Closing arguments in Amaral libel case set for January

The McCanns said Redwood was keeping them updated on the review AND investigation......should he have been so pally with them??? Stuart Prior. a Senior Detective  in  the Leicester Police Force and with other Officers within days of Madeleine's disappearance flown to PDL   when asked by Rachel Mapilly whether they should attend a recon  said "no useful purpose could be served".

Panda wrote:The McCanns said Redwood was keeping them updated on the review AND investigation......should he have been so pally with them??? Stuart Prior. a Senior Detective  in  the Leicester Police Force and with other Officers within days of Madeleine's disappearance   when asked by Rachel Mapilly whether they should attend a recon  said "no useful purpose could be served".

Redwood and Prior..... what a pair! 

If they had not found the foreign dna on the child's underwear, finally, I would never have believed the parents weren't involved. And still have a hard time believing it -


Par brown has written a piece about the 'dna' on the child's undergarments and guess what.....it didn't even have any DNA from the mother, the same mother that put her in those same undergarments .

Iris wrote:

Panda wrote:Hi Pennylane, I saw the show and thought Oprah was using the softly softly approach, probably keeping her thoughts to her self. My Son thinks I am nuts getting involved in a case which I know nothing about except the speculations of Forums and Press. He suggested that maybe a couple of the Staff, knowing the checking routine , took Madeleine and had a car waiting outside the Front door., . Their motive was ransom but they panicked when they saw the publicity around the World.

They could have just dumped her somewhere, then, like a railway station or other busy place where they could disappear into the crowd.

True. If they were scared at that point of being uncovered, they'd want to disappear BACK to Ocean Club where they could pretend nothing had gone wrong. To leave the place you work the following day and disappear would have the police on your tail pretty quickly. Still, killing a 3 year old takes a particular type of sick person, unfortunately with 3 year old girls the likely culprit in a murder is their own mother. If they wanted to do a kidnap for ransom the younger kids would be less verbal and better targets.

kitti wrote: If they had not found the foreign dna on the child's underwear, finally, I would never have believed the parents weren't involved. And still have a hard time believing it -


Par brown has written a piece about the 'dna' on the child's undergarments and guess what.....it didn't even have any DNA from the mother, the same mother that put her in those same undergarments .

Didn't know that. ??

The other thing I recall is that the underwear had been purchased and found to be a size too big so were put into the bathroom cupboard. It's unlikely that a random pervert/ kidnapper would know that there were extra underwear in there. The mother claimed they had put the girl to bed and went up themselves and that was that. Someone changed her when she wet the bed, who knew just where those underwear were.

The dna on the underwear IIRC was saliva, though, not from skin cells. The notion of a random underwear packer getting that on a pair of underwear is so unlikely.

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:The McCanns said Redwood was keeping them updated on the review AND investigation......should he have been so pally with them??? Stuart Prior. a Senior Detective  in  the Leicester Police Force and with other Officers within days of Madeleine's disappearance   when asked by Rachel Mapilly whether they should attend a recon  said "no useful purpose could be served".

Redwood and Prior..... what a pair! 

mcCanns will say things that aren't strictly true - especially if they can do so via a spokesperson or "friend of the family" or "someone familiar with the case."

We have to be careful of what we believe on that score. As Blacksmith had noted, the media people called to testify in Lisbon got their information on the case from the McCanns, or their team. Not from independent sources.

Rachel Mapilly is hardly an independent witness and I could see her, married to the last person who "checked" and then changed the story about his check - and was the most likely person to be incriminated for lying - making that up or twisting those words to suit herself, she is after all a lawyer.

That kind of statement reminds me of others I've heard more recently in another situation, about how "too much time had passed" to give proper evidence. it sounds like BS.

widowan wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:The McCanns said Redwood was keeping them updated on the review AND investigation......should he have been so pally with them??? Stuart Prior. a Senior Detective  in  the Leicester Police Force and with other Officers within days of Madeleine's disappearance   when asked by Rachel Mapilly whether they should attend a recon  said "no useful purpose could be served".

Redwood and Prior..... what a pair! 

mcCanns will say things that aren't strictly true - especially if they can do so via a spokesperson or "friend of the family" or "someone familiar with the case."

We have to be careful of what we believe on that score. As Blacksmith had noted, the media people called to testify in Lisbon got their information on the case from the McCanns, or their team. Not from independent sources.

Rachel Mapilly is hardly an independent witness and I could see her, married to the last person who "checked" and then changed the story about his check - and was the most likely person to be incriminated for lying - making that up or twisting those words to suit herself, she is after all a lawyer.

That kind of statement reminds me of others I've heard more recently in another situation, about how "too much time had passed" to give proper evidence. it sounds like BS.

Hope you are right, widowan.  I agree the McCanns and their friends have continuously distorted the facts to serve their own agenda.  Unfortunately I have seen and heard Redwood with my own eyes and ears, and I remain deeply skeptical of his aims.  He does not come across as a detective that's on the ball, confident and trustworthy, and each time he appears  less convincing than the last.  

jmo

I'm sick of this charade and the money spent on it, when other missing children are barely given the time of day. The Mcs started this media circus and if the case is whitewashed they will never be exonerated. If they had shut up back in 2008 when dearguidoed this would have been forgotten. They seemed to crave celebrity and the fame it gave them. Compare recent photos and they look shocking now, so even if they never see the inside of a court room they will never be cleared in the court of public opinion.

i agree Jay.

Kate looks like she's mainlining sedation on a nightly basis...

Kate looks like she could try out for the stage version of Death becomes her.

It gives me no pleasure to see Kate looking so ill. I wish the powers that be would hurry up and get this case sorted... if there is enough evidence that st. If not they should say so and honestly put it back on the shelf and waste no more public money on it. The should NOT, repeat NOT, fit up some dead person merely, supposedly, to put the case to bed. If they do, it will NEVER go away.

I agree strongly with jay2001 ansd tanzi... Think of all those missing children and young people who have NO money spent on looking for them!

jay2001 wrote:I'm sick of this charade and the money spent on it, when other missing children are barely given the time of day.  The Mcs started this media circus and if the case is whitewashed they will never be exonerated.  If they had shut up back in 2008 when dearguidoed this would have been forgotten.  They seemed to crave celebrity and the fame it gave them.  Compare recent photos and they look shocking now, so even if they never see the inside of a court room they will never be cleared in the court of public opinion.

I'm sick of the time given to what is clearly a disingenuous attempt by mcCanns, paid for by public money - either the donations or tax money - to sway people to think something we know now is false - still the efit of Tannerman on their website? REALLY? - and agree they will not be cleared in public opinion if SY fits up a dead guy for this with no proof.


One question I have is, how clever is Rebecca brooks. Because she is the one who went to Cameron, or to whomever she went - and threatened to put Kate's story on the front pages making him look bad - blackmailing him into opening the investigation, something that McCanns' pleas, on their own, if any were made, did NOT accomplish -- until RB got involved.

How interested is NOTW or the Murdoch group or RB herself in "finding Madeleine?" Not very. If they were interested they'd have followed Smith sighting as well and not just rehashed Jane's vision. Having MM findable - but not yet -  is their angle. Chasing suspect after suspect forever is more in their line, it gets them papers sold and keeps MM tantalizing close to being found. If McCanns are guilty then they too would want that, as it keeps money rolling in and keeps the public thinking there was an abduction.

Could Brookes et al have been blackmailing both Cameron AND, more cagily,  the McCanns? What they care about, at Murdoch papers,  clearly, is more MM stories, more papers sold, and done in a way that doesn't get them sued.

Could she have been pushing McCanns on the angle of getting Sy to review the case? After all - if McCanns are innocent, they should want this, so they are between a rock and hard place if Brooks wants to push this re opening.

Whereas maybe they do not want it. maybe what they wanted was to throw dirt on the Pj, on Amaral in particular, to make themselves look innocent and win this libel trial and £1M. And having an audience with the Prime Minister seems to fit with their notions of themselves as being super special, and with high contacts - the Pope, etc., trying to have European Amber alert named after them or associated with their case -  That visibility gains supporters and money.

Once the PM is on side, that pushes PT justice in a certain direction - their direction, one could safely assume. Between making Amaral or the PJ look good vs higher concerns the PT government may have when it comes to relations with the UK, throwing Amaral under the bus is a small sacrifice. He's already been positioned as "disgraced" and they have other cops now who could be seen to be better, everyone's happy.

Now though, the PM and his paper readers and media monitors may be looking at this saying "you have a safe way out here, people are screaming about the money spent on this and McCanns were suppressing evidence and oh - look - no one actually read the PJ files we just took Clarence's word for it, McCanns' word for it, Carter Ruck's word for it - it actually turns out they were and are still suspects; maybe better to say we've done all we can reasonably be expected to do - and we have to think of the tax payers - and other missing kids?" Supporting a European Amber Alert would be a possible out.


mccanns asked to have the case reviewed, I think hoping that SY would find dozens of folks who hadn't been chased up. Dozens of pedos who could have been in PT. Dozens of citizens of PDL who could be involved, but weren't. Look how badly the PJ pursued this, etc.

I don't think, given the option, that they'd have wanted a tourist carrying his child home innocently to be the outcome of that review -- although thus far, that, and the efits of Smith sighting, are the major break throughs, neither of which helps McCanns. AT ALL.

If Amaral wins the libel trial and we see that the PJ investigation was shelved with them as persons of interest, I think that will be in the papers, how not?

They can bash the PJ all they like in the papers and they can still use the "our government doesn't care about a little girl" angle to pressure Cameron's government to do whatever it is they actually want, which isn't finding Madeleine.

I am sure Murdoch with his billions has much bigger items on his agenda and this could be just a pressure point?

comperedna wrote:I agree strongly with jay2001 ansd tanzi... Think of all those missing children and young people who have NO money spent on looking for them!

What was Cameron's answer to that if any? Is this because she was abducted abroad? Why should that make a difference, if it does? I haven't seen him answer any charges that this is totally unfair with regards to other missing kids.

The McCanns only have themselves to blame for this Circus they created, The morning briefings to the Press, the Company created in 12 days to receive money for a Fund supposedly to search for Madeleine yet failed to engage anyone with any experience , Kate writing two books, The McCanns organising T.V. Programmes to be aired on the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance......this is extraordinary by any standards , T.V. interviews to promote the books etc.

It really has been an extraordinary roller coaster , there will never be another couple able to command such world=wide attention , which after six years has acheived NOTHING. If Kate is looking unwell, it is becuase she knows the party is over.

Panda wrote:The McCanns only have themselves to blame for this Circus they created, The morning briefings to the Press, the Company created in 12 days to receive money for a Fund supposedly to search for Madeleine yet failed to engage anyone with any experience , Kate writing two books, The McCanns organising  T.V. Programmes to be aired on the anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance......this is extraordinary by any standards , T.V. interviews to promote the books etc.

It really has been an extraordinary roller coaster , there will never be another couple able to command such world=wide attention , which after six years has acheived NOTHING.  If Kate is looking unwell, it is becuase she knows the party is over.

What morning's briefings? Do you have a link?

They have certainly done a disservice to missing children everywhere. After this, what kind of person would willingly donate money to a parent's private "charity" for their missing child, that turns out to be a private company that might as well go directly into the parents' bank account? Won't we all be more suspicious? I know I am.

I think the fact that after Crime Watch McCanns have - at long last - shut their traps - speaks volumes.

Anything else that has happened has had them out with Clarence Mitchell parading about and opening their yap and suing and pointing fingers and placing stories on and on. This one thing has gotten them to stop dead in their tracks; either because they have nothing to say that won't appear incriminating or bullsh*t - or because they've been TOLD to, while their lawyers use up the last of the Fund money trying to make it go away or because they've been told to by SY.

They have been muzzled and well done, so. Many think Redwood and SY are there for the highest bidder; I disagree. They've just put a huge weapon of leverage into the hands of the investigation.

I believe LBC doing Christmas appeal for Missing People with Kate used to plug the appeal.


Cameron should be spending money finding out what happened to the children taken from childrens homes, some of whom may have ended up being used by elite paedo rings, etc., He should be pouring money into that but no doubt too close to home to do so with MPs being involved themselves.

cherry1 wrote:I believe LBC doing Christmas appeal for Missing People with Kate used to plug the appeal.


Cameron should be spending money finding out what happened to the children taken from childrens homes, some of whom may have ended up being used by elite paedo rings, etc., He should be pouring money into that but no doubt too close to home to do so with MPs being involved themselves.  

  

cherry1 wrote:I believe LBC doing Christmas appeal for Missing People with Kate used to plug the appeal.


Cameron should be spending money finding out what happened to the children taken from childrens homes, some of whom may have ended up being used by elite paedo rings, etc., He should be pouring money into that but no doubt too close to home to do so with MPs being involved themselves.  

Doing some kind of legislation about child trafficking - an epidemic - would be nice. McCanns can pretend it's got something to do with them; if they are willing to posit at this point that Madeleine was taken into some kind of sex ring, however the "harm" to her if so, is obvious - you can't put pedophile and MM in the same legislation and not have people think how remiss they were not to watch their kids, at a resor that warned them ahead of time they didn't have child listening because it wasn't SAFE. they still want it to be that nothing bad necessarily happened to her.