McCanns Lawyer says police must take position on the lead provided by S.A Businessman

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:For crying out loud, there was nothing premeditated or well thought out in whatever happened. You just have to look at the timelines they hurriedly wrote and the idiotic statements they gave to see that whatever happened didn't give them time to rehearse their stories. That's why they messed up big time and that's why even a child can detect all their inconsistencies. The PJ investigation team has a fairly good idea about what happened that night. They just can't prove it. Hadn't they benefited from their contacts and friends in high places and this would have been solved years ago.

So, are you dismissing out of hand all the work done by Hideho who believes strongly, following hours of studying this case and meticulously going through every scrap of information to hand, that Madeleine's fate was sealed before the 3rd? I am inclined to agree that something very suddenly and unexpected happened, but it is when it happened that is the question. If indeed she died before the 3rd, it does make the coverup even more elaborate. On the other hand, if it was a sudden discovery on the night of the 3rd it makes the coverup more transparent I think. Some think the timelines were deviously clever, only appearing to look on the face of it as if they were drawn up in a hurry, but whatever one thinks, they have so far evaded further scrutiny over this disappearance. I for one do not go with the protection aspect either from powers up on high because that is another conspiracy as far as I can see. It is the lack of proof, as you say, I think. Whenever it happened, whatever happened, it needs more than circumstancial evidence for this to stand any chance in court, but that is all the police appear to have, circumstancial evidence. Yes, it is compelling and it has convinced all of us, but there is nothing I'm afraid that would be enough to satisfy a court of law and this is what the PJ realised quite some time ago.

Yes, I dismiss the possibility of anything happening before the 3rd. In fact, it's not me that dismisses it. It's a whole investigation team (now 2, if what I've been told is right). I just happen to agree. I don't believe in any big conspiracy theory but it is a fact that they were protected and benefited from their connections. And the diplomatic pressures confirm it. The PJ was told to investigate an abduction, not a missing child case. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial. I'm just not sure that if there weren't interferences the evidence might not be so circumstantial.

I'm with you on this Claudia. I can't go with substitute children or any other complicated theory.

Wallflower wrote:

T4two wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:@susible: I concur wholeheartedly.

Conspiracy is often merely the product of the over-active imaginations of sincerely concerned people trying to fill in the blanks.

Far more often than not, the real truth (If and when discovered) is mundane.

So mundane that the Portuguese police together with their British colleagues were unable to solve it? So mundane that the prime ministers of both countries discussed it in private? So mundane that the British Prime Minister of the day held secret telephone calls with the parents as did the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary? So mundane that the British Prime Minister of the day seconded one of his top spin merchants to front for the parents with the media? So mundane that the government of the day instructed their diplomats in Portugal to give the parents their full support in spite of warnings by said diplomats that the parents were not eliminated from suspicion? So mundane that the supposedly top forensic lab in the world messed up on analysis of the samples obtained and then threw them away? One could go on and on citing the anomalies - that is why most of us are here - because we do not accept the 'official version' of events - the 'official version' as accepted by the media, the judiciary and a lot of very powerful people in British society and 'enforced' by the leading legal teams available in Britain today?

Have you gone a 180 degree turn in your views on this case T4two?

I'm sure in discussions before, you have said time and time again.that it was simply lack of solid evidence along with the formidable collection of libel lawyers/pr reps that had kept the McCanns afloat so far. I'm genuinely surprised.

My views about this case were formed at quite an early stage - September 2007 to be precise. At that time I am on record with the expressed view that the evidence against the parents was sufficient to bring charges. That I may add, was also the view expressed by the British detective Prior at that time. When it didn't happen and the parents were welcomed back to Britain as celebrities I compared the reactions of certain sections of British society to the McCann affair to the reactions of certain sections of British society as portrayed in the EM Forster novel "A passage to India". Just as it was unacceptable to the British in India that the word of an Indian could ever be believed against the word of a British woman, so it is unacceptable that the word of a Portuguese could ever be believed against the word of two British doctors and ergo, that those very same British doctors could be involved in the disappearance or death of their daughter - simply unacceptable. I had a real déjà vu moment recently when reading a post on the other forum, where a poster had had an email exchange with a reporter from an English newspaper. The exchange of emails was concerned with the question of why that reporter supported the parents and insisted on reporting the 'official story'. At the moment the reporter was asked whether he had read the (Portuguese) case files he immediately broke off the exchange with the words, "Oh no! I'm not going to fall for that; you're not going to get me to go there..." or words to that effect. It's that phenomenon again isn't it? That refusal to even contemplate the unacceptable; the head in the sand mentality that prefers not to know lest it turn out to be true - every gentleman's worst nightmare. The very thought that two British doctors and several of their doctor friends could be involved in something criminal, something so horrendous as the death of a small child and concealment of the circumstances of that death - totally unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is that the truth should be revealed by the Portuguese. There isn't a conspiracy as such; there are a thousand small comspiracies on a thousand different levels, because the very thought that the Portuguese could be right is unacceptable. That is why the Portuguese files and their conclusions are ignored; that is why nobody in the media is prepared to read them, or admit to having read them. That is why judges and police officers, prime ministers and talk-show hosts adhere to the 'official' line. The problem for Scotland Yard is not how to solve the case - the problem is how to close it so that the British establishment can save face. So, although I would prefer to share the optimism of TEIN and really believe that Scotland Yard will eventually bring the parents and their accomplices to justice, I cannot see how it can be allowed to happen. Yes, it was a sordid little affair, badly planned and executed, but unfortunately the British turned it into a matter of honour; a matter of 'them' and 'us' - 'them' being the Portuguese and 'us' being the British. It is no longer a straight-forward criminal case therefore, but one which threatens to disrupt relations between the two countries. Not what I'd describe as mundane at all, but I would be the first to admit that it was mundane when it started.

T4two

Yes, in a nutshell - well said.

Do you think there will ever be an "unless someone breaks" scenario?

Thanks for replying T4two

IN essense - just because they happened to be of British origin - and just because they happen to be doctors - the idea that they could have been responsible for actual criminal neglect or for hurting their daughter has always been impossible for the whole British establishment to swallow?

Personally, I don't buy that. Remember Harrold Shipman? I don't think the Passage to India comparison is exactly comparing like for like, although, I do sort of see what you mean. India wasn't Europe. And I think I'm right in saying that that book was set at just the time when the blooming Indians had the audacity to try and get independence. There was a huge amount of anti British sentiment amongst Indian people. There was a big reluctance to let the empire go, particularly India, the "jewel in the crown". There was a corresponding NEED by the British establishment to suppress the Indian people, to deny their humanity, intelligence, integrity and their ability do anything without the aid of their white masters. There has, without a doubt been a lot of patronising of Portugal and their police force, but let's not over egg the Johny-Furrinner-root-cause of the whole McCanns getting away with murder situation.

There has to be something MORE to it. Because the behaviour of everyone (by that I mean media and political classes) has been SO strange. I pointed out earlier, that public figures just don't speak out about them. And this next bit is where your Passage to India analogy breaks down, because I'm sure that at the time the novel was set, ordinary, British people would have found the idea of taking a brown man's word against a nice white one unnacceptable. Whereas we know that lots of ordinary British people right now, find the McCanns deeply suspicious and have no difficulty believing they did something to their daughter. Anne Enright and John Redwood are the only two I can think of who dared to say anything negative about them. Anne Enright apologiesed or something I believe? John Redwood deleted his blog entry about them. Why?

Just because the media got behind them at the beginning (which I also find fishy) and a lot of celebs/interest groups got on the bandwagon, there was no reason why that bandwagon couldn't be brought to a halt and made to change direction. No logical reason on earth. There is a saying about the press in the UK. They like to build people up so that they can knock them down. Well we all saw them doing the first bit, but somehow the second bit still hasn't happened. The strange thing is that there was a whole lot of stuff that the press could have used, very easily. The Gaspar statements for one. The dogs. The McCanns' own inconsistencies. Or perhaps some skeletons in their closets. I'm sure they have a few. Who hasn't?

No, these people are Teflon coated. Double, triple teflon coated. It is not, in my opinion just because they had the "luck" to get lots of donations or to hire pr people. There is something else lurking at the bottom of this murky river.

T4two said
The exchange of emails was concerned with the question of why that reporter supported the parents and insisted on reporting the 'official story'. At the moment the reporter was asked whether he had read the (Portuguese) case files he immediately broke off the exchange with the words, "Oh no! I'm not going to fall for that; you're not going to get me to go there..." or words to that effect. It's that phenomenon again isn't it? That refusal to even contemplate the unacceptable; the head in the sand mentality that prefers not to know lest it turn out to be true - every gentleman's worst nightmare.

What a very odd thing for a reporter to say. I'm not going to go there? To the official files? I prefer to allow the suspect's PR man to write the story for me?

These aren't real reporters, of course. It's not Woodward and Bernstein or whatever the British equivalent is. There are no American equivalents today, either.

More British people today probably think McCanns could have had something to do with it would have a hundred years ago, but we have to remember what we have gotten to see was so flavored by the press and media, and McCanns were in bed with the press from very early on. They knew it could help them - to find madeleine, or to promote their own innocence, whichever - but they got the tiger by the tail, Maddie sold papers, and when the feeding frenzy had started the press lost what little (very little) common sense and decency they had and then they got sued, which put McCanns back on top again. Things settled down to a situation where Clarence provided stories and the papers who played nicely got to run them.

Not only did the media suffer from Johnny Foreigner syndrome, they also leveraged that as a story -Tony Parsons, etc. Who doesn't want to read a really scathing horrible racist attack that can cloak itself in self righteous indignation that these sardine munchers have, as usual, got it wrong and are victimizing this nice couple so I can feel free to say whatever I want about them. It was a tenth of an inch under the surface all along, of the Establishment- and the press has no morals as we have seen.

One JK Rowling, Beckham and the PM have all said "oh, the poor parents, what a terrible thing to happen to innocent people" the editorial slant's been set. if the parents are poor victims then what they did must not be wrong, it must not be their fault, nor their responsibility, and anyone who looks at it that way must just be horribly stupid, or cruel, or wrong headed. If the cruel and stupid people are of another race, that's easier to side with Our National Heros because what a stupid country, to let a child get kidnapped, to have pedophiles lurking. It's a way of fending it off that it couldn't happen here, to us. Although as we know it can and does, though not nearly as often as parents kill their own child. I think I saw the statistic that the most typical person to kill a 3 year old girl is her mother. That surprised me somewhat - I thought it would be the mother's boyfriend. Certainly highly uncommon for a complete stranger to have that kind of access to such a young child. But we don't pay Bechkam or JK Rowling to be criminal justice masterminds. Still they can be used very effectively to promote ideas and merchandise, and MM was merchandised very quickly and very effectively.

I wonder if they'd waited til more was known before they came out to help McCanns, if they'd still have come out on their side or might have said, geez. Wait. Someething's not right. But who but the most cynical person, given what we saw in the press, would have instantly suspected the parents? My immediate take on it was, oh my God, what friggen idiots, but they must be suffering horribly, what a horrible foolish mistake and they should know better, they'll pay for this the rest of their lives. Their promoters probably thought the same and until they are proven guilty it'd look really bad to pull away your support, you're not going to be hated and reviled for being tricked but you would be, for being fickle.

But all three of those I mention are very wealthy and with access to power. Maybe it's easier for them, like Daisy in Great Gatsby, if we're going to literature for references, to excuse parents who are also at least middle class, because the rich are not like you and me. Not only do they have more money, they can and frequently do use it to buy Justice and always use it to tell the world what to think about them.

Maybe it's not so hard for a PM or a celebrity to imagine innocent people hiring a press agent to spin their image and plant stories (and even plant sightings?) That's normal for them whereas to most of us it's unimaginable that you'd go straight to a spin merchant and a defense lawyer if your kid was missing. The media these days is a new ballgame. You either get on top of it and ride it or it devours you and someone like Murdoch - or one of his hirelings - or Clarence - could make that case very plain to McCanns.

The great thing abuot the press was that the stories would not only help to find Madeleine they'd help to promote the notion that she was sstolen and alive, not dead at the parents' hands or at least on their watch. So there was no way that strategy could fail, whether MM was kidnapped or not.

It's quite grotesque that Kate now is an ambassador for missing kids however, in my opinion.

What did Ann Enright say, I wonder? I've just read her book Making Babies and I think her opinion would be worth hearing.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

LJC wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:For crying out loud, there was nothing premeditated or well thought out in whatever happened. You just have to look at the timelines they hurriedly wrote and the idiotic statements they gave to see that whatever happened didn't give them time to rehearse their stories. That's why they messed up big time and that's why even a child can detect all their inconsistencies. The PJ investigation team has a fairly good idea about what happened that night. They just can't prove it. Hadn't they benefited from their contacts and friends in high places and this would have been solved years ago.

So, are you dismissing out of hand all the work done by Hideho who believes strongly, following hours of studying this case and meticulously going through every scrap of information to hand, that Madeleine's fate was sealed before the 3rd? I am inclined to agree that something very suddenly and unexpected happened, but it is when it happened that is the question. If indeed she died before the 3rd, it does make the coverup even more elaborate. On the other hand, if it was a sudden discovery on the night of the 3rd it makes the coverup more transparent I think. Some think the timelines were deviously clever, only appearing to look on the face of it as if they were drawn up in a hurry, but whatever one thinks, they have so far evaded further scrutiny over this disappearance. I for one do not go with the protection aspect either from powers up on high because that is another conspiracy as far as I can see. It is the lack of proof, as you say, I think. Whenever it happened, whatever happened, it needs more than circumstancial evidence for this to stand any chance in court, but that is all the police appear to have, circumstancial evidence. Yes, it is compelling and it has convinced all of us, but there is nothing I'm afraid that would be enough to satisfy a court of law and this is what the PJ realised quite some time ago.

Yes, I dismiss the possibility of anything happening before the 3rd. In fact, it's not me that dismisses it. It's a whole investigation team (now 2, if what I've been told is right). I just happen to agree. I don't believe in any big conspiracy theory but it is a fact that they were protected and benefited from their connections. And the diplomatic pressures confirm it. The PJ was told to investigate an abduction, not a missing child case. Yes, the evidence is circumstantial. I'm just not sure that if there weren't interferences the evidence might not be so circumstantial.

I'm with you on this Claudia. I can't go with substitute children or any other complicated theory.

Wallflower wrote:Thanks for replying T4two

IN essense - just because they happened to be of British origin - and just because they happen to be doctors - the idea that they could have been responsible for actual criminal neglect or for hurting their daughter has always been impossible for the whole British establishment to swallow?

Personally, I don't buy that. Remember Harrold Shipman? I don't think the Passage to India comparison is exactly comparing like for like, although, I do sort of see what you mean. India wasn't Europe. And I think I'm right in saying that that book was set at just the time when the blooming Indians had the audacity to try and get independence. There was a huge amount of anti British sentiment amongst Indian people. There was a big reluctance to let the empire go, particularly India, the "jewel in the crown". There was a corresponding NEED by the British establishment to suppress the Indian people, to deny their humanity, intelligence, integrity and their ability do anything without the aid of their white masters. There has, without a doubt been a lot of patronising of Portugal and their police force, but let's not over egg the Johny-Furrinner-root-cause of the whole McCanns getting away with murder situation.

There has to be something MORE to it. Because the behaviour of everyone (by that I mean media and political classes) has been SO strange. I pointed out earlier, that public figures just don't speak out about them. And this next bit is where your Passage to India analogy breaks down, because I'm sure that at the time the novel was set, ordinary, British people would have found the idea of taking a brown man's word against a nice white one unnacceptable. Whereas we know that lots of ordinary British people right now, find the McCanns deeply suspicious and have no difficulty believing they did something to their daughter. Anne Enright and John Redwood are the only two I can think of who dared to say anything negative about them. Anne Enright apologiesed or something I believe? John Redwood deleted his blog entry about them. Why?

Just because the media got behind them at the beginning (which I also find fishy) and a lot of celebs/interest groups got on the bandwagon, there was no reason why that bandwagon couldn't be brought to a halt and made to change direction. No logical reason on earth. There is a saying about the press in the UK. They like to build people up so that they can knock them down. Well we all saw them doing the first bit, but somehow the second bit still hasn't happened. The strange thing is that there was a whole lot of stuff that the press could have used, very easily. The Gaspar statements for one. The dogs. The McCanns' own inconsistencies. Or perhaps some skeletons in their closets. I'm sure they have a few. Who hasn't?

No, these people are Teflon coated. Double, triple teflon coated. It is not, in my opinion just because they had the "luck" to get lots of donations or to hire pr people. There is something else lurking at the bottom of this murky river.

Totally agree with all the above, except (being a foreigner myself) when push comes to shove, I have always found that my word isn't as valid as that of a British person. It's tribal and I think it's the same with any nationality, the tabloids encourage this attitude. A Frenchman will believe a Frenchman rather than any foreigner and so on.

As for a conspiracy, I'm sticking with the fact that it was planned, but only by the McCanns - but possibly planned on a 'make it up as we go' basis. Gerry, as a child, apparently loved playing tricks, also was very good at card tricks. That mindset is interesting in this context.

These are arrogant, blinkered people. I read somewhere that they behaved like the cast of 'Friends' and their interviews seem to bear this out. Doctors do think they are gods, there are exceptions imo. But being a doctor also requires a certain cold heartedness, otherwise how could one cope? It's the same with nurses, I'm very good at looking after people but could never be a nurse, I'd be devastated to lose a patient. So their profession argues against them, not for them.

So in short, I think it was the McCanns who did it. Then got the Friends set to back them up. I do think it happened earlier than the 3rd, based on the phone pings alone.
But the protection that swung into action from the word go (imo a little earlier even) is unparalleled as is the blatant interference with the due course of law and the vital evidence destroyed (DNA/FSS).
So why should two mediocre doctors merit such protection? (I've read most of Gerry's work, believe me, some of it is mere A level at best).
A card the McCanns would only play if taken to court - to defend themselves?

investigation
Maddie's parents away from searches

Investigator South American is surprised by the behavior of the McCanns. Learn why the CM

We know why the mccanns don't want to know.....money.

tigger wrote:
Totally agree with all the above, except (being a foreigner myself) when push comes to shove, I have always found that my word isn't as valid as that of a British person. It's tribal and I think it's the same with any nationality, the tabloids encourage this attitude. A Frenchman will believe a Frenchman rather than any foreigner and so on.

As for a conspiracy, I'm sticking with the fact that it was planned, but only by the McCanns - but possibly planned on a 'make it up as we go' basis. Gerry, as a child, apparently loved playing tricks, also was very good at card tricks. That mindset is interesting in this context.

These are arrogant, blinkered people. I read somewhere that they behaved like the cast of 'Friends' and their interviews seem to bear this out. Doctors do think they are gods, there are exceptions imo. But being a doctor also requires a certain cold heartedness, otherwise how could one cope? It's the same with nurses, I'm very good at looking after people but could never be a nurse, I'd be devastated to lose a patient. So their profession argues against them, not for them.

So in short, I think it was the McCanns who did it. Then got the Friends set to back them up. I do think it happened earlier than the 3rd, based on the phone pings alone.
But the protection that swung into action from the word go (imo a little earlier even) is unparalleled as is the blatant interference with the due course of law and the vital evidence destroyed (DNA/FSS).
So why should two mediocre doctors merit such protection? (I've read most of Gerry's work, believe me, some of it is mere A level at best).
A card the McCanns would only play if taken to court - to defend themselves?

I think that Hideho's research into the pre 3rd May behaviour of the McCanns is very compelling. Amaral was taking off the case so quickly, there are so many things he was not able to look into.

They did make race a big issue themselves. In an extremely nasty, insidious way. The McCanns talked about what a beautiful, pretty blonde there daughter is/was. And how she was just the kind of prize that would be favoured by Saudi paedo gangs. What reason did they have for saying this? Remember also that Kate said on Panorama, when her daughter went missing they all said "close the borders." All this played into the most disgusting kind of xenephobia.

If they are ever found to be behind the disappearance of their daughter, I would like to see them charged with the stirring up racial/religious hatred too.

For widowan

Anne Enright on disliking the Mccanns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566565/Booker-winner-writes-of-dislike-for-McCanns.html

Wallflower wrote:

tigger wrote:
Totally agree with all the above, except (being a foreigner myself) when push comes to shove, I have always found that my word isn't as valid as that of a British person. It's tribal and I think it's the same with any nationality, the tabloids encourage this attitude. A Frenchman will believe a Frenchman rather than any foreigner and so on.

As for a conspiracy, I'm sticking with the fact that it was planned, but only by the McCanns - but possibly planned on a 'make it up as we go' basis. Gerry, as a child, apparently loved playing tricks, also was very good at card tricks. That mindset is interesting in this context.

These are arrogant, blinkered people. I read somewhere that they behaved like the cast of 'Friends' and their interviews seem to bear this out. Doctors do think they are gods, there are exceptions imo. But being a doctor also requires a certain cold heartedness, otherwise how could one cope? It's the same with nurses, I'm very good at looking after people but could never be a nurse, I'd be devastated to lose a patient. So their profession argues against them, not for them.

So in short, I think it was the McCanns who did it. Then got the Friends set to back them up. I do think it happened earlier than the 3rd, based on the phone pings alone.
But the protection that swung into action from the word go (imo a little earlier even) is unparalleled as is the blatant interference with the due course of law and the vital evidence destroyed (DNA/FSS).
So why should two mediocre doctors merit such protection? (I've read most of Gerry's work, believe me, some of it is mere A level at best).
A card the McCanns would only play if taken to court - to defend themselves?

I think that Hideho's research into the pre 3rd May behaviour of the McCanns is very compelling. Amaral was taking off the case so quickly, there are so many things he was not able to look into.

They did make race a big issue themselves. In an extremely nasty, insidious way. The McCanns talked about what a beautiful, pretty blonde there daughter is/was. And how she was just the kind of prize that would be favoured by Saudi paedo gangs. What reason did they have for saying this? Remember also that Kate said on Panorama, when her daughter went missing they all said "close the borders." All this played into the most disgusting kind of xenephobia.

If they are ever found to be behind the disappearance of their daughter, I would like to see them charged with the stirring up racial/religious hatred too.

That is a big if, but if they are found guilty of anything they certainly have alot to answer for outside of the disappearance. So many people lied to and discredited, time wasted and reputations damaged or destroyed.

It's ludicrous to say that a three year old blondish kid is the kind of prize a Saudi would favor. The kind of prize kidnappers want is that rarest of all beings - a child that is vulnerable, alone - at that age, almost never happens and in fact is illegal.

For them to throw out all this information about pedo gangs is so WEIRD, now even SY is saying evidently they don't believe this is what happened, no one else does either. There are too many avilable children, unfortunately, that are of an age that is favored, more along the 14 year old as Pat Brown says, to be a little wifey, a nearly 4 year old child would be useless at that.

Did they really say a Saudi pedophile gang? I thought it was the Belgians.

Widowan - it was Aunti Philo pastry. When I get a minute, I will search for a link.

Wallflower wrote:For widowan

Anne Enright on disliking the Mccanns
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566565/Booker-winner-writes-of-dislike-for-McCanns.html

Oh dear! Someone's being honest!

This isn't bad. She's an author, she observes people keenly, and says what we all think - how they must hate that. Interesting that they gave her the reward after she admitted to her dislike of the UK's fun couple, that must have come as a bit of a slap in the face to TM even though the book would have won on its own merits and not because people agreed with her comments.

also,

Mark Williams-Thomas, a former Surrey Police child protection officer, said such a reconstruction was long overdue.

He said: "A reconstruction is an important part of any investigation and would normally be done in the very early days. I would be amazed if they had not constructed a timeline months ago.


Just what Pat Brown said. They should have done this had there not been so much INTERFERENCE with everyone from Gordon Brown on down leaning on them not to make the parents into suspects.

Gerry's need to influence the investigation, indeed. What a control freak he is. she did not go so far as to connect the dots between control and abuse. So lightly touched on maybe I'm imagining it. But there is something about the way he comes across, with his attempt to take over the case and his flip chart with the Wider Agenda, that is very off putting even if you have sympathy for them believing in the kidnapping. It's that face. If you want something done right do it yourself. (Except for babysitting). I hold people accountable, they don't hold ME accountable. that's what the expression says. You're in no position to judge me. He so does not look like a grieving father but like one who is defending his position.

I saw another CPS worker who went on air stating that they were very wrong to leave their children alone, despite McCanns claiming their LAWYER told them their behavior was within the bounds of reasonable parenting. That interview was one of the lowest of their moments on air and probably when they decided to have a spokesperson to minimize their own appearances. They looked very cringing there making such a statement and had to know as doctors what a damaging lie that was, that leaving the kids was responsible.

So the child protective person was right and taking his reputation into his own hands to make such a statement . Also unpopular for someone who is not a blogger or internet pitch forker to say in print that they should have done this reconstruction, as it implies there are holes in this timeline... and possibly Jane's "sighting" ...

I love Ann Enright's books, The Gathering, for which she won the Booker, reads a bit like Joyce's Dubliners, and in Making Babies she sounds exactly like a normal, doting mother. Nipping off to the shops- or to "Dine" in a pub - would not be in her lexicon of behaviors, she talks about how she hsn't looked into a mirror for years, her children are the center of her life. Not her image. she talks about how she misses being able to swim in the sea with her husband without one of them having to be on the strand to mind the children! She would not be dumping hers in a creche on holiday, I don't think. Maybe she does dislike them for the same reasons other people do, in thinking there is something wrong - like milk just slightly gone off - why did they not care for their children properly?

But she doesn't dislike them for going out to the pub. She dislikes them for the "in your face" character of their tragedy, which I think is also very honest and also unpopular thing to say, but why should we all have to hear about this day after week after month after year, when there are so many other missing children, why can't this couple accept their fate, what's so SPECIAL about McCanns? Why do they feel they need to be highlighted and to get paid for this, suing people and controlling the story after the way they have behaved?

Thanks widowan. I got slighly disillusioned with the Booker prize choices. But I'll see if I can get hold of one of her books now, sounds very interesting. If I can fit it in, between all these Game of Thrones books.

No, these people are Teflon coated. Double, triple teflon coated. It is not, in my opinion just because they had the "luck" to get lots of donations or to hire pr people. There is something else lurking at the bottom of this murky river. .
Wallflower

would agree with that.

Why would two doctors be getting so much protection! It isnt normal. Therefore it has to be something more. Who else was out there, who/what left PDL, what the Mccanns know/may be involved in. Everyone is bending over backwards to the Mccanns tune, why, has to be someone else needs protecting as well and give the Mccanns what they want so they dont make any waves.

Wallflower wrote:Widowan - it was Aunti Philo pastry. When I get a minute, I will search for a link.

God, the woman's ignorant, isn't she meant to be a teacher? Why would you even let such a thing come out of your mouth? I think Auntie Phil is a racist or at least extremely prejudiced. She's speaking in PUBLIC,. For the FAMILY. At a time when she should be trying to make them look good and yet even there she spouts off something so ignorant, it's about the dogs, what are they LAssie? they can't talk! Or the portuguese police and what f-ups they are, or her theory of what Saudi's really want in a sex partner.

McCanns are painted as being middle class but when Kate opens her mouth, even in her bewk, out pops something quite similar. Her fantasies about what pedophiles are doing to her daughter (despite them claiming to believe there's nothingn to say maddie's been harmed, she was taken by a nice confused couple and treated like a princess!) or how she screamed at the cops about being f*ing t*ssers, cheek by jowl with Ma McCann and Aunty, raging lionesses protecting their Gerry, who's huddled on the floor moaning that his life is over. Or they're snickering at old Tiny tears. They seem very crude.

The PJ was told to investigate an abduction, not a missing child case.

Claudia, can you please expand on this statement.Who advised the PJ to do this, they are professional police officers not a coffee shop as you have told me in the past.

duncanmac wrote:

The PJ was told to investigate an abduction, not a missing child case.

Claudia, can you please expand on this statement.Who advised the PJ to do this, they are professional police officers not a coffee shop as you have told me in the past.

I thought you had followed this case closely. The Ambassador rang the Head of the PJ to tell him there was an English girls' abduction to investigate. This happened only hours after the Police was called to the scene. The men on the filed were not good boys, though.

But the Ambassador would have been told that, the night Gerry or whomever called him up, a little English girl was kidnapped - the police were told there was a witness (Jane) - it wasn't at first, that they were told not to investigate it as a possible child homicide, was it? If I recall correctly.

The police would follow their own training and instinct but with the doctors backed up by 7 of their friends, you might think, someone, while the mother was alibi'd at the table and the father alibi'd in the ally, saw the abduction, there is no point really looking carefully at these parents, we need to move swiftly on the premise that with this situation it's unlikely that the parents did anything apart from "not be there" when the child went missing - whether lost or stolen or strayed.

but at some point according to Amaral's book, there was some pressure put on. I recall even emails uncovered by Wikileaks about someone in the foreign office or consulate saying let's not get too close to McCanns on this, we don't have the whole story here. But the heads of the investigation seemed to not want to look closely at that angle - I got the impression that part of it was that they didn't want the parents to know they were being looked at. Clearly Amaral knew they were lying and thought, as you might, they were just lying to CYA about not being there, about neglect. About how responsibly they'd guarded their kids.

He seems to be slightly baffled or amused by that since it was obvious that if what they said was true and the child was kidnapped while they were out, they clearly were negligent with a very bad outcome to the child, so what would be the point of lying. They weren't going to fool anyone on that score.

Kidnapping is usually associated with Ransom: I think in this Case (Rightly or wrongly) Abduction (which does not necessarily invoke Ransom) was strongly mooted.

I think it was Tony Blair who phoned John Buck , the British Ambassador and asked him to go to PDL to offer assistance. He arrived the following day
and I think stayed a couple of days. He then e-mailed the Foreign Office suggesting they not get too involved because there were discrepancies in the
Tapas Statements... a few months later he left Portugal. I don't think he would have tried to influence the Portugese Police in any way.

Panda wrote:
I think it was Tony Blair who phoned John Buck , the British Ambassador and asked him to go to PDL to offer assistance. He arrived the following day
and I think stayed a couple of days. He then e-mailed the Foreign Office suggesting they not get too involved because there were discrepancies in the
Tapas Statements... a few months later he left Portugal. I don't think he would have tried to influence the Portugese Police in any way.

If you think that making calls to the head of a Police Force and telling him what crime his Police Officers have to investigate isn't influencing, then no. There was no influence at all.

Claudia79 wrote:

Panda wrote:
I think it was Tony Blair who phoned John Buck , the British Ambassador and asked him to go to PDL to offer assistance. He arrived the following day
and I think stayed a couple of days. He then e-mailed the Foreign Office suggesting they not get too involved because there were discrepancies in the
Tapas Statements... a few months later he left Portugal. I don't think he would have tried to influence the Portugese Police in any way.

If you think that making calls to the head of a Police Force and telling him what crime his Police Officers have to investigate isn't influencing, then no. There was no influence at all.

Are you positive that happened Claudia? Wasn't it more a connivance between Gordon Brown and Socrates? Buck had advised his foreign Office not to get too involved so I cannot imagine him dictating to the Portugese Police.

I think it was most likely John Symington who contacted John Buck. He used to be Britains' Honorary Consul in Porto and a colleague of former British Ambassador in Portugal John Buck

(John Symington is the nephew of the owner of the Ocean Club, David Symington)