Could Madeleine's Review by SY be pulled??

I agree with Ben's petition - and I also agree with everyone of a missing person being up in arms that their beloved is not being given the same privilege as Madeleine.

I would like to reiterate what I have said in the above.

However,............. does anyone else feel that the more people who become vocal about the unfairness of the treatment by SY to the McCanns............... the more chance that the Madeleine review will be pulled?? Which IMO would be right 'Up the McCanns Street' (as I truly believe it is the last thing they want)................ Hope this doesn't sound as though I am taking anything away from those families of missing people......................

Don't think I've explained myself very well - but I just don't want to give the McCanns a 'Get out Clause'...........

Feel free to shoot me down........... I won't be offended......................

Not a chance.

It has to be the case that there are factors of which we are not aware that caused those SY resources to be allocated.

The stuff from the Met Authority and from it's Chief is likely to be, in part at least, bluster.

I think we can take comfort from the likelihood that there is more to this than meets the eye.

That's a tricky one. If SY don't turn anything up, which is probable, the McCanns will try to claim this as proof of their innocence. The review could be counterproductive as if it finds nothing a lot of people will lose interest in trying to find the truth.

Well even if that turns out to be the case, I seem to recall that when it is known but not provable what happened, there is a phrase trotted out that goes something like:


"We are not looking for anyone else"

victor mendez wrote:That's a tricky one. If SY don't turn anything up, which is probable, the McCanns will try to claim this as proof of their innocence. The review could be counterproductive as if it finds nothing a lot of people will lose interest in trying to find the truth.

Thank you for your reply victor mendez - that is not quite what I meant though.................. my fear is that it will be announced that 'due to the circumstances of all other missing people - we have decided to withdraw the support of SY in a review'.................... and a review will not take place..........................

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well even if that turns out to be the case, I seem to recall that when it is known but not provable what happened, there is a phradse trotted out that goes something like:


"We are not looking for anyone else"

Which is what I think the Portuguese are saying when they shelved the case.

Oh yes indeed.

I agree with everything you've said, flower

I agree with Ben's petition. I'll also say that the lack of attention given to other missing people is horribly, horribly unfair. The McCanns have hogged the limelight for four years, elbowing out anyone else who might want a look in.
However that's the McCann way, and when I see them jogging round parks with other missing person's relatives it just makes me puke. Life isn't fair (it never has been), and the McCanns are proof of that.
Hopefully, all those with an interest in these sad cases will lobby parliament relentlessly for more assistance.
But in the meantime, I don't think it helps when the more prominent political dissenters are saying: "You can't do X because you haven't done Y or Z."
After all, for such a long time now we've been saying: "Will somebody please DO SOMETHING!"
So when somebody does do something, I'm not going to say:"Ooh no, I don't want that - it's not fair."
I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

almostgothic wrote:I agree with everything you've said, flower

I agree with Ben's petition. I'll also say that the lack of attention given to other missing people is horribly, horribly unfair. The McCanns have hogged the limelight for four years, elbowing out anyone else who might want a look in.
However that's the McCann way, and when I see them jogging round parks with other missing person's relatives it just makes me puke. Life isn't fair (it never has been), and the McCanns are proof of that.
Hopefully, all those with an interest in these sad cases will lobby parliament relentlessly for more assistance.
But in the meantime, I don't think it helps when the more prominent political dissenters are saying: "You can't do X because you haven't done Y or Z."
After all, for such a long time now we've been saying: "Will somebody please DO SOMETHING!"
So when somebody does do something, I'm not going to say:"Ooh no, I don't want that - it's not fair."
I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Thank You for that almostgothic - I think you realise what I am trying to say............. I too feel that for so long we have wanted this - and I know there are lots more out there who deserve the same - but I do want this review to go ahead without the McCanns having a sudden 'conscience attack' and back tracking because others are not being given the same resources....................

I think it is always possible that the review will be scaled right back perhaps to become little more than a paper exercise and some sort of fudged vague conclusion. But hopefully this will not be the case. And it will be a thorough and absolute review going right back to square one and examining all the evidence surrounding the hours before during and after the disappearance of Madeleine.

Theres no way on Gods earth the McCanns can say they don't want this now, flower.
Its exactly what they've been asking for (ahem!) for the past 2 yrs.
And to be honest, I don't think it would go down too well with SY if they did. It would make their (SY) radars go off big time if they did.
The McC's are now stuck with a review whether they want it or not!
Like has been said many times on here recently, Be very careful what you ask for ......

I do understand people's anxiety.

But sometimes when people say that they are getting unfair treatment it is almost as if they doubt their own convictions in the first place.

This is not the McCanns getting preferential treatment.

This is the McCanns getting their bluff called.

They did not want NSY looking into this case at this time.

They did not really want to wind up and insult the Secretary of State for the Home Office.

And the PM and his family would have very good grounds for feeling extremely offended by lessons in childcare from these 'infamous' characters.

Have patience.

New Sheriff in town.

cherrylight wrote:I do understand people's anxiety.

But sometimes when people say that they are getting unfair treatment it is almost as if they doubt their own convictions in the first place.

This is not the McCanns getting preferential treatment.

This is the McCanns getting their bluff called.

They did not want NSY looking into this case at this time.

They did not really want to wind up and insult the Secretary of State for the Home Office.

And the PM and his family would have very good grounds for feeling extremely offended by lessons in childcare from these 'infamous' characters.

Have patience.

New Sheriff in town.

wjk wrote:

cherrylight wrote:I do understand people's anxiety.

But sometimes when people say that they are getting unfair treatment it is almost as if they doubt their own convictions in the first place.

This is not the McCanns getting preferential treatment.

This is the McCanns getting their bluff called.

They did not want NSY looking into this case at this time.

They did not really want to wind up and insult the Secretary of State for the Home Office.

And the PM and his family would have very good grounds for feeling extremely offended by lessons in childcare from these 'infamous' characters.

Have patience.

New Sheriff in town.

cherrylight

I like what you say - I just can't quite accept it at the moment.

flower wrote:

victor mendez wrote:That's a tricky one. If SY don't turn anything up, which is probable, the McCanns will try to claim this as proof of their innocence. The review could be counterproductive as if it finds nothing a lot of people will lose interest in trying to find the truth.

Thank you for your reply victor mendez - that is not quite what I meant though.................. my fear is that it will be announced that 'due to the circumstances of all other missing people - we have decided to withdraw the support of SY in a review'.................... and a review will not take place..........................

No.

The time for considering if it should be done has gone by.

Needham's petition will get no better treatment from the government than the case of Dr Kelly has done - they have made a decision and from what I know about how publicly announced decisions like this are made from on high, they will not change it now - all the considering was done long ago before David Cameron put his John Hancock and his photo on that love letter to Mccanns, into the paper. They don't f*ck up these kinds of decisions with some knee jerk offer based on his good will - and they don't back track because some other person objects to it, they will have considered other missing children and the protests about taxes spent, before Cameron ever set pen to paper.

McCanns have NO ability to stop this, nor would the PM or Home Secretary do so at this point, it's done, the decision is made, I will bet the ranch this will go forward.

cherrylight wrote:I do understand people's anxiety.

But sometimes when people say that they are getting unfair treatment it is almost as if they doubt their own convictions in the first place.This is not the McCanns getting preferential treatment.

This is the McCanns getting their bluff called.

They did not want NSY looking into this case at this time.

They did not really want to wind up and insult the Secretary of State for the Home Office.

And the PM and his family would have very good grounds for feeling extremely offended by lessons in childcare from these 'infamous' characters.

Have patience.

New Sheriff in town.

I agree CherryLight. it's as if people want to put a place setter or caveat in now, in case they don't get the outcome they want, or in case they don't really want this to go forward despite this would have been greeted with a standing ovation in May 2007 or in December (not saying that is the motive for flower at all it's just I've sen a lot of this kind of worried "but maybe it wont be fair, maybe they'll do a cover up too, maybe it will get pulled by McCanns or their "government protectors" )- because conjecture is better than really knowing, since it allows us to sit here and posit all kinds of things that will not be possible any longer, when we know.

Hey -it's been fun, here- it's been worthy, it's been diligent work- but now it is in the hands of the experts.

They will find out what's there to be found. No case will be pulled. What we end up getting to hear is another matter.

If NSY finds no case for an abductor and "isn't looking for anyone else" I will not be surprised. McCanns still get the law's protection as they richly desrve like all suspects all do - and can still stay silent and in many cases as with this one, when they did this stunt with the first investigation, they were not able to go forward for this reason. And still may not be able to. And we may not know why, but we will hear SOMETHING.

And I'm all ears.

flower wrote:I agree with Ben's petition - and I also agree with everyone of a missing person being up in arms that their beloved is not being given the same privilege as Madeleine.

I would like to reiterate what I have said in the above.

However,............. does anyone else feel that the more people who become vocal about the unfairness of the treatment by SY to the McCanns............... the more chance that the Madeleine review will be pulled?? Which IMO would be right 'Up the McCanns Street' (as I truly believe it is the last thing they want)................ Hope this doesn't sound as though I am taking anything away from those families of missing people......................

Don't think I've explained myself very well - but I just don't want to give the McCanns a 'Get out Clause'...........

Feel free to shoot me down........... I won't be offended......................

I Agree with you flower

David Cameron is head of a minority coalition Govt, and he cannot afford to be seen to be doing a massive U-turn. He is the one who promised a review by NSY, and he can't back down on that promise. For one thing, Theresa May would have his dangly bits for earrings, because she was made to look a complete idiot, thanks to his big announcement.

Except now it's a tar baby. We have the families of Ben Needham and Keith Bennett demanding, quite rightfully, why they can't have the same resources for their cases. It doesn't look good for DC if he's not seen to be treating everyone fairly. The populace are starting to ask awkward questions already.

No, I think that NSY and DC have to see this through; they can't risk for it to be seen as a whitewash, neither; and the McCanns are just going to have to like it, or lump it. It's a whole lot bigger than just Mr Gerry's ego, now.

The monster that the McCanns created is going to turn right around and swallow them up.

If DC wanted a whitewash and wanted no evidence to be found, why would he put THIRTY policemen onto it? Surely THREE would have still been seen to be a generous offer, more than what has been done for other missing children, and a lot easier to implement IMO.

widowan wrote:

cherrylight wrote:I do understand people's anxiety.

But sometimes when people say that they are getting unfair treatment it is almost as if they doubt their own convictions in the first place.This is not the McCanns getting preferential treatment.

This is the McCanns getting their bluff called.

They did not want NSY looking into this case at this time.

They did not really want to wind up and insult the Secretary of State for the Home Office.

And the PM and his family would have very good grounds for feeling extremely offended by lessons in childcare from these 'infamous' characters.

Have patience.

New Sheriff in town.

I agree CherryLight. it's as if people want to put a place setter or caveat in now, in case they don't get the outcome they want, or in case they don't really want this to go forward despite this would have been greeted with a standing ovation in May 2007 or in December (not saying that is the motive for flower at all it's just I've sen a lot of this kind of worried "but maybe it wont be fair, maybe they'll do a cover up too, maybe it will get pulled by McCanns or their "government protectors" )- because conjecture is better than really knowing, since it allows us to sit here and posit all kinds of things that will not be possible any longer, when we know.

Hey -it's been fun, here- it's been worthy, it's been diligent work- but now it is in the hands of the experts.

They will find out what's there to be found. No case will be pulled. What we end up getting to hear is another matter.

If NSY finds no case for an abductor and "isn't looking for anyone else" I will not be surprised. McCanns still get the law's protection as they richly desrve like all suspects all do - and can still stay silent and in many cases as with this one, when they did this stunt with the first investigation, they were not able to go forward for this reason. And still may not be able to. And we may not know why, but we will hear SOMETHING.

And I'm all ears.

I'm not sure my OP has been understood (probably down to my literary skills!!!). widowan - I have not commented on how fair/unfair, cover up/ no cover up this review will be (I personally think this review will be above board) my thoughts were that if there is such an outcry amongst the General Public then the review would be pulled before it even starts. Having read the replies and opinions of others - I now have hope that this cannot happen. It's too far gone for that - and I too will be waiting with all ears..............

squeaker wrote:If DC wanted a whitewash and wanted no evidence to be found, why would he put THIRTY policemen onto it? Surely THREE would have still been seen to be a generous offer, more than what has been done for other missing children, and a lot easier to implement IMO.

I agree 30 is quite a bunch - but then there are a lot of redundancies in the pipeline - apparently. Not wanting to be dismissive but it is a lot of feet on the ground.

Angelique wrote:

squeaker wrote:If DC wanted a whitewash and wanted no evidence to be found, why would he put THIRTY policemen onto it? Surely THREE would have still been seen to be a generous offer, more than what has been done for other missing children, and a lot easier to implement IMO.

I agree 30 is quite a bunch - but then there are a lot of redundancies in the pipeline - apparently. Not wanting to be dismissive but it is a lot of feet on the ground.

..... and too many cooks can spoil the broth!

Has Keith Bennett's mother approached DC?

Morning pennylane

Yes - they will be falling over themselves to get sight of the files. But I don't envy them the task, whoever is allotted it, of reading the statements. Perhaps that's why there will be so many - you can only stand so much and then you have to take a break.

Angelique wrote:Morning pennylane

Yes - they will be falling over themselves to get sight of the files. But I don't envy them the task, whoever is allotted it, of reading the statements. Perhaps that's why there will be so many - you can only stand so much and then you have to take a break.

Yes it will be arduous.... more so if they don't start from square one, and mostly go the abductor route.... then it will take forever to eliminate all those daffy sightings.

This entire case has been one disappointment after another.... some good news is long overdue, but I'm not holding my breath.