Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento on SIC

I totally agree T4two, the people at the top were slow to figure out the true extent of the gruesome twosome's criminal activities, and by the time Martin Grimes sent in the blood and cadaver dogs that frustratingly alerted to all things McCann, the horse had well and truly bolted. Gerry's desperately devious over-egging of the pudding added a mountain of complications too.

The McCanns version of events is so utterly void of believability, no whitewash attempt dare touch it with a barge pole, so the review team are forced to skip over the most critical and crucial times in a missing child investigation in order to arrive at a totally implausible abduction scenario.

pennylane wrote:I totally agree T4two, the people at the top were slow to figure out the true extent of the gruesome twosome's criminal activities, and by the time Martin Grimes sent in the blood and cadaver dogs that frustratingly alerted to all things McCann, the horse had well and truly bolted. Gerry's desperately devious over-egging of the pudding added a mountain of complications too.

The McCanns version of events is so utterly void of believability, no whitewash attempt dare touch it with a barge pole, so the review team are forced to skip over the most critical and crucial times in a missing child investigation in order to arrive at a totally implausible abduction scenario.

I still can't see this as a reason for the McCanns to be so smug about having the elites behind the. On the contrary! If I'd done away from my daughter then had the help and intervention of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary the Ambassador, the British police I would be TERRIFIED about what they thought of me and what they'd do when they began to realise the truth. Why should the McCanns assume that they would all feel so silly about helping them in the first place that they would later continue to bury their heads in the sand when the grim truth about the case began to surface. And let's not pretend that the parents EVER seemed particularly lily white and innocent to people who were there, on the ground.

I still say that there's someone very powerful who's involved with the McCanns.

The only thing I can't get my head round is...........

IF the McCanns are been protected, would'nt they have happily got on with they're lives and at the time enjoy that lovely £millon pound fund which it was 5years ago!!!!
To say they are protecteted nearly 5 and a half years on, the McCanns are still in our faces begging, calling and still taking people to court (Amaral, Bennet and Pat Brown, not forgetting the papers a couple of years ago)....would you really carry on like this if your safe and protected, it just dosen't make sense to me.

If the Government really wanted this putting to bed or wanted it "sorted", it would have been and we wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it, and probably back in 2007 we wouldn't have known anything about it, it would have been done with out us "nutters knowing very little about it, I dont beleave all of us would be on here, FB or Twitter discussing it. aimho.

An interesting insight - can't argue with it!

Lillyofthevalley wrote:The only thing I can't get my head round is...........

IF the McCanns are been protected, would'nt they have happily got on with they're lives and at the time enjoy that lovely £millon pound fund which it was 5years ago!!!!
To say they are protecteted nearly 5 and a half years on, the McCanns are still in our faces begging, calling and still taking people to court (Amaral, Bennet and Pat Brown, not forgetting the papers a couple of years ago)....would you really carry on like this if your safe and protected, it just dosen't make sense to me.

If the Government really wanted this putting to bed or wanted it "sorted", it would have been and we wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it, and probably back in 2007 we wouldn't have known anything about it, it would have been done with out us "nutters knowing very little about it, I dont beleave all of us would be on here, FB or Twitter discussing it. aimho.

Could be that its not a simple case of being safe and protected - it could be that they`re just untouchable. GM seems to have leverage and he seems to be pushing, if not bullying, to get their names squeaky clean (which they`re certainly not at the moment). One could say that people who know too much often disappear but that wouldn`t be advisable because directions can be left for that eventuality. Could be he knows too much about someone or some people. I`m sure I remember the words `national security` being used in reply to an official request for information. Didn`t an ex PM order a D notice to be applied to a growing scandal around child abuse? Something has silenced our press and I don`t think its just fear of litigation. When you have dirt on important people, you can expect to get everything you want. Not saying it is this, just my humble thoughts.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:The only thing I can't get my head round is...........

IF the McCanns are been protected, would'nt they have happily got on with they're lives and at the time enjoy that lovely £millon pound fund which it was 5years ago!!!!
To say they are protecteted nearly 5 and a half years on, the McCanns are still in our faces begging, calling and still taking people to court (Amaral, Bennet and Pat Brown, not forgetting the papers a couple of years ago)....would you really carry on like this if your safe and protected, it just dosen't make sense to me.

If the Government really wanted this putting to bed or wanted it "sorted", it would have been and we wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it, and probably back in 2007 we wouldn't have known anything about it, it would have been done with out us "nutters knowing very little about it, I dont beleave all of us would be on here, FB or Twitter discussing it. aimho.

It may have been a case of 'rats taking to a luxury
cruise ship' all feeding off the lucrative political clout &
business and economic spoils that this case generated
in the early uncertain days.
'Protection' may have been these rats defending their
interests and milking the situation for all its worth and
more. They all sailed together in first class.
As years rolled on, and the story became more suspect,
more people sought answers, more people doubted,
actions and situations changed,etc. The smart rats began
to jump ship leaving a few fat rats remaining as long as
the money stayed secure.
IMO the NSY review has reached its conclusion, and its
more or less similiar to the PJ's conclusion. But it has to
stall for time before disclosing, enough time for some of
the remaining rats to leave a sinking ship.

With many thanks to Joana:

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/

Analysis by Moita Flores: 'English police admits abandoning Madeleine McCann case review'


Transcript/Translation
Júlia Pinheiro (JP) - So, the British police admits to abandon the investigation relative to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. [ref. English police willing to abandon Madeleine McCann investigation] The Met Commissioner [Bernard Hogan-Howe], responsible for the process, stated to an English newspaper that until the end of the current year the (English) government should decide if the investigation should continue or not. It is a curious issue. I have with me, here, Francisco Moita Flores and Paulo Sargento. Hello, good afternoon. How are you both? What do you think Francisco?

Francisco Moita Flores (FMF) - Good afternoon. This is very strange.

JP - Very strange, isn't it?

FMF - In fact, I think this is too strange, you see, in England, everyday, children go missing. I wouldn't go as far as to say everyday, but at least many times per month, children go missing...

JP - At least every week children go missing.

FMF - ...Like in Portugal, where some also disappear, and as we know there aren't as many as those who go missing in England. This investigation, is an investigation made to a process that was already investigated. What the Scotland Yard is doing, and what the English police is doing, is an investigation to the investigation that was done by the Portuguese Judiciary Police.

JP - Yes, and in that they have already spent close to 3 million pounds.

FMF - It was not the police that invested in there [in the review].

JP - Who was it then?

FMF - Those who invested are always the same.

JP - Right.

FMF - That is, it's the government that handles the money, so they can find every possible solution that exists for the Maddie case. Even though the solution, for them, is always one and the same: "The child was abducted", and thus "Let us see where did the Judiciary Police failed", so "We can can find the abductor". They don't consider alternative hypotheses. Therefore, what is taking place, and I understood that from the first public appearance of the English inspectors [ref.DCI Andy Redwood], is that there is a sort of exam, an oral and written examination to the process investigated by the Portuguese Judiciary Police. What is also true is that everything that they have "found" at the time, the numerous leads [ref. 195 "leads"], clues and similar, were all leads that had been previously investigated [or dismissed] by the Portuguese Police, leads that had already been cleared up.

JP - Without results.

FMF - What I fear, or rather what I would be afraid of, if the Portuguese authorities turn a blind eye, is that a new whitewashing operation is being prepared in this case. And the whitewashing operation results in something similar to this: "the child was abducted", "there aren't any other hypotheses", the issue of involving people connected to the child is "vile", they are all "good people", "it had to be a Moroccan or a Portuguese" - it has to be someone whose complexion is a bit darker than average, that has performed the abduction. "Those poor people were just on holidays", "good people" and so on. To disturb them or even question them is indeed an "insult". Well, that is perverse, because it reveals that millions are being spent in order to whitewash people's images [reputations].

JP - But doesn't the idea of closing the investigation come as an attempt to put an end to the case, even the English people are tired...

FMF - The process is archived, the only one who can reopen the process is the Portuguese General Attorney's Office. Everything that they are doing is an investigation to a process that is archived!

JP - Exactly, so they are spending several resources of the British government, in...

FMF - They are lucky not have the IMF in there.

JP - At least not yet. [laughs/ref. See Portugal and the IMF] Let me speak with Paulo Sargento, who has been following the case attentively since the beginning. What do you think?

Paulo Sargento (PS) - This has an hidden agenda behind it, as usual. When news, precisely like this one, appear in the British media they have an hidden agenda. About a month ago there was a first call to arms, now...

JP - But what this man stated now was "let's close this", "it will not really come to anything".

PS - What that man stated is nonsense. It means nothing. They're going to close, they're not going to close. First of all, they don't have any sovereignty to...

JP - To close anything.

PS - Precisely. As Francisco said and very well. I fully endorse what Francisco said, they don't have any sovereignty. [ref. Maddie Case review is “A mendacity for the sake of the English”] Secondly, what they did was a review of what the Judiciary Police had done. So, nothing that they have done so far matters at all. What matters is what we are going to have in September, on the 13th and 14th and then on the 20th and 21st. Those are the final hearings dates of the trial of the main action of the McCanns against Gonçalo Amaral. [ref. The McCann couple demand 1,2 million euro from Gonçalo Amaral] It's important for them to keep the story in the spotlight. These are news without any real interest, like rehashing again the 195 leads, it's just pure stupidity, pure media junk to keep the story in the spotlight long enough to reuse it later on in terms of image [i.e. PR strategy]. This is what is happening, it's better that the Portuguese realize that, and by the way, the English people as well. This is what is taking place, nothing else.


ongoing


in SIC, Dear Júlia - Talk show segment titled 'Análise de Moita Flores', Broadcast on 29.08.2012

Note
Dr. Francisco Moita Flores - Former Judiciary Police Inspector, University Professor, Criminologist.
Dr. Paulo Sargento - University Professor, Forensic Psychologist.

______

marxman wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:The only thing I can't get my head round is...........

IF the McCanns are been protected, would'nt they have happily got on with they're lives and at the time enjoy that lovely £millon pound fund which it was 5years ago!!!!
To say they are protecteted nearly 5 and a half years on, the McCanns are still in our faces begging, calling and still taking people to court (Amaral, Bennet and Pat Brown, not forgetting the papers a couple of years ago)....would you really carry on like this if your safe and protected, it just dosen't make sense to me.

If the Government really wanted this putting to bed or wanted it "sorted", it would have been and we wouldn't have been able to do a thing about it, and probably back in 2007 we wouldn't have known anything about it, it would have been done with out us "nutters knowing very little about it, I dont beleave all of us would be on here, FB or Twitter discussing it. aimho.

It may have been a case of 'rats taking to a luxury
cruise ship' all feeding off the lucrative political clout &
business and economic spoils that this case generated
in the early uncertain days.
'Protection' may have been these rats defending their
interests and milking the situation for all its worth and
more. They all sailed together in first class.
As years rolled on, and the story became more suspect,
more people sought answers, more people doubted,
actions and situations changed,etc. The smart rats began
to jump ship leaving a few fat rats remaining as long as
the money stayed secure.
IMO the NSY review has reached its conclusion, and its
more or less similiar to the PJ's conclusion. But it has to
stall for time before disclosing, enough time for some of
the remaining rats to leave a sinking ship.

Wallflower wrote:

pennylane wrote:I totally agree T4two, the people at the top were slow to figure out the true extent of the gruesome twosome's criminal activities, and by the time Martin Grimes sent in the blood and cadaver dogs that frustratingly alerted to all things McCann, the horse had well and truly bolted. Gerry's desperately devious over-egging of the pudding added a mountain of complications too.

The McCanns version of events is so utterly void of believability, no whitewash attempt dare touch it with a barge pole, so the review team are forced to skip over the most critical and crucial times in a missing child investigation in order to arrive at a totally implausible abduction scenario.

I still can't see this as a reason for the McCanns to be so smug about having the elites behind the. On the contrary! If I'd done away from my daughter then had the help and intervention of the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary the Ambassador, the British police I would be TERRIFIED about what they thought of me and what they'd do when they began to realise the truth. Why should the McCanns assume that they would all feel so silly about helping them in the first place that they would later continue to bury their heads in the sand when the grim truth about the case began to surface. And let's not pretend that the parents EVER seemed particularly lily white and innocent to people who were there, on the ground.

I still say that there's someone very powerful who's involved with the McCanns.

I don't believe the McCanns have ever discussed the truth with anyone other than those who were directly involved on that ill-fated night. The Home Office has its own agenda, and is hell bent on insuring the gruesome twosome do not stand trial in a foreign country, where the government would have no control over what was divulged about their NHS doctors and specialists, and their lifestyle, finances, links/associates. The McCanns are not so much "smug" as bound and determined to act innocent until the bitter end; obviously they are fully aware suspicions and red flags abound surrounding their story and Madeleine's disappearance. I feel certain they have been advised all along how best to proceed..... but in a non self incriminatory manner by their adviser/s. The damning original FSS results were a shock to many, and the U-turn was the cover up going into full swing (imo). By then the McCanns gaffs were legion and all over the internet.

I really don't believe the McCanns are certain of their futures, and this is what drives them to keep hobnobbing and hustling the masses. Theirs is a fraught and fragile existence (imo)

They can't go away because WE won't go away.



Unless they put a neutron bomb under the lot off us and blast us to the moon....there stuck with us.....for the duration.



I know I can sleep soundly at night.......can THEY do the same....

Bravo, Kitti

JP - But what this man stated now was "let's close this", "it will not really come to anything".

PS - What that man stated is nonsense. It means nothing. They're going to close, they're not going to close. First of all, they don't have any sovereignty to...

I think they got the wrong end of the stick here, the Commissioner meant close the SY review not the Portugese case.

Panda wrote:JP - But what this man stated now was "let's close this", "it will not really come to anything".

PS - What that man stated is nonsense. It means nothing. They're going to close, they're not going to close. First of all, they don't have any sovereignty to...

I think they got the wrong end of the stick here, the Commissioner meant close the SY review not the Portugese case.

Panda, this is what I was thinking too.

This line intrigued me:

"FMF - They are lucky not have the IMF in there."

Does IMF refer to the International Monetary Fund? And if so, who is lucky not to have the IMF in there and why?

[quote="jinvta"]

Panda wrote:JP - But what this man stated now was "let's close this", "it will not really come to anything".

PS - What that man stated is nonsense. It means nothing. They're going to close, they're not going to close. First of all, they don't have any sovereignty to...

I think they got the wrong end of the stick here, the Commissioner meant close the SY review not the Portugese case.

Panda, this is what I was thinking too.

This line intrigued me:

"FMF - They are lucky not have the IMF in there."

Does IMF refer to the International Monetary Fund? And if so, who is lucky not to have the IMF in there and why?


Hi jinvta,

JP - Exactly, so they are spending several resources of the British government, in...

FMF - They are lucky not have the IMF in there....Laughs.


I think FMF is joking because the McCanns have had help from so many high profile people

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well the fact is that not everybody is scared of them.

It may be that some are - even as a conspiracy theory refusenik it seems likely to me that they have dirt on somebody, though: What I say is press ahead and let Healy & McCann do their worst.

If, as well as bringing those responsible (???) for Madeleine's disappearance to Justice, we can also clear up other putative crimes - whoever they may have been committed by and whoever else is implicated, then jolly good show.

Plus: Gerry was a fund raiser for the Labour Party. (Panda)

From the events and the over the top protection right from the start (imo before 3/5) it seems that it was in someone's interest to take charge of the circus from day one.
Considering where the 'help' came from it has to be someone right at the top. Otherwise it would never have been so fast. So imo, there was a direct connection, one that did not have to go through the usual channels.
I think that for one thing the power of the internet was underestimated. A few years earlier, they would have gotten away with it, 2007 and possibly the 'in your face' lies of the bumbling McCanns mixed with the internet pro and contra is a nightmare for the people trying to spin the whole thing.

The Fund is another factor, the McCanns are very fond of money and never happy spending it on anyone but themselves. imo of course. The Fund may well have been an idea of Gerry who must have suffered raising money for a third party. Perhaps he found out how easy it is to knock on the doors of important people and getting large sums of money for whatever cause. Kick-backs from the the Labour Party would be peerages, lucrative deals. Kick-back from the McCanns would be free publicity and public approval.

Morning tigger, you only have to remember the photo of Gerry at a Board discussing "the wider agenda" to know he was used to strategies as a Fund Raiser.!!!

How many other Parents would be thinking so soon of setting up a fund within days of Madeleine's disappearance? If they were normal they would be too griefstricken.

That's a pretty worthy Summative Overview, Panda

The End Is Nigh wrote:That's a pretty worthy Summative Overview, Panda

Tell it like it is eh TEIN.......how come we mere mortals can think more rationally than all the McCann followers , including

those in high places????

Everyone is ultimately accountable - to me there are no high places, merely places where some self-aggrandising individuals believe they are "high".

If only the "us and them" mentality could be replaced by an "us" mentality, then life would be so much better.

But it's not a perfect world, so making this lot accountable is not proving easy!

The End Is Nigh wrote:Everyone is ultimately accountable - to me there are no high places, merely places where some self-aggrandising individuals believe they are "high".

If only the "us and them" mentality could be replaced by an "us" mentality, then life would be so much better.

But it's not a perfect world, so making this lot accountable is not proving easy!

You can say that again, I say, you can say that again. I just hope one tiny chink in their armour is found and hoping it will be the upcoming Trial which will reveal this. Certainly, their claims should be laughed out of Court if there is any

justice.!!

It will also be revealing to see how Media coverage of the Libel Case pans out, especially in the UK.

I really wouldn't like to predict how our Press will deal with it, after all that has gone before - including not just issues about the Madeleine Case itself but also the Leveson farce enquiry.

The End Is Nigh wrote:It will also be revealing to see how Media coverage of the Libel Case pans out, especially in the UK.

I really wouldn't like to predict how our Press will deal with it, after all that has gone before - including not just issues about the Madeleine Case itself but also the Leveson farce enquiry.

I mentioned this before but worth repeating:-

Matthew Parris remarked in the New Spectator at the time when the U.K. Journalists were refused interviews of the McCanns in PDL and had to make do with daily bulletins that if ever it turned out that the McCanns were culpable in Madeleine's disappearance, the U.K. Press would be mercilous.

The claims against Amaral's book are "ludicrous" and I think he will win.......let's see how the U.K. Press react then. Also, Amaral claimed a long time ago that he had information to implicate the McCanns, even if he is not allowed to present it in Court, if he wins the case, his book can be published in the U.K. and he might put in an addendum.

All sounds good - except that I hope it doesn't get as far as "Trial by Media": It's always best to use the Courts.

The End Is Nigh wrote:All sounds good - except that I hope it doesn't get as far as "Trial by Media": It's always best to use the Courts.

TEIN....this case has been a Trial by Media from day 1 , ranks with JonBenet and the Australian Dingo /Baby Saga.

In the first, still a mystery, the second resulted in the Mother serving a jail sentence until years later the baby's blood stained cardigan found in the outback . The McCanns must share the blame because they have used the U.K. Press for free publicity when it suits them.

There's something in that - but don't forget that Healy & McCann have access to some pretty potent Legal Resources of their own who might be able to put up a hell of a fight on the "Unfair Trial" front.

Mind you, the wider picture might be done no great disservice if a full no-holds barred exposé were ever to happen. The whole house of cards might come tumbling down once the Jokers are removed from the pack!