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

• John Buck, the British ambassador in Portugal, called Alípio Ribeiro, the Polícia Judiciária’s national director, on the night that Madeleine disappeared from the Ocean Club.
  
  

• At around 11 p.m., approximately one hour after the child’s disappearance was reported, Alípio Ribeiro had to interrupt a private dinner in order to listen to the diplomat.
  
  

• Ambassador Buck drove from Lisbon to Praia da Luz. (Distance is approximately 3 hours by car.)
  
  

• Drove in from Lisbon "to be with the family after they begged him for help."
  
  

• Embassy spokesman said Buck was driving down to do everything for the McCanns that he could.
  
  

• Ambassador Buck and 3 "family liaison officers from Leicestershire police held a private meeting with the McCanns "at the resort" on the afternoon of May 5th.
  
  

• Announced to reporters that 3 British police agents had arrived from Leicestershire to help with the investigation. He stated that the officers would act as a "liaison" between the McCanns and Portuguese police and between the Portuguese and British police. "..Mr. Buck was there to introduce the family liaison officers to the McCanns..."
  
  

• The 3 "family liaison officers were flown out "at the request of the Foreign Commonwealth Office.
  
  

• Leicestershire spokeswoman said the 3 officers were there "simply to assist the family" and were not going to have anything to do with the investigation at this point.
  
  

• Told reporters that the investigation had been "intensive and extensive".
  
  

• Reportedly Ambassador Buck "accompanied the couple...during the search on May 5"
  
  

• Reported to have been "...with the family throughout their ordeal..."
  
  

• Ambassador Buck's intervention was credited by the McCann's family and friends as being the only reason that the search for Madeleine was upgraded to a major investigation.
  
  

• "Despite being convinced - for reasons they have refused to make public - that Madeleine is still in the Algarve, Interpol have been alerted about her disappearance and checks were being made at every Portuguese port and airport."
  
  

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Political 'interference' is actually not illegal. It is not a crime. It is a legislative consideration of the prerogative of the state.

If the Queen decides to interrupt some proceedings, delay them, or instruct some changes which do not affect the actual outcome of a case, good luck prosecuting her for 'illegal conspiracy.' Political interference can delay a court case, it can call for other considerations to be presented. More to the point, political 'interference', the EXACT SAME TYPE of political interference can be put to good use, putting pressure on Sudan to release a woman sentenced to death for not being a Muslim, to put pressure on Iran to release Christians incarcerated for their faith, to require nations to delay plans or alter the course of events for a more favourabe outcome. That's politics. It isn't unreasonable, it isn't illegal, and it isn't automatically insidious and dark and rubbing its hands with glee over the death of a little girl in bizarre circumstances.

You've no idea what a working example of conspiracy actually is, do you?

You're not talking about 'conspiracy', you're still talking about 'Conspiracy Theory.'

If some people have 'stuck their noses in' and you call that criminal conspiracy, what the monkey nuts did they actually change? The investigation is still ongoing in two countries by two police forces, having been dormant for five years. The evidence is still in the same files it always was. The published documents are still published like they always were. Delays in the process are NOT illegal. They are NOT criminal. They are not a 'cover up', because for something to be a cover up it has to have been taken away. Nothing has been spirited off into the ether. The parents are still as much in the frame as they always were. The media are still champing at the bit to crucify them. So what is missing? Except that your impatience and unreasonable demands for instantaneous information and summary justice is fuelling a hyperactive imagination and making you see bogeymen where there are perfectly conventional villains to account for.

JackieL wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

JackieL wrote:Staying strictly on topic, for me one of the crucial events which hints at someone being "leaned on" at a very high level was the radio interview given by Alipio Ribeiro, national director of the PJ back in February 2008, in which he famously said that Portuguese detectives were "hasty" in arguido-ing the McCanns.  A slap in the face to his own team. Was this high level political involvement? Or was he just expressing the view that the PJ should've had conclusive proof on the forensics before they arguidoed the parents and they effectively jumped the gun?

He did a U turn on that JackieL, and said he was wrong to say it, will see if I can find it.

Yep I know, he tried to backtrack desperately afterwards.  But it's the fact he said it in the first place.

THEN, there's the way in which Amaral was sacked - sent a curt fax (October 2008) and he claims that Gordon brown was told 2 hours beforehand.

CynicAl wrote:

JackieL - to be fair, shortly before he was transferred, Amaral made statements alleging a British government cover up as the reason why he couldn't get what he wanted to demand from the UK in the timeframe he demanded it.

The nature of stroppy politicians is that they, like celebrities pissed off with a publisher's representatives or a magazine journalist, have a habit of making phone calls to high powered people and saying 'I don't like that buckaroo that's making comments about us. I'm not going to instruct anyone to help your investigation while he's running the show.' Their opposite number then reacts, wanting to save face and seem powerful and decisive, before returning the call and saying 'Mr Prime Minister, I just wanted to assure you that I've handled the situation we spoke about and you will have no more of this kind of talk from us.' It becomes an official embarrassment. There is reason to believe that, as noble as he seems to be, and as thorough as his investigation appears to be, GA was no Eliot Ness.

Similarly your observation about Ribeiro - how embarrassing to Portugal that their detectives did all that research, got a whole load of input from British police forces, arguido'd the McCann's, either believing they'd get a fast confession or believing that they'd come up with the evidence, and it turned out they didn't have enough, and they got nowhere - not because they weren't sure the McCann's were involved, but because they couldn't prove it. Being a politician, he made a comment in response to the international diplomatic embarrassment that was felt. He later decided it was unnecessary. That doesn't mean a great conspiracy took place to strongarm Portugal into throwing the case... not least because the case wasn't thrown, it actually escalated, with the publication of the files. And it is still ongoing.

Dee Coy wrote:
Couple of interesting conspiracy theories there, Blac, I mean CynicAl.

flamingboy wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Political 'interference' is actually not illegal. It is not a crime. It is a legislative consideration of the prerogative of the state.

If the Queen decides to interrupt some proceedings, delay them, or instruct some changes which do not affect the actual outcome of a case, good luck prosecuting her for 'illegal conspiracy.' Political interference can delay a court case, it can call for other considerations to be presented. More to the point, political 'interference', the EXACT SAME TYPE of political interference can be put to good use, putting pressure on Sudan to release a woman sentenced to death for not being a Muslim, to put pressure on Iran to release Christians incarcerated for their faith, to require nations to delay plans or alter the course of events for a more favourabe outcome. That's politics. It isn't unreasonable, it isn't illegal, and it isn't automatically insidious and dark and rubbing its hands with glee over the death of a little girl in bizarre circumstances.

You've no idea what a working example of conspiracy actually is, do you?

You're not talking about 'conspiracy', you're still talking about 'Conspiracy Theory.'

If some people have 'stuck their noses in' and you call that criminal conspiracy, what the monkey nuts did they actually change? The investigation is still ongoing in two countries by two police forces, having been dormant for five years. The evidence is still in the same files it always was. The published documents are still published like they always were. Delays in the process are NOT illegal. They are NOT criminal. They are not a 'cover up', because for something to be a cover up it has to have been taken away. Nothing has been spirited off into the ether. The parents are still as much in the frame as they always were. The media are still champing at the bit to crucify them. So what is missing? Except that your impatience and unreasonable demands for instantaneous information and summary justice is fuelling a hyperactive imagination and making you see bogeymen where there are perfectly conventional villains to account for.

Good post AL. I think it's good that we all debate as we are and I see nothing wrong with that. If contributors wish to express an opinion then I'm sure that this board recognises that the opportunity for them to do that must be free and open regardless of the length submitted. If members take offence just because some posts are not to their liking well then simply exercise your ignore option. 

 I would never claim to fully understand European law especially elements of it that are applicable to this case. For those not fully 'clued up' on this part, and that certainly includes me :-) , AL has clearly laid out the specific framework and political protocol that is the cornerstone of European law as we know it in terms of being set in stone.

I can live with that. I now understand that subject matter more. And so 'on paper' that is the framework that has to be followed and specifically adhered to because that is the law, European law.

Let's just go to the other extreme using a silly example and yet similar in that there is a parallel that can be drawn. It's law that you travel at 30mph in a 30mph zone. And yet, a good percentage of motorists would rarely stick to the exact speed limit unless they see a speed camera. Ok, that's breaking the law but also the law is being bent, pretty much, from the motorists standpoint.

The problem I have is that we don't know, in terms of specifics, what's been followed, adhered to, ignored, dismissed, manipulated and so on. The motorist, as in the example above, got away with it this time because he/she wasn't caught.

The facts are the facts AL and regardless of European law. I agree with the framework you've spelled out. I say that there is enough 'circumstantial evidence' to outline these varied 'red flags' as - fact.

IMO, To me it's fact. Now you can categorise that as 'cloak and dagger', 'smoke and mirrors', whatever, to me it's fact and the smells strongly, very strongly suggest that. What I don't have are the facts within the fact. The pieces, that when assembled, with reveal the picture. That's what's missing.

Yeah, yeah yeah, long winded, I know.....laters.

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Flamingboy - Newintown has kindly posted some links. I just want to be clear that most certainly did not mean that no poster here gives links. I meant that no matter how many times different posters have asked for clarification on pertinent points - such as you raised about signs of meddling from higher up - they remain unanswered by those, who protest so much against the idea that the the investigation into Madeleine s disappearance was compromised by certain powerful individuals.

I see CynicAl has finally posted an answer but i have not read it as yet.

I'll just ask you to clarify what you mean by 'remain unanswered?'

The points have been answered. You remain unsatisfied. There's a fundamental difference.

This is one of the problems with 'Conspiracy Theory' - it doesn't need proof or a trail of evidence and deduction to formulate one, and in the absence of proof and an array of evidence to support it, it requires no support because it insists that there is another ever-evolving thread to the conspiracy which involves the disappearing of evidence.

I'll paint a crude example. Imagine for a moment you go home from work and your spouse meets you and says 'brace yourself for this, honey... when I got home I found the door open a crack and we've been burgalled and the people who did it defecated on the kitchen floor.' Walking in you see a still steaming mound of excretment on your parquet, but curiously all your possessions are still there. So you turn to your spouse and say 'erm... I thought you said we've been burgalled.' 'Oh, I know... it's terrible. But I've already told the police who did it. Remember when I had that clash two years ago with the lady who was married to the solicitor who did your dad's will? Well, I thought something was going on when she ignored me in the supermarket after that. Well, do you know that her cousin is married to a locksmith, and he's a really shifty bugger. And her husband knows all sorts of people and you know... they're all F-R-E-E-M-A-S-O-N-S. Well, they've been waiting to get me for a long time and this is it...' You say 'But nothing has been stolen, there's just a pile of poop on my floor.' The wife says 'I know, but that's good because we've got evidence. Pick it up and put it in a bag. We'll have it sent to a lab for independent testing.' You say 'Why? Just leave it for the police' as you start to think the worst of your partner's sanity. She says 'they've already been. They told me I was mad, but I know they're covering up... they''re a bit cosy with that cow's husband, and the chief inspector goes to the same L-O-D-G-E. I made them sweep for fingerprints anyway.' 'Oh yes? What did they say?' 'Well, they found yours and mine, but they said that they couldn't find any for the burglars. Well... I happen to know that her sister runs a cleaning company, you know... deep clean in kitchens. They obviously had them come round and clean up all evidence, and I told the police I knew that and they just laughed at me. Well, we know the plod all know the magic handshake, don't we... They even tried to tell me they found a pawprint and some dog hairs, but as I told them, we don't have a dog and I know those sneaky masons have tried to plant that evidence to cover up for their lodge chums... I've got their number.'

So you're left with a burglary that didn't steal anything, burglars who covered up for themselves by cleaning all trace of themselves while they were in your house stealing nothing, and a cleaning crew that managed to get all the fingerprints erased but left the still steaming pile of mess on the kitchen floor, you've got a town-wide conspiracy against your wife who is, by all appearances, beside herself and needing to plea insanity, and a police force that laughs at you and apparently can't be trusted because they planted a paw print and some dog hair as part of the conspiracy.

Two days later the neighbour across the road collars you and says 'I thought I better tell you... I saw all your panic the other day and, well, this is a bit sensitive but... your missus didn't lock the door the other day when she went out... I thought she was just popping next door, but she walked off down the street ... anyway, I think Mrs Jones' dog might have wandered over into your place while your missus was out, and I hope he didn't do what he likes to do on my lawn... I hate it when she leaves him off the lead in the garden. He was in my bins the other day. Anyway... thought you should know.'

Humiliated and feeling stupid you go home, and you say to the wife 'are you sure there's nothing you want to tell me about the non-burglary the other day?' She asks 'what are you saying?' So you tell her what the neighbour said. She replies angrily 'see... he's in on it too... He's covering up for them, and turning you against me. This is all part of their plot. Am I the only one who sees this clearly?' You try to settle things down and say calmly 'look... is it just possible that something really ordinary happened here by accident, that there was so much going on that day that things got a bit confused and you got the wrong idea, and there might be a most rational explanation for all this?'

It's at this point that your wife hits you in the head with a vase, screams hysterically and pushes you out of the house while shouting about how you're obviously in on it too and are trying to get her shut up in the psychiatric hospital.



The problem with insisting that there are 'unanswered questions' is that the 'questions' you're asking are the wrong questions. Lets be real. You cannot find me a single example of an active missing person or murder investigation in the Western world in which all the details of the case were published real time for armchair detectives to follow along. The very idea is ridiculous. Unreasonable. Delusional.

But what you're saying is that because you don't have that access, that therefore a conspiracy has made the information vanish. You have, actually, no idea what happened. You're leaping to conclusions. Equally, we don't know what happened, and we're going with the mundane probability that there is a reasonable and real-world solution to the question which time will almost certainly reveal in some way. But because your unreasonable demands for a full briefing are not, and cannot be satisfied without destroying the case, you conclude that the aim of those involved is to destroy the case.

There's no rationality to that, no reason to get hold of an work with, no process of eliminating the impossible.

But what you have, in this case, lis a claim that there has been a conspiracy to do grave harm, facilitated by a conspiracy to cover up the grave harm and its practitioners. Except nothing has been covered up. Nothing has been taken away. The only information that is absent from the case is the same information that would be absent from every case, because that information isn't for public release, or because the suspects have a right to privacy until evidence is brought to support a charge. There are mundane, routine reasons for all of these 'minor gaps', but the point is that none of this matters because the Conspiracy Theorist is making so much out of the tiny details that don't affect the possibility of an investigation and blowing them out of all proportion into a giant, megalithic super-narrative, while what is glaringly obvious is that there are masses of pieces of evidence, public access and public knowledge, which clearly haven't been covered up...

So as I keep asking, where EXACTLY is the 'cover up'? What is it that has been 'disappeared', what is now NOT known that was once known, what has been taken away from the case, how does the evidence no longer point blame to the point that is being covered up? There must be an effect? There can't surely be an invisible mass conspiracy that had no effect on anything and is of no consequence. That's a non-event. It defies logic.

So what is 'unanswered' that can actually be answered or even SHOULD be answered in order to give an account to you?

Or are your demands for information unreasonable?

Yes I understand what you are saying CynicAL - in the MBM case we have lots of unanswered questions because we do not know what 'happened' and therefore what to ask. It is easy, therefore to fill in what we do not know with conspiracy. 

BUT we do allegedly have lots of contradictory and contrasting factual statements from the Tapas crew et al - is this not suspicious to you? THEY were not asked to imagine what 'happened' just to recount actual facts as and when they saw them.  These contradictory statements and the consequent reluctance to stage a reconstruction are a big red flag to me, conspiracy or no conspiracy. 

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

dantezebu wrote:I submit. CynicAl you win.
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore because I can't be ar**ed to read your posts. 
They are too long and life is too short.


 

CynicAl wrote:

flamingboy wrote:

CynicAl wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:From what I've gathered political interference during the course of an investigation, resulting the forced removal of the lead investigator, does not amount to a conspiracy. Really!!?

To conspire: To plan together secretly to commit an illegal or wrongful act or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.

It doesn't need every single person in every organisation to conspire to achieve an objective - just a few in right places. And as we know some people have stuck their noses in, especially with witnesses, while the investigation was still ongoing in Portugal.

Political 'interference' is actually not illegal. It is not a crime. It is a legislative consideration of the prerogative of the state.

If the Queen decides to interrupt some proceedings, delay them, or instruct some changes which do not affect the actual outcome of a case, good luck prosecuting her for 'illegal conspiracy.' Political interference can delay a court case, it can call for other considerations to be presented. More to the point, political 'interference', the EXACT SAME TYPE of political interference can be put to good use, putting pressure on Sudan to release a woman sentenced to death for not being a Muslim, to put pressure on Iran to release Christians incarcerated for their faith, to require nations to delay plans or alter the course of events for a more favourabe outcome. That's politics. It isn't unreasonable, it isn't illegal, and it isn't automatically insidious and dark and rubbing its hands with glee over the death of a little girl in bizarre circumstances.

You've no idea what a working example of conspiracy actually is, do you?

You're not talking about 'conspiracy', you're still talking about 'Conspiracy Theory.'

If some people have 'stuck their noses in' and you call that criminal conspiracy, what the monkey nuts did they actually change? The investigation is still ongoing in two countries by two police forces, having been dormant for five years. The evidence is still in the same files it always was. The published documents are still published like they always were. Delays in the process are NOT illegal. They are NOT criminal. They are not a 'cover up', because for something to be a cover up it has to have been taken away. Nothing has been spirited off into the ether. The parents are still as much in the frame as they always were. The media are still champing at the bit to crucify them. So what is missing? Except that your impatience and unreasonable demands for instantaneous information and summary justice is fuelling a hyperactive imagination and making you see bogeymen where there are perfectly conventional villains to account for.

Good post AL. I think it's good that we all debate as we are and I see nothing wrong with that. If contributors wish to express an opinion then I'm sure that this board recognises that the opportunity for them to do that must be free and open regardless of the length submitted. If members take offence just because some posts are not to their liking well then simply exercise your ignore option. 

 I would never claim to fully understand European law especially elements of it that are applicable to this case. For those not fully 'clued up' on this part, and that certainly includes me :-) , AL has clearly laid out the specific framework and political protocol that is the cornerstone of European law as we know it in terms of being set in stone.

I can live with that. I now understand that subject matter more. And so 'on paper' that is the framework that has to be followed and specifically adhered to because that is the law, European law.

Let's just go to the other extreme using a silly example and yet similar in that there is a parallel that can be drawn. It's law that you travel at 30mph in a 30mph zone. And yet, a good percentage of motorists would rarely stick to the exact speed limit unless they see a speed camera. Ok, that's breaking the law but also the law is being bent, pretty much, from the motorists standpoint.

The problem I have is that we don't know, in terms of specifics, what's been followed, adhered to, ignored, dismissed, manipulated and so on. The motorist, as in the example above, got away with it this time because he/she wasn't caught.

The facts are the facts AL and regardless of European law. I agree with the framework you've spelled out. I say that there is enough 'circumstantial evidence' to outline these varied 'red flags' as - fact.

IMO, To me it's fact. Now you can categorise that as 'cloak and dagger', 'smoke and mirrors', whatever, to me it's fact and the smells strongly, very strongly suggest that. What I don't have are the facts within the fact. The pieces, that when assembled, with reveal the picture. That's what's missing.

Yeah, yeah yeah, long winded, I know.....laters.

Flamingboy,

Good post. Like you say, questions can be asked to gain geniune understanding and to sincerely debate.

To go to your analogy, you obviously appreciate that the law is that in a 30mph the maximum speed (rather than compulsory speed) is 30mph. Some go over that by 10% knowing that they're exploiting an accepted 10% margin of error. Some drive under it to be safe, and others flout the law completely. You rightly say that when law enforcement is not there to catch them, some get off with it. And you're right, without a complete surveillance state we never will know how many times and how often. The law, the process, is failing in that sense.

But equally... if YOU weren't present on that stretch of road, YOU wouldn't be aware of how many, by how much, and who got away with it. You wouldn't know even if there were police there with speed cameras, nor would you know how many they caught. Because you're not privy to that information.

The 'Conspiracy Theory' is equivalent, in your metaphor, to saying that because some people get away with it when you know that the police aren't there that there is a  massive conspiracy involving the police and the vehicle manufacturers and the camera makers to let certain drivers get away with it because those drivers are, for example, freemasons. But we're not done... You then add that you can't prove that the police weren't there when you weren't looking and thus you assume that the police were stood at the roadside taking cash bribes for letting people off, or running drag races or something.

The 'Conspiracy Theory' thrives on making it sound like there's an elaborate and knowledgeable narrative to contend with, when in actual fact the whole thing can only exist because of an absence of evidence either way.

Difficult as it is you have to decide whether this is a serious investigation which requires patient hope for justice, or a form of entertainment where a theory of something is better than a waiting game.

Tell you what. I don't usually do this.

Go to Aangirfan web site. They've got a 'Conspiracy Theory' about MBM. Its about three articles back. Articles about a lot of other things too. Current events. The phantom of International Pedophile gangs (apparently there are only about three of them in Europe, all based in Belgium and all run by Belgian politicians.) Go look at the traits on there. Follow the logic. Be warned. Its ugly. If you're Jewish, homosexual, homophobic, a child star, American, there's a conspiracy theory to rope you into every major world event. Nothing is true, everything is staged, its all a manipulation by insidious government conspiracies. Look at how much guilt by association, or guilt by inference, they promote. That's where  'Conspiracy Theories' go, because once you start you cannot stop, there will always have to be another stage, another association, a missing link, a wild assumption, someone who looks like someone who could be someone's body double. You'll see things in those sites that you recognise from some of the ideas that get thrown around even in places like this.

If you're feeling really brave, then take a look at 'BeforeItsNews.'

Ochosi wrote:Would it be that unusual for the ambassador to go to the assistance of parents whose three year old had disappeared? 

When Funchal airport got shut down due to ash cloud in 2010 and there were hoards of merely inconvenienced British tourists, having to re-book flights/get allocated to hotels etc,  someone senior from the British Consulate arrived at the airport, attempting to assess who may need assistance.
Earlier in the year, flash floods had resulted in a number of deaths (c. 40, 1 British) and the ambassador to Portugal flew straight out to Madeira to provide additional support - there was existing consular staff on the island

I wouldn't think it was that unusual for the ambassador to go straight to PDL, possibly with more haste if he'd been made aware that the UK media had already been contacted.

Woofer wrote:CynicalAl - So, in a nutshell, you are saying there`s nothing suspicious about the whole process at all - everything can be explained rationally, just like Clarence Mitchell said ?

Post deleted to not interrupt the board.

notlongnow wrote:One thing i can say,this is the most bizarre case i've known in reading crimes for 35 years.

They are either;

criminal geniuses
extremely lucky
well protected
innocent

notlongnow wrote:One thing i can say,this is the most bizarre case i've known in reading crimes for 35 years.

They are either;

criminal geniuses
extremely lucky
well protected
innocent

Okeydokey wrote:

notlongnow wrote:One thing i can say,this is the most bizarre case i've known in reading crimes for 35 years.

They are either;

criminal geniuses
extremely lucky
well protected
innocent

Yes, it is one of the most incredibly bizzare cases I have ever known.  You'd probably have to go back to the Thorpe murder trial or the Lindbergh trial for something on a similar scale, but I think this surpasses both of those cases by a mile.

I would add another theoretical possiblity:

Innocent but "guilty" of something else which would jeopardise their reputations, careers and family life. That could certainly explain some of the contradictory evidence in the case.

I would also add another category: media-manipulation genius. I think Gerry McCann is a master manipulator of the media, whether he be innocent or guilty or something in between.

If you look back at their early appearances, it was always Kate who was getting them into trouble in interviews with her useless answers. He was pretty good from the get go, and within a year or two he had learnt to control all that tell-tale body language leakage. Look how still he sits now!

But really, he is a master manipulator - just in the way he understood how to bring lots of different strands together: Irish identity politics, Labour working class politics, religiosity, Freemasonry, professional and academic solidarity (incredibly useful when it came to rubbishing the forensics), political contacts, xenophobia, commercial interets (computer systems for missing children), headline grabbing (e.g. FBI contact, meet the Pope etc), and use of the big lie (e.g. sniffer dogs are notoriously unreliable...er, no they are not - in tests they are incredibly accurate). 


Most of the people who come on this site are hardline sceptics and I think that as a consequence they often underestimate GMcC's effectiveness in terms of media manipulation.

BlueBag wrote:Word of the day: Verbosity.

This thread has become smothered.

Verbacious tag teaming.

That's three more words.

CynicAl wrote:

dantezebu wrote:I submit. CynicAl you win.
I have no idea what you are talking about anymore because I can't be ar**ed to read your posts. 
They are too long and life is too short.


 

Gotta love the UK. Only culture in the world where people are proud to make statements like this.