanny amount of evidence...
YOU SAID: (where)
I RESPOND: Read the PJ Files.

...dangerous...
YOU SAID: (for who)
I RESPOND: If someone conspires to protect themselves or their interests, and does a piss poor job of it by leaving the matter open to public scrutiny, inspection, possible prosecution and leaves the matter on the shoulders of self-defending sociopaths attempting to flee justice who you hope will do the right thing in promising to protect your secrets while passing through the wringer for seven years, that is EXTREMELY dangerous to the person conspiring to protect themselves. We call it 'loose ends.' Grand high conspiracies tend not to leave them.

CynicAl wrote:

AndyB wrote:

CynicAl wrote:
If all my secrets are published today, as a result of media, police and judicial inquiry, and published in reports, and those reports are available for the next seven years with unrestricted access in spite of my taking legal recourse to confound attempts to publish or redistribute them, you cannot argue in seven years time that the government conspired on my behalf to cover-up my secrets. Nothing has been suppressed. Nothing is hidden. The very process of having investigated me is public knowledge. The findings are public knowledge. They might be speculated over and debated over but the very act of speculation and debate in public affirms that nothing has been secreted away or hidden or covered-up.

If none of my secrets are published today because media did not report on what they happened to know about me, if police had refused to investigate and judicial inquiries had hastily dismissed cases brought against me, reports written were shredded and seven years from now you found out upon my death that suddenly people had flooded forward to accuse me, to confirm that they'd been to the authorities but been warned off, ignored, threatened and that I'd spent seven years placing media injunctions to prevent negative gossip, entertaining high ranking police officers, playing golf with high ranking judicial figures, entertaining the Queen, you could conclude that everything had been suppressed, that I'd been involved in something dark and sinister and that high-powered friends had effected a vast cover up in my favour.

The former is the McCann case.

No it isn't. The cover-up isn't about hiding the McCanns involvement in their daughters disappearance. Its about hiding the secret that caused the establishment involvement from the very beginning. A secret that very much remains hidden.

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

I agree but struggle to understand the relevance. Your analogies were based on the idea that those of us that are open minded enough to consider a cover-up of something  is a viable theory, believe that the conspiracy is to protect the McCanns. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe that at all. I was merely highlighting that your assumption was invalid. I wasn't trying to convince you that there is a cover-up because I realise that you won't even consider the possibility.

@ CynicalAl. Yes, by the same token absence of proof is not proof of absence. It does cut both ways. Like Andyb I suspect the cover up is not out of concern for the McCanns.
A hypothesis: It may be that a certain person(s) has explosive blackmail material. If the evidence for the blackmail is well hidden it will not so easy to get rid of a blackmailer. Should something untoward happen to the person blackmailing, there could be another ready to publish said material.

Sceptic wrote:
That is the whole point - a superinjunction nobody in the public domain knows it exists, as it is a criminal offence to report that there is one in place as this will alert the public that somebody is surpressing something and the court has judged that it is not in the public interest for the public to know that

Precisely. That is why when CynicAl wrote "and yet the evidence is that the media is not actually all co-operating, and never really has been, but has been operating under the constraints of gagging orders and superinjunctions." I asked the question. I don't know of any evidence of gagging orders or superinjunctions although there has of course been the usual speculation.

AndyB: "I agree but struggle to understand the relevance. Your analogies were based on the idea that those of us that are open minded enough to consider a cover-up of something  is a viable theory, believe that the conspiracy is to protect the McCanns. I can't speak for anyone else but I don't believe that at all. I was merely highlighting that your assumption was invalid. I wasn't trying to convince you that there is a cover-up because I realise that you won't even consider the possibility.


This about sums up what I feel. I don't think, sadly, for one moment that Madeleine is at the centre of this, or the Mccans. For if that were the case - then yep - this story would have ended a long time ago.