Highly Unlikely That the McCanns Will Be Brought to Justice

The case needs closure for the parents to get on with their lives, I mean this not for the sake of their conscience, because events since 2007 have shown them not to possess such a pesky hinderance as a conscience.

They need irrefutable proof in the public domain that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's continued abscence from the family home, despite the fact that it was they who, (according to their own story) left their children alone every night while they were out on the lash with their buddies. That they did this they cannot deny.

But why then has not one Child Protection Agency spoke out about their appalling parenting skills?

They want to walk away as the victims with unblemished characters who have been persecuted by free thinking people who wickedly do not believe any one of the several dozen different time lines and stories that their government supplied propaganda machine has put into the public domain.

And it looks very much like they will....

malena stool wrote:

Marky wrote:

malena stool wrote:

Marky wrote:

Iris wrote:Kathybelle and Kitti are quite right IMHO - the British police and establishment have zero interest in pursuing the McCanns.  Which makes you wonder why - who is it that has a lot to lose?

i don't think it's got anything to do who's got anything to lose. the case was shelved because although they had a pretty good idea what happened and by 'they' i mean both the portuguese and british police, they simply couldn't prove it. having said that is it not worth considering that this current review is engaged in eliminating all these so called 'leads' and 'persons of interest' until they only have their unprovable theory left?

  

Their 'unprovable theory' is the only plausible 'theory' that has been trashed not by counter evidence but by Red Top Rags and TV pundits dissing, (for reasons which we will probably never know) good solid evidence and evidence gathering.

those reasons are that those concerned simply couldn't, wouldn't, accept that two medical professionals could possibly have done what was being suggested. if they'd been a couple from benefit street then yeah, maybe but two of their own? no, ludicrous.

  

True to a point Marky, but:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/927-doctors-keep-jobs-despite-1508052

indeed, they are no different to anyone else but they just choose to believe they are.   

I think the McCanns should be thinking of the twins, they will have classmates asking questions and if the McCanns hadn't started a Fund so quickly and written Books, kept themselves in the spotlight, sued Amaral for an exhorbitant sum of money, same as they sued Tony Bennet interest in the case would have abated,it is their constant use of the Media that has retained interest, mostly forums, the general public is not interested at all .

malena stool wrote:The case needs closure for the parents to get on with their lives, I mean this not for the sake of their conscience, because events since 2007 have shown them not to possess such a pesky hinderance as a conscience.

They need irrefutable proof in the public domain that they had nothing to do with Madeleine's continued abscence from the family home, despite the fact that it was they who, (according to their own story) left their children alone every night while they were out on the lash with their buddies. That they did this they cannot deny.

But why then has not one Child Protection Agency spoke out about their appalling parenting skills?

They want to walk away as the victims with unblemished characters who have been persecuted by free thinking people who wickedly do not believe any one of the several dozen different time lines and stories that their government supplied propaganda machine has put into the public domain.

And it looks very much like they will....

They will never do that until someone else is convicted for disappearing Madeleine.
Without a rock solid conviction, the suspicion will always be there.

whatsupdoc wrote:Marky, can I take it you are a Dexter fan?  Have you watched all 8 seasons?  I have

yup. best seasons were two and four.   

jeanmonroe wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:They're safe and dry and they have known it for a long time.

Unfortunately they will NEVER be 'home and dry'

They have LIED on TV 'interviews'

They have refused to answer PJ Investigators questions.

They have 'admitted' to have spent 'donations' given, in good faith, for the specific purpose to 'fund' a 'search' for their daughter, on mortgage payments on their house.

Mr McCann has stated that 'there's no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's death'

They will NEVER be 'home, safe and dry' in the public's eye.

That means nothing. There will never be justice for Madeleine which is what truly matters. As for the public's opinion, as any other 'celebrity', they have to live with the fact that some people ilke them and others don't. Pretty sure it doesn't affect their sleep. If their daughter's disappearance didn't...

This is a deeply depressing thread and ... for today at least ... I have to agree with the general tenor of the argument. Maybe another day, and something will turn up unexpectedly? :-(

comperedna wrote:This is a deeply depressing thread and ... for today at least ... I have to agree with the general tenor of the argument. Maybe another day, and something will turn up unexpectedly? :-(

Maybe! There's always hope of the unexpected happening.

I don't believe the McCanns ever feel relaxed or at ease. Too many people in the know, and goodness knows what else has been suppressed, besides Madeleine's sad fate.   It must be totally toxic to live that way.

So the e-fit being unearthed from the pits of the McCanns lawyers back drawer was all part of the cover up?
Redwood saved this e-fit for crimewatch, he could have released it as soon as he got his hands on it but he sat on it, making it as clear as he could there was no hurry for a living child who needed rescuing from the number 1 suspect

The above scenario in cover up mode would be to totally ignore that e-fit, even burn it & have an e-fit of tractorman or Hewlett, have a mobile phone ready to place the patsy in 5A, then en route to the ocean...the McCanns to do as they're told & take Tannerman down asap after CW. Case solved Redwood to be made a Sir & Bob's yer fathers brother

matthew wrote:So the e-fit being unearthed from the pits of the McCanns lawyers back drawer was all part of the cover up?
Redwood saved this e-fit for crimewatch, he could have released it as soon as he got his hands on it but he sat on it, making it as clear as he could there was no hurry for a living child who needed rescuing from the number 1 suspect

The above scenario in cover up mode would be to totally ignore that e-fit, even burn it & have an e-fit of tractorman or Hewlett, have a mobile phone ready to place the patsy in 5A, then en route to the ocean...the McCanns to do as they're told & take Tannerman down asap after CW. Case solved Redwood to be made a Sir & Bob's yer fathers brother

Matthew, it turns out the e-fit was found among the files taken away from Metodo 3. it was Murdoch who pointed out in the Times that their Portugese
Branch had reported it about 6 yrs previously. !!! The efit was actually made by Control risk for the McCanns very early on., they must have given it to M3.

Panda wrote:

matthew wrote:So the e-fit being unearthed from the pits of the McCanns lawyers back drawer was all part of the cover up?
Redwood saved this e-fit for crimewatch, he could have released it as soon as he got his hands on it but he sat on it, making it as clear as he could there was no hurry for a living child who needed rescuing from the number 1 suspect

The above scenario in cover up mode would be to totally ignore that e-fit, even burn it & have an e-fit of tractorman or Hewlett, have a mobile phone ready to place the patsy in 5A, then en route to the ocean...the McCanns to do as they're told & take Tannerman down asap after CW. Case solved Redwood to be made a Sir & Bob's yer fathers brother

Matthew, it turns out the e-fit was found among the files taken away from Metodo 3. it was Murdoch who pointed out in the Times that their Portugese
Branch had reported it about 6 yrs previously. !!! The efit was actually made by Control risk for the McCanns very early on., they must have given it to M3.

But within months the relationship had soured. A report produced by the investigators was deemed “hypercritical” of the McCanns and their friends, and the authors were threatened with legal action if it was made public. Its contents remained secret until Scotland Yard detectives conducting a fresh review of the case contacted the authors and asked for a copy.

They found that it contained new evidence about a key suspect seen carrying a child away from the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared.

This sighting is now considered the main lead in the investigation and E-Fits of the suspect, taken from the report, were the centrepiece of a Crimewatch appeal that attracted more than 2,400 calls from the public this month.

One of the investigators whose work was sidelined said last week he was “utterly stunned” when he watched the programme and saw the evidence his team had passed to the McCanns five years ago presented as a breakthrough.

The team of investigators from the security firm Oakley International were hired by the McCanns’ Find Madeleine fund, which bankrolled private investigations into the girl’s disappearance. They were led by Henri Exton, MI5’s former undercover operations chief.

Their report, seen by The Sunday Times, focused on a sighting by an Irish family of a man carrying a child at about 10pm on May 3, 2007, when Madeleine went missing.

An earlier sighting by one of the McCanns’ friends was dismissed as less credible after “serious inconsistencies” were found in her evidence. The report also raised questions about “anomalies” in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.”

He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

A source close to the fund said the report was considered “hypercritical of the people involved” and “would have been completely distracting” if it became public.

Kate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authoritiesKate and Gerry McCann: now officially not suspects, say the Portuguese authorities (Adrian Sheratt) Oakley’s six-month investigation included placing undercover agents inside the Ocean Club where the family stayed, lie detector tests, covert surveillance and a forensic re-examination of all existing evidence.

It was immediately clear that two sightings of vital importance had been reported to the police. Two men were seen carrying children near the apartments between 9pm, when Madeleine was last seen by Gerry, and 10pm, when Kate discovered her missing.

The first man was seen at 9.15pm by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCanns, who had been dining with them at the tapas bar in the resort. She saw a man carrying a girl just yards from the apartment as she went to check on her children.

The second sighting was by Martin Smith and his family from Ireland, who saw a man carrying a child near the apartment just before 10pm.

The earlier Tanner sighting had always been treated as the most significant, but the Oakley team controversially poured cold water on her account.

Instead, they focused on the Smith sighting, travelling to Ireland to interview the family and produce E-Fits of the man they saw. Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes.

The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008The pictures of a man who may have taken Madeleine were drawn up in 2008 (Adrian Sheratt) The report, delivered to the McCanns in November 2008, recommended that the revised timeline should be the basis for future investigations and that the Smith E-Fits should be released without delay.

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators said last week: “I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours,” he said.

The detailed images of the face of the man seen by the Smith family were never released by the McCanns. But an artist’s impression of the man seen earlier by Tanner was widely promoted, even though the face had to be left blank because she had only seen him fleetingly and from a distance.

Various others images of lone men spotted hanging around the resort at other times were also released.

Nor were the Smith E-Fits included in Kate McCann’s 2011 book, Madeleine, which contained a whole section on eight “key sightings” and identified those of the Smiths and Tanner as most “crucial”. Descriptions of all seven other sightings were accompanied by an E-Fit or artist’s impression. The Smiths’ were the only exception. So why was such a “crucial” piece of evidence kept under lock and key?

The relationship between the fund and Oakley was already souring by the time the report was submitted — and its findings could only have made matters worse.

As well as questioning parts of the McCanns’ evidence, it contained sensitive information about Madeleine’s sleeping patterns and raised the highly sensitive possibility that she could have died in an accident after leaving the apartment herself from one of two unsecured doors.

There was also an uncomfortable complication with Smith’s account. He had originally told the police that he had “recognised something” about the way Gerry McCann carried one of his children which reminded him of the man he had seen in Praia da Luz.

Smith has since stressed that he does not believe the man he saw was Gerry, and Scotland Yard do not consider this a possibility. Last week the McCanns were told officially by the Portuguese authorities that they are not suspects.

The McCanns were also understandably wary of Oakley after allegations that the chairman, Kevin Halligen, failed to pass on money paid by the fund to Exton’s team. Halligen denies this. He was later convicted of fraud in an unrelated case in the US.

The McCann fund source said the Oakley report was passed on to new private investigators after the contract ended, but that the firm’s work was considered “contaminated” by the financial dispute.

He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.

“[The report] was hypercritical of the people involved . . . It just wouldn’t be conducive to the investigation to have that report publicly declared because . . . the newspapers would have been all over it. And it would have been completely distracting,” said the source.

Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.



I'm certain Gerry ran into the Smiths, and Tanner was dragged in to give him an alibi!

was mr Bennett sued for contempt of court ? had the macs sued him before that ? joyce1938

Matthew, can I ask where you are getting all this info from???

1. Oakley asked Control Risk , a Private investigation C. to search for Madeleine. I read , don't know if it is true, that it gave the reason for CR to enter a Country where they were looking for a middle east Sheik.

Oakley was a one man band owned by Halligen, an Irishman who boasted of Satellite equipment and was not averse to money laundering. Halligen was arrested in the U.K. , languished in Holloway Prison for almost 2 years and was extradited to the U.S.A to face a charge of fraud of over 1 million $. He owned Property in the US and later returned to the U.K. so I suspect he had to sell his assets to avoid a trial.

Metodo 3 were also famous for Fraud and money laundering and in an interview with ABC Es (Spanish version of either the Times or Telegraph they denied
receiving the £300,000 suggested by the McCanns and said they received E160,000 + E4,000 expenses for 6 months work. There was a muttering from Clarence when a Reporter challenged him about it that the McCanns were going to sue Metodo 3, but nothing happened. My instinct tells me Brian Kennedy, the Everest Double Glazing guy recruited all these dodgy Firms for money Laundering more than searching for Madeleine.

joyce1938 wrote:was mr Bennett sued for contempt of court ? had the macs sued him before that ? joyce1938

He was sued for breach of an undertaking not to sell his Booklet or indulge in any more activities like sticking leaflets through peoples letterboxes.

Gosh that seems like a very unwise move on his part eh ? thanks for reply panda,i could not recall if the macs had taken him to court first and then he did the contempt of court act ? joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Gosh that seems like a very unwise move on his part eh ? thanks for reply panda,i could not recall if the macs had taken him to court first  and then he did the contempt of court act ? joyce1938

I think he signed an undertaking which he broke by stupidly selling a booklet to someone who was either a plant by the McCanns or who told them.
that is why the McCanns sued him.

Thanks panda ,I must say I am surprised he fell for that ,he seems always so clued up on a lot of issues .joyce1938

The McCanns sued Bennett in the first instance in order to stop him distributing his leaflet and basically talking about the case.

As part of that court case, he gave an undertaking not to do this in the future.

He was at some stage after that undertaking contacted by somebody looking for a copy of his document for research purposes. He believed the request was genuine and handed over the document.

As a result of that action he had broken his undertaking to the first Court and the most recent case was the result, his breach of the courts instruction.

That's my understanding.

mossman wrote:The McCanns sued Bennett in the first instance in order to stop him distributing his leaflet and basically talking about the case.

As part of that court case, he gave an undertaking not to do this in the future.

He was at some stage after that undertaking contacted by somebody looking for a copy of his document for research purposes.  He believed the request was genuine and handed over the document.

As a result of that action he had broken his undertaking to the first Court and the most recent case was the result, his breach of the courts instruction.  

That's my understanding.

UUM, isn't that what i said??  

There were aspects of Tony's crusading that I did not agree with , like many, i donated to enable Tony to send a booklet to every MP , my MP says he never received a copy, maybe it didn't apply to the Welsh. He also posted leaflets through the letterboxes of people in Rothley, including the McCanns neighbours!!!! The McCanns employed a Barrister for the case , I don't know how much Tony had to pay in Legal fees for both Parties but because of his age I think the Judge was quite lenient

Technically, Tony was guilty and the verdict was quite right. It could have been a LOT worse than it was and IMHO he got off lightly. IIRC he has to pay £125 a month to cover costs (NOT to the McCanns) for the next 10 years or something. Considering he owns property and has savings, that's chicken feed to a court. I think that the Judge had to act within the law as set down, but the extremely light ruling makes it quite clear where they stand on the matter.

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:The McCanns sued Bennett in the first instance in order to stop him distributing his leaflet and basically talking about the case.

As part of that court case, he gave an undertaking not to do this in the future.

He was at some stage after that undertaking contacted by somebody looking for a copy of his document for research purposes.  He believed the request was genuine and handed over the document.

As a result of that action he had broken his undertaking to the first Court and the most recent case was the result, his breach of the courts instruction.  

That's my understanding.

UUM, isn't that what i said??  

Sorry Panda maybe I misunderstood your post, I read it as if he was sued because he sold the booklet, I was trying to explain the suit came first, then the booklet and the last case was a contempt of court hearing. I have a house full today, so not concentrating.   



Iris - I agree.

Iris wrote:Technically, Tony was guilty and the verdict was quite right.  It could have been a LOT worse than it was and IMHO he got off lightly.  IIRC he has to pay £125 a month to cover costs (NOT to the McCanns) for the next 10 years or something.  Considering he owns property and has savings, that's chicken feed to a court.  I think that the Judge had to act within the law as set down, but the extremely light ruling makes it quite clear where they stand on the matter.

Hi Iris, Yes, he did get off lightly and i read he had put his House in his Wife's name so it could never be sold.Also, didn't he say he could not get Legal Aid which suggested he could not pay any costs.so the McCanns had to pay their own costs???? Ah well, not to worry , no doubt it came from the Fund.

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:The McCanns sued Bennett in the first instance in order to stop him distributing his leaflet and basically talking about the case.

As part of that court case, he gave an undertaking not to do this in the future.

He was at some stage after that undertaking contacted by somebody looking for a copy of his document for research purposes.  He believed the request was genuine and handed over the document.

As a result of that action he had broken his undertaking to the first Court and the most recent case was the result, his breach of the courts instruction.  

That's my understanding.

UUM, isn't that what i said??  

Sorry Panda maybe I misunderstood your post, I read it as if he was sued because he sold the booklet, I was trying to explain the suit came first, then the booklet and the last case was a contempt of court hearing.  I have a house full today, so not concentrating.    



Iris - I agree.

So even with a house full of Family? Friends? you are too busy here to entertain them...shame on you!! Just kidding.  

Yes Panda ! Seven boys under 11 years old in my house......I shall be logged on all day