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

Joey Deacon wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:Somehow, I doubt that Glasgow Catholics are in to the whole Masonsic thing :)

But it seems fairly obvious that Gerry is a Freemason doesn't it?

I'm thinking of the 'praying like arabs' call for help, and the Masonic symbols used on his flip chart as bullet points.

I could be wrong of course and I have no proof but I really, really do not think Gerry McCann is a Mason.

So what did (lets say) GM and DP have on anyone?
Dirt from activities in the UK? Dirt from activities in PdL? Dirt from activities in both the UK and PdL?

MissDaisy wrote:I could be wrong of course and I have no proof but I really, really do not think Gerry McCann is a Mason.

Why not?

I'm not having a go or anything. It's just that I'm pretty sure that he is, and I'm wondering why you think he isn't. :-)

HelenMeg wrote:I just think that the political interference was a 'Labour' orientated interference.  MI5 answers to the Home Sec and now we have a different government, MI5 / SY are not working for the same set of people.

Whatever needed to be covered up in May 2007 - why should we assume that DC's government were given all the information relating to that. Surely Labour would not have disclosed their dirty linen for the Conservatives to use.

  Things may have changed since 2007 and maybe certain people no longer need protecting but I believe at the end of the day there are factions within the intelligence agencies that use our political parties to carry out their agendas and not the other way round, labour vs. conservative would not really come into it.

aiyoyo wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
And did the Met get the Portuguese authorities to agree?

Evidently, (taking away the MI5 element, of course) !

Oh, just noticed that I missed a 'how' out of my sentence!  I am obviously aware that the Portuguese authorities agreed. :)

roy rovers wrote:So what did (lets say) GM and DP have on anyone?
Dirt from activities in the UK? Dirt from activities in PdL? Dirt from activities in both the UK and PdL?

Well PE was there in PdL and he is nephew of MH of the labour government. I cant help feeling that it is something to do with that - at least partly.. cant see it just being a coincidence anyway

HelenMeg wrote:Who was Hone Secretary of the Labour 2007 Gov?  Is this all to do with PE being the nephew of MH?

I have often thought this. Was CM sent out to make sure the Mccs and friends didnt drop any names, on the promise of help from the UK.
The results from the FSS being confused as an example.

Last week I had renewed hope thinking a tip off had led to the searches, This week im back to thinking what are SY playing at.

mouse wrote:cynicAL quoted "Don't forget that GA could also be wildly speculating at high level conspiracy theory in order to provoke."


Don't think so. GA doesn't say much - but when he does he appears to speak with clarity. Very different to the various vague/confusing statements coming out of the SY Crimewatch Prog, Lead up to Portuguese Dig........It is very obvious he is not on the same page as Andy and his team.

Have to agree with you here mouse.

I don't see GA as speculating anything. He merely recounted a fact about an incident that took place at the airport.
Did he over read into a chance encounter ? Is it chance encounter or more ?

You'd think if MI5 were involved they'd have done a better job of monitoring the coming and going of SY detectives in and out of Portugal. Would they have waited until the SY detective is being sent off by his portuguese colleague at the airport to catch him to have a quick word or quick brief up meeting?

Given that MI5 MO is about total discretion airport is not covert place for meeting.

ChippyM wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I just think that the political interference was a 'Labour' orientated interference.  MI5 answers to the Home Sec and now we have a different government, MI5 / SY are not working for the same set of people.

Whatever needed to be covered up in May 2007 - why should we assume that DC's government were given all the information relating to that. Surely Labour would not have disclosed their dirty linen for the Conservatives to use.

  Things may have changed since 2007 and maybe certain people no longer need protecting but I believe at the end of the day there are factions within the intelligence agencies that use our political parties to carry out their agendas and not the other way round, labour vs. conservative would not really come into it.

I understand your feelings on this but are there facts to support your beliefs?
If MI5 answers to the Home Secretary - then the Home Secretary provides the remit to MI5 - and that is a fact.

This is one of the things that leads me to believe that Gerry is an apron-wearer...

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

It was in the interests of the Labour Government in 2007 to cover up the death of M, to prevent the PJ from bringing their investigation to a conclusion.
If it wasn't in their interests then they would not have interfered. 

Therefore I ask, is it in the interest of David Cameron';s government to continue the charade, or not?

The answer to that question tells us whether or not there will be a whitewash. Unfortunately we cant answer that   

IMO it all just stinks of an 'old boys network initially '. People within the government took the McCanns at their word to help them out. And imo rather than admitting the twosome duped them all, they'd rather gloss over it.

As it stands the investigation will peter out, the appeal will enventually close. And everyone will pretend nothing ever happened. Until British files are dusted off in god knows number of years.

Joey Deacon wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:I could be wrong of course and I have no proof but I really, really do not think Gerry McCann is a Mason.

Why not?

I'm not having a go or anything. It's just that I'm pretty sure that he is, and I'm wondering why you think he isn't. :-)

No offence taken, but just taking into account where he is from, where his parents are from and his religion, he just doesn't fit the demographic. Considering his career and social scene I am sure he probably knows plenty though.

HelenMeg wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:I just think that the political interference was a 'Labour' orientated interference.  MI5 answers to the Home Sec and now we have a different government, MI5 / SY are not working for the same set of people.

Whatever needed to be covered up in May 2007 - why should we assume that DC's government were given all the information relating to that. Surely Labour would not have disclosed their dirty linen for the Conservatives to use.

  Things may have changed since 2007 and maybe certain people no longer need protecting but I believe at the end of the day there are factions within the intelligence agencies that use our political parties to carry out their agendas and not the other way round, labour vs. conservative would not really come into it.

I understand your feelings on this but are there facts to support your beliefs?
If MI5 answers to the Home Secretary - then the Home Secretary provides the remit to MI5 - and that is a fact.

It would be going off topic but if you google something like 'who runs Mi5' you would have plenty to support it.  I'm not saying I can prove anything specific relating to this case but I was just making the point that the Labour vs Conservative angle probably covers up what is actually going on. The people that really pull the strings are not affiliated to a certain political party. Our political parties are there to make it appear that the public have involvement in a fair democratic system IMO.  Also do we know who the home secretary really works for? ....   Sorry,  I'll get my tin-foil hat and coat  

Mirage, today, 11.10
 
Thank you Mirage for summarizing a number of thoughts I largely concur with at present.
 
What I still can’t get my head round properly though is why Cameron agreed to ‘up the anti’ with the review in May 2011 when the best course of action was seemingly just to let sleeping dogs lie.
 
I can well believe that RB tried to exert pressure for a review, in order to increase the sales of her paper, with the serialization and publication at the same time of ‘madeleine’ (KH1), but whatever ‘hold’ she had over Cameron surely can’t have been worthy of the creation of this charade.
 
The PJ files had been out there, but reasonably successfully suppressed, since August 2008.
 
Was Cameron ‘Pinkied’ or 'Coulson’d', (he left Jan 2011, but could have left his legacy) with a wonderful scenario whereby ‘if we do this, follow it up with this, then….., ,then……..,  the gullible public will accept all of this, it gets all the nutters out of the way, Honors for KM for all of her charitable work, high level job somewhere for GM, all sorted, everybody’s happy. It a win, win all the way’, only for the whole thing to go tits-up, when the PJ wouldn’t open up & let SY see what they had in there locker, which could prove embarrassing in the future?
 
Since then they all seem to be digging a bigger & bigger hole for themselves and even the MSM (Sunday People this week) look as though they are about to throw in the towel of co-operation with this farce.
 
I await this weeks ‘Private Eye’ front cover picture from P d L with interest.
 
So many wonderful opportunities.
 


 
WLBTS re permission to dig.

Why not allow them to? They knew it was nonsense, but don't want to give SY the get out clause of 'Well we couldn't get anywhere because the bloody PJ wouldn't let us'. SY seem to have been trying that on with the ILOR's over the last few months.

MissDaisy wrote:

Joey Deacon wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:I could be wrong of course and I have no proof but I really, really do not think Gerry McCann is a Mason.

Why not?

I'm not having a go or anything. It's just that I'm pretty sure that he is, and I'm wondering why you think he isn't. :-)

No offence taken, but just taking into account where he is from, where his parents are from and his religion, he just doesn't fit the demographic. Considering his career and social scene I am sure he probably knows plenty though.

Indeed, but the devilish duo only seem to be Catholic when it suits them.

Gonçalo Amaral:  What is dangerous and serious is this attempt to find a new thesis, a so-called new theory about someone who goes to commit a theft and is scared by a three-year-old child and kills her and takes her out of there, I think it's convoluted.


But it’s nothing new. I remember that within the investigation, back then, and I recall that I spent six months in that investigation, not seven years, or three or four, like Scotland Yard – during that time, there was this thesis, too. And it happens that it was brought forward by a colleague who was a member of British Police, of Scotland Yard. He was the only member of Scotland Yard who was present in that work group of the Polícia Judiciária and the British police, he was Scotland Yard.

And when he advanced that hypothesis, it was discussed and completely set aside because it made no sense. Now they even added a bit more spice, to spice it up, that they are traffickers, that apart from trafficking, one day they thought of breaking into a house. Nobody proves that house was broken into, that there was a theft, there are no traces of a break-in.

So the 'burglary gone wrong' hypothesis (and a dead Maddie taken instead of valuables )was already purported by a Scotland Yard police member back then in 2007 ?

Uhmmmm...this is news, first time I heard it.

MRNOODLES wrote:IMO it all just stinks of an 'old boys network initially '.  People within the government took the McCanns at their word to help them out.  And imo rather than admitting the twosome duped them all, they'd rather gloss over it.

As it stands the investigation will peter out,  the appeal will enventually close.  And everyone will pretend nothing ever happened.  Until British files are dusted off in god knows number of years.

Unless people that care keep demanding answers.  The thought of YET ANOTHER police/government/authority miscarriage of justice/cover up/whitewash and the thought of the Great British Public just shrugging their shoulders (again) and just forgetting about it makes me incandescent with rage. We MUST NOT let this go.   

HelenMeg wrote:

roy rovers wrote:So what did (lets say) GM and DP have on anyone?
Dirt from activities in the UK? Dirt from activities in PdL? Dirt from activities in both the UK and PdL?

Well PE was there in PdL and he is nephew of MH of the labour government. I cant help feeling that it is something to do with that - at least partly.. cant see it just being a coincidence anyway

The Government asssitance, MI5 intervention etc was all about the links to the 'P' word. To put a lid on what COULD, or MAY be revealed. To PROTECT. 

It WASN'T about protecting the Mccanns and chums. 

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

fossey wrote:The Government asssitance, MI5 intervention etc was all about the links to the 'P' word. To put a lid on what COULD, or MAY be revealed. To PROTECT. 

It WASN'T about protecting the Mccanns and chums. 

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

Absolutely spot on in my opinion.

ChippyM wrote:
It would be going off topic but if you google something like 'who runs Mi5' you would have plenty to support it.  I'm not saying I can prove anything specific relating to this case but I was just making the point that the Labour vs Conservative angle probably covers up what is actually going on. The people that really pull the strings are not affiliated to a certain political party. Our political parties are there to make it appear that the public have involvement in a fair democratic system IMO.  Also do we know who the home secretary really works for? ....   Sorry,  I'll get my tin-foil hat and coat  

Spot on ChippyM.

Anchor: There are these traces, Gonçalo, of banking statements –

Gonçalo Amaral: What banking statements? Those found on the road, rubbish? We are speaking about rubbish that is being found, and nothing is being related with. The banking statements don’t belong to the McCanns, they weren’t taken from inside the house. Nothing was taken from that house. From that house, the only “thing” which is not a thing, it’s a person, that is missing is Madeleine McCann. There is not a television, a photo camera missing, nothing, no money is missing, and there are no traces of a break-in. Therefore, there was no burglary there. There was no assault on that house.

Is it credible that OG would want to interview people on basis on bank statements found on the road ?

A clear sign that the newspapers are printing tripes out of their own interpretation.

The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

MissDaisy wrote:The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

Gerry knows too much, and said he'd blab if ever brought to book?

MissDaisy wrote:The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

Agreed msdaisy.

If secret services were involved, the McCanns would have been told to STFU from day one - to say nothing and do nothing - and to let the SS do their job.
And, they would be guaranteed their liberty to enjoy their pot of gold (of other people's money) without them having the need to pay bogus men, con men, for bogus pte investigations.

MissDaisy wrote:The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

Not quite true.

Remember the Mccanns were shouting from the rooftops the 'abduction' tosh immediately and the media were all over it again with immediate effect. 

So it COULD NOT be wrapped up straight away. 

Intelligent services etc were far more concerned about OTHER things.

MissDaisy wrote:The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

I agree MissDaisy  

candyfloss wrote:

MissDaisy wrote:The more I think about this surely if the intelligence services were involved we would never have heard about this case or at most it would been very quickly wrapped up.

I agree MissDaisy  

What, like Princess Diana's case was quickly and quietly wrapped up and never heard of again?

Or David Kelly?

And so on.

MissDaisy wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] formed the Brown ministry after being invited by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] to begin a new government following the resignation of the previous [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on 27 June 2007. He took office as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], a title he would hold until his resignation on 11 May 2010. In his inaugural cabinet Brown appointed the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] first female [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

Prior to this - John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan (born 8 May 1947) was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from 2006 to 2007 - under Blairs ministry. Blair handed over to Brown in June 2007.....

John Reid must have surely involved MI5 in May 2007 in the Mc Cann case unless political interference only begain after Brown took over with Jacqui as Home Sec. Its important to know.

When did the political interference begin on Mc Cann case?  After Brown took over on June 27th?  Or whilst still under Blair?  - I believe it was a little later... under Brown?

Coincidentally John Reid is a former Chairman of Celtic Football Club. Gerry McCann was a team doctor at Celtic.

John Reid was accused of being a sex pest by Labourista Dawn Plitheroe,seriously.

Naz_Nomad wrote:

MRNOODLES wrote:IMO it all just stinks of an 'old boys network initially '.  People within the government took the McCanns at their word to help them out.  And imo rather than admitting the twosome duped them all, they'd rather gloss over it.

As it stands the investigation will peter out,  the appeal will enventually close.  And everyone will pretend nothing ever happened.  Until British files are dusted off in god knows number of years.

Unless people that care keep demanding answers.  The thought of YET ANOTHER police/government/authority miscarriage of justice/cover up/whitewash and the thought of the Great British Public just shrugging their shoulders (again) and just forgetting about it makes me incandescent with rage. We MUST NOT let this go.   

I 100% agree. It's what stinks about our governments. 'This is or agenda and this is what you have to believe because we tell you how it is through the MSM.'
If you dare question it, or don't believe it you're labeled, conspiracy theorists, fruit cakes nutters.... the list used is endless.