Met police

I find it most interesting that 23 persons who were hacked HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD FOR 'OPERATIONAL REASONS'.
Gives me a nugget of hope.
I mean...they HAD to have been hacked. It wouldn't make sense if they weren't.

The mccanns said they were not asked for the text messages ....I'm quite sure that the pj had already got the text messages but asked the Mccanns for them anyway.....mr amaral stated that by the emails that were sent it was obvious the child was dead.



They had the text messages and the emails but the prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be used....and the Mccanns know mr amaral knows about the phone calls and the messages And that information must not come out at all costs.


Off course they were tapped, they were tipped off by Mitchell to be careful what they say but how long was it before he tipped them off....a day...a couple off days.....

the slave wrote:I find it most interesting that 23 persons who were hacked HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD FOR 'OPERATIONAL REASONS'.
Gives me a nugget of hope.
I mean...they HAD to have been hacked. It wouldn't make sense if they weren't.

My sentiments exactly / loved the OPERATIONAL REASONS bit! just like Lord Gerry McCann would say!

If SY were allowed to see the messages wouldn't they be duty bound to include them in their report? If they are really

incriminating Cameron must feel betrayed, but the public will never know. Iv'e got a feeling the Report won't be available

to the Press but surely they can't gag the Trial.?

kitti wrote:The mccanns said they were not asked for the text messages ....I'm quite sure that the pj had already got the text messages but asked the Mccanns for them anyway.....mr amaral stated that by the emails that were sent it was obvious the child was dead.



They had the text messages and the emails but the prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be used....and the Mccanns know mr amaral knows about the phone calls and the messages And that information must not come out at all costs.


Off course they were tapped, they were tipped off by Mitchell to be careful what they say but how long was it before he tipped them off....a day...a couple off days.....

Why would innocent parents of a missing child have to 'be careful' of what they said?

flower wrote:

kitti wrote:The mccanns said they were not asked for the text messages ....I'm quite sure that the pj had already got the text messages but asked the Mccanns for them anyway.....mr amaral stated that by the emails that were sent it was obvious the child was dead.



They had the text messages and the emails but the prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be used....and the Mccanns know mr amaral knows about the phone calls and the messages And that information must not come out at all costs.


Off course they were tapped, they were tipped off by Mitchell to be careful what they say but how long was it before he tipped them off....a day...a couple off days.....

Why would innocent parents of a missing child have to 'be careful' of what they said?

Why would Mitchell tip them off to be careful and even if he did, why announce it to the world? IMO it was all done for the effect - the story is and always has been, McCanns versus the nasty press, whilst the reality has been, McCanns managing the press through Mitchell and controlling what is reported.

T4two wrote:

flower wrote:

kitti wrote:The mccanns said they were not asked for the text messages ....I'm quite sure that the pj had already got the text messages but asked the Mccanns for them anyway.....mr amaral stated that by the emails that were sent it was obvious the child was dead.



They had the text messages and the emails but the prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be used....and the Mccanns know mr amaral knows about the phone calls and the messages And that information must not come out at all costs.


Off course they were tapped, they were tipped off by Mitchell to be careful what they say but how long was it before he tipped them off....a day...a couple off days.....

Why would innocent parents of a missing child have to 'be careful' of what they said?

Why would Mitchell tip them off to be careful and even if he did, why announce it to the world? IMO it was all done for the effect - the story is and always has been, McCanns versus the nasty press, whilst the reality has been, McCanns managing the press through Mitchell and controlling what is reported.

IMO its all been about....Them!! against the naughty PJ, that nasty lying DCI Amaral and the nasty press, right form the start it was all about "poor us" they seemed to manage to keep this momentum going until this last year when imo the tables have turned badly for the Mcs, and after the Trial it will get even worse.
Im not really bothered what SY come up with because they are never going to be able to keep a lid on this, infact this review has made more people then ever to question the neglecting McCanns, to many people are talking about this case now....the monster is OUT of the cage!!!

T4two wrote:

flower wrote:

kitti wrote:The mccanns said they were not asked for the text messages ....I'm quite sure that the pj had already got the text messages but asked the Mccanns for them anyway.....mr amaral stated that by the emails that were sent it was obvious the child was dead.



They had the text messages and the emails but the prosecutor wouldn't allow them to be used....and the Mccanns know mr amaral knows about the phone calls and the messages And that information must not come out at all costs.


Off course they were tapped, they were tipped off by Mitchell to be careful what they say but how long was it before he tipped them off....a day...a couple off days.....

Why would innocent parents of a missing child have to 'be careful' of what they said?

Why would Mitchell tip them off to be careful and even if he did, why announce it to the world? IMO it was all done for the effect - the story is and always has been, McCanns versus the nasty press, whilst the reality has been, McCanns managing the press through Mitchell and controlling what is reported.

I feel Mitchell had no choice but to warn the dodgy duo, or risk them going down in flames at the first hurdle. He would have been twitchy about admitting such things occur, but was forced to go out on a limb in this instance. His MO has always been to release certain stories with a pink spin before someone else does a gory hatchet job - and it was a real corker for the Head of MMU to be giving a couple of suspected child harmers information that he himself was not supposed to be privy to. Announcing it in as tame a manner as possible, was perhaps the best option to protect himself against future potential fallout. For sure he knew all about the hacking (imo) way back when, and retained multiple links betwixt coppers and journo's alike. All very incestuous, unprofessional, profitable, and sleazy, as we well know!

Methinks Mr ex-MMU made a quick judgment call to warn the gruesome twosome, whilst taking steps to protect himself in the process... It's so pink, it's so pimping, it's so Mitchell!

Agree with everything you say pennylane - but why announce it to the world that you had warned the McCanns but that the McCanns had not been hacked? To gain sympathy for McCanns as victims or warn 'someone' off?

Mr amaral did mention in the beginning that HE found out that Mitchell had warned the Mccanns that their phones may be 'listened Into' so my guess is, Mitchell had to say something about it too.

#Hackgate #Hacked 3,780 victims and not a McCann in sight, or is there ?
Tapped OR hacked ?
Madeleine McCann parents fear their phones are being tapped in Britain


Gerry and Kate McCann have become virtual prisoners in their home since returning to Britain, because of the media presence 
By Caroline Gammell in Praia da Luz, Nick Britten and Paul Stokes
10:00AM BST 20 Sep 2007

Kate and Gerry McCann believe that their mobile telephones were bugged by Portuguese police when they were in the Algarve - and fear the tapping has continued since their return to Britain.
Claim and counterclaim
Team McCann: The couple's key staff
In full: The Madeleine McCann case
Sources close to the family say the couple are convinced that questions put to them during police interviews were based on information gleaned from their private conversations.


They have now told family members to be careful what they say over the telephone as it is thought all conversations could be recorded as potential evidence.

The revelation comes after a Portuguese prosecutor said the McCanns could not be re-questioned by police, as no new evidence had been produced against them since they left the country 10 days ago.
Their spokesman said they were "very encouraged" by the news, but that they were prepared to be interviewed again if necessary.

Under Portuguese law, any information secretly recorded is admissible in court as long as a judge has given his approval. This approval can be sought retrospectively.
British rules require the Portuguese police to file a Mutual Legal Assistance request with the Home Office if they want to bug phone calls on British soil.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, would have to personally sanction such an application, which would then be carried out by British authorities.

Neither the Home Office nor Leicestershire Constabulary would comment yesterday on whether any request had been received or put into place. A spokesman for the McCanns also refused to comment.

Mr and Mrs McCann, who have become virtual prisoners in their home since returning to Rothley, Leics, because of the media and police presence, have strenuously denied any involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

They have described their agonising ordeal as "a parent's worst nightmare".
It is thought their mobile phone calls have been tracked retrospectively back to May 3, the night Madeleine vanished, using satellite technology to pinpoint their location.

A source close to the couple said: "British police warned Kate and Gerry when they were in Portugal that their phones and emails might have been tapped into.

"They believed it was the case over there and nothing has changed their mind since their return.

"It would be wrong to say that their phone conversations are in any way furtive as a result of this.

"They are entirely innocent and have nothing whatsoever to hide, but they are being understandably cautious."

Mr and Mrs McCann are named as formal suspects, or arguidos, in their daughter's disappearance.

A friend dismissed reports of scientific findings that could have aroused suspicion, saying traces of Madeleine’s DNA allegedly found in the back of the car they hired 25 days after she disappeared could be explained easily.

He also sought to explain why sniffer dogs - trained to detect the "smell of death" - allegedly became so excited when shown the boot of the car.

"Kate and Gerry had to transport all their rubbish to a communal rubbish dump half a mile away," the friend said.

"There was a regular run with the boot of the car being full of rubbish including bags of rotting fruit, rotting meat and soiled nappies belonging to the twins."

The friend said the dogs would have been confused by the mix of smells.

It is understood new DNA tests are being carried out by the Forensic Science Services in Birmingham and results could be passed to Portuguese authorities this week.

It was alleged that police in the Algarve believe the house in Rothley could hold the key to Madeleine’s whereabouts.

The Portuguese newspaper Correio da Manha claimed a request to search it has been approved by the investigating judge Pedro Daniel dos Anjos Frias.

It has also been claimed that fresh searches could take place in Spain after a request from Portuguese police.



WHO was listening to the Mccanns?

'a source close to them'....why would the british police warn the Mccanns that their phone and email may off been hacked, it was the British police that brought in the dogs so why would they warn the Mccanns about this .

T4two wrote:Agree with everything you say pennylane - but why announce it to the world that you had warned the McCanns but that the McCanns had not been hacked? To gain sympathy for McCanns as victims or warn 'someone' off?

He warned the McCanns about potential monitoring/surveillance in early 2007, announcing it to protect himself from the potential fallout (imo). But when did he announce that the McCanns had not been hacked... wasn't that during recent events?

I agree, underlying threats and warning someone off is a TM tactic, so I wouldn't be at all surprised if that was behind the latter hacking announcement.

kitti wrote:Mr amaral did mention in the beginning that HE found out that Mitchell had warned the Mccanns that their phones may be 'listened Into' so my guess is, Mitchell had to say something about it too.

Thanks kitti, it helps to remember these facts, as they fade from memory over time.

kitti wrote:'a source close to them'....why would the british police warn the Mccanns that their phone and email may off been hacked, it was the British police that brought in the dogs so why would they warn the Mccanns about this .

I doubt it went down the way it was reported. My impression was that Mitchell had connections within the police that were keeping him abreast of things... and there was confused information released constantly as a result. This is how Mitchell gets over and manages to obscure the truth from damaging his clients.... he is usually one step ahead of the game.