No comment.

And that, my friends, is the biggest indicator about this entire development, of how things are going down at Rothley Towers.
No Mister Pink, and no comment.  

This current upheaval surely can't be doing his political future any favours?

I was having similar thoughts last night, and I had this vision of him standing at the end of Brighton Pier with his head in his hands ......

He will use 'secrecy' this time like the mccanns on the findmadleine site......they said we won't be commenting unless there is something significant ....isn't this significant.

Exactly my thoughts Kitti. They will suddenly become respectful of the Portugese system. Nearly 7 years down the line, so the adage better late than never does not apply in this case.

No chance he's been abducted, after 5 minutes with him, the abductor would return him, suitably confused as to why he took him in the first place.

He could be in a hellish amusement arcade within a ten mile radius of the novelty rock emporium, but he'll be giving the one-armed bandit his tuppenceworth.

I bet they didn't expect this when they applied to become assistentes, they must be kicking themselves . 
 
Is there a Newspaper that hasn't had something to say? I think the Telegraph report is very subtle, no words, just a Report on the injunction hearing 2 years ago which says it all. Where do they go from here? drop their case against Amaral to avoid more embarassment? make some excuse about Kate's Health? What happens to Redwood, will he be replaced?

Iris wrote:And that, my friends, is the biggest indicator about this entire development, of how things are going down at Rothley Towers.
No Mister Pink, and no comment.   

There isn't really anything they can say about what they did, they are disgraceful people.

Even if he's been commenting as 'a source close to ...', that is tantamount to saying that the current 'cat-out-of-bag' situation is one that he doesn't want his name associated with.

For the sake of his political ass ...

margaret wrote:

Iris wrote:And that, my friends, is the biggest indicator about this entire development, of how things are going down at Rothley Towers.
No Mister Pink, and no comment.   

There isn't really anything they can say about what they did, they are disgraceful people.

If Madeleine's body is found I hope many heads will roll including Cameron for ordering the Review and Investigation .

Panda wrote:

margaret wrote:

Iris wrote:And that, my friends, is the biggest indicator about this entire development, of how things are going down at Rothley Towers.
No Mister Pink, and no comment.   

There isn't really anything they can say about what they did, they are disgraceful people.

If Madeleine's body is found I hope many heads will roll including Cameron for ordering the Review and  Investigation .

Why?  I think SY and the PJ are working together to bring the right result for Maddie.  Everything is tying nicely together. Cameron will be a hero in my eyes!

I think you are right about the working together and things falling into place nicely, Margaret.

I will hold judgement on Cameron. I have a feeling what started as a review, a paper exercise, got too big for even him to justify covering up.

It matters not in the big scheme of things I suppose, if it mean justice for Madeleine, then he can have his moment of glory.

I quite like Cameron. I don't think he is a bad person. But I can't seem to decide exactly why the Sun was so keen to have the review.

margaret wrote:

Panda wrote:

margaret wrote:

Iris wrote:And that, my friends, is the biggest indicator about this entire development, of how things are going down at Rothley Towers.
No Mister Pink, and no comment.   

There isn't really anything they can say about what they did, they are disgraceful people.

If Madeleine's body is found I hope many heads will roll including Cameron for ordering the Review and  Investigation .

Why?  I think SY and the PJ are working together to bring the right result for Maddie.  Everything is tying nicely together.  Cameron will be a hero in my eyes!

I don't think so, I think SY jumped the gun in asking for a re-opening of the case and it was the Oporto find which got the go-ahead.and Redwood said himself they are investigating seperately.

almostgothic wrote:He could be in a hellish amusement arcade within a ten mile radius of the novelty rock emporium, but he'll be giving the one-armed bandit his tuppenceworth.

  

MaryB wrote:I quite like Cameron.  I don't think he is a bad person.  But I can't seem to decide exactly why the Sun was so keen to have the review.

To continue selling papers!  I think Brookes found out some info from hacking and set them up, she was going to clean up on the sales of papers and Sun/NoTW were going to get the kudos the act leading upto the conclusion.  I think Brookes thought enough evidence would be found to solve it without the hacking info - that could stay out of it with her friends in high places....

I also think Halligens arrest played another part, l think he spilled too.

Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case. I think you're right. And more than one source came forward with new information.

MaryB wrote:Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case.  I think you're right.  And  more than one source came forward with new information.  

Maybe Tanner got miffed at being thrown under the bus with Bundleman.

Iris wrote:

MaryB wrote:Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case.  I think you're right.  And  more than one source came forward with new information.  

Maybe Tanner got miffed at being thrown under the bus with Bundleman.

She wasn't thrown under the bus, she alone comes out as someone who was telling the truth (about that at least) the whole time.

Don't tell me Clarence is thinking of running for an elected office?

MaryB wrote:Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case.  I think you're right.  And  more than one source came forward with new information.  

It's amazing what you can do when you investigate the abduction as such rather than getting sidetracked by the parents' obvious lies and suspicious statements, into investigating them.

McCanns seem to have a way of bringing about their own demise in so many situations - a real tragedy.

Too late to distance himself from the McCanns now; he will always be known as the one who manipulated the press in their favour.

widowan wrote:

Iris wrote:

MaryB wrote:Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case.  I think you're right.  And  more than one source came forward with new information.  

Maybe Tanner got miffed at being thrown under the bus with Bundleman.

She wasn't thrown under the bus, she alone comes out as someone who was telling the truth (about that at least) the whole time.

I think Tanner was reluctant to say what she saw at first, hence the delay in her spitting it out (apparently she didn't want to raise fears unnecessarily).

I think she knew all along she had seen a holiday maker. I think her sighting was pounced on by her friends and she was placed under pressure.

Tanner was quoted as saying, "I know what I saw." (Yes, Kate said this too, although where Kate is concerned we all know she saw nothing but an empty bed).

However Tanner does know what she saw, I think that's absolutely true, but what she thinks she saw was a holiday maker and that's where it goes wrong for her because she is the only witness they have, apart from the Smith's, which they find offensive in the extreme. So, its not what Tanner thinks; what she thinks in the privacy of her mind is of no concern to the McCanns, its what she actually saw.

Tanner was, in my opinion, merely stating she saw a man carrying a child - fact. But the McCanns tried to turn it into a big something, didn't they, they made a big deal of it and it escalated out of control and too late for Tanner then - she's between a rock and a hard place, she knows what she saw but at the same time she knows in her heart of hearts she didn't see an abduction but, at the same time, she cannot be 100% sure it wasn't an abduction, so she has no choice but to continue saying she saw a man carrying a child even though, at the finish, I am sure it made her squirm every time she had to keep repeating herself on this.

LJC wrote:

widowan wrote:

Iris wrote:

MaryB wrote:Well everybody would have to agree that there is new evidence or Portugal wouldn't have re-opened the case.  I think you're right.  And  more than one source came forward with new information.  

Maybe Tanner got miffed at being thrown under the bus with Bundleman.

She wasn't thrown under the bus, she alone comes out as someone who was telling the truth (about that at least) the whole time.

I think Tanner was reluctant to say what she saw at first, hence the delay in her spitting it out (apparently she didn't want to raise fears unnecessarily).  

I think she knew all along she had seen a holiday maker.  I think her sighting was pounced on by her friends and she was placed under pressure.  

Tanner was quoted as saying, "I know what I saw."  (Yes, Kate said this too, although where Kate is concerned we all know she saw nothing but an empty bed).  

However Tanner does know what she saw, I think that's absolutely true, but what she thinks she saw was a holiday maker and that's where it goes wrong for her because she is the only witness they have, apart from the Smith's, which they find offensive in the extreme.  So, its not what Tanner thinks; what she thinks in the privacy of her mind is of no concern to the McCanns, its what she actually saw.

Tanner was, in my opinion, merely stating she saw a man carrying a child - fact.  But the McCanns tried to turn it into a big something, didn't they, they made a big deal of it and it escalated out of control and too late for Tanner then - she's between a rock and a hard  place, she knows what she saw but at the same time she knows in her heart of hearts she didn't see an abduction but, at the same time, she cannot be 100% sure it wasn't an abduction, so she has no choice but to continue saying she saw a man carrying a child even though, at the finish, I am sure it made her squirm every time she had to keep repeating herself on this.

If her radar was as good as her eyesight - her BS detector - things would be different!

She saw what she saw, the BS comes in when you do not heed your own instinct - it's just a guy carrying his kid home- and allow yourself to be tricked into thinking or trick yourself into thinking, that you saw THE guy.

Gerry's instinct worked in the opposite way - you go into the house, you see the door open and you think "this is odd, how is this?" and then decide you should ignore that signal and get back to the bar. His self confidence I guess Kate calls it, kicks in for him just as Jane's self doubt does for her. Your basic personality doesn't change much, these were all a huge group of selfish rationalizers of a champion degree.

They were all so fixated on this person walking home, it did have a lovely way of alibi'ing Gerry only two minutes after his "check" - I mean, in that case, he COULD have been on the balcony with his ipod in his ears facing the other direction, it's not really neglect, he was right there! And since she didn't see the man's face, what harm, really in focusing on this person? SOMEONE took Madeleine, around that time if not at that exact time, so let's get people on board with this.

I am sure guilt played a part - not just that she could have been watching the actual kidnapping go down in front of her - but that they were all fudging these timelines and she's leaving her own poorly children alone as well - it could have been an OBrien-Tanner child that was taken. better ignore that little warning voice that tells you you are going off on a tangent - as with Murat - and just go with the flow.

It doesn't matter what any of them believed it only matters what's real, and Bundleman was not the abductor.

If Bundleman existed, he would have come forward immediately.  The attire and the way the child was carried would have signaled instant recognition for him.  I don't believe Tanner saw anyone at all!

Clarence 'the freak' maybe he's sitting on Brighton pier with his feet dangling in one of those fish tanks having his verrucas sucked off.Their the only friends he's ever likely to have.