Is the McCann case important? 6 reasons why probably it is

Hi, another good video, it's an excellent medium for getting across ideas.
I am interested to know what ideas you have about what underlies the massive cover up in this case? Was it someone else who was in the vicinity at the time? Is it something that GM knows that is giving him leverage? Also, why on earth would a multi million pound investigation have been approved that drags more of the lies into the public eye?

Thanks jellybot.

At the moment, I think this is the most likely explanation: a situation like Elm Guest House or the Kincora boys home scandal, was going on at PDL. The Madeleine accidentally died. We know there were some high level people there at the time.

The idea that Gerry Mccann knows something is also possible, but woud that really be enough leverage to kick everythng into motion? I tend to think that the Powers that Be could deal with Gerry Mccann quite simply. That's why I prefer the idea that a crime was going on at PDL, exactly at the time of Madeleine's death. But I could be wrong.

Why the OP Grange investigation? I don't really know. Could it be that this is part of an ongoing blackmailing scheme which I spoke of on another video? Was somebody trying to turn up the heat by requesting OP Grange? Or maybe the money for Op Grange was needed by somebody behind the scenes and Op Grange was a legitimate way of getting their hands on it? And do we know where all the money from the McCann's fund is really going? Is somebody sucking out a whole load of money from this case?

To be honest I don't really know, but I'm glad you asked the question, because I think it's only by speculating on these issues that we can try to understand the complex dynamics of what's going on here. I understand speculation can be bad (it's libellous, it brings you into disrepute) but I think at the same time it can also be good.

All in my opinion.

Excellent video and analysis Thomas..

thanks CH

This is my own personal smoking gun....I wont go into details as to why.

http://www.news.com.au/national/royal-tip-renews-search-for-maddie-mccann/story-e6frfkp9-1111114540441

Police believe that the tipster entrusted the information to Prince Charles because he and wife Camilla came out in support of Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry....

Hmmm

In terms of marketing, sending a 'tip' to the royals would be a good ploy

It's interesting CH. Suggests the level of conspiracy is perhaps as high as it would seem to be.

I don't know CH, I would have thought if that family were involved their names would never have appeared in connection with it.

DarkestDawn wrote:In terms of marketing, sending a 'tip' to the royals would be a good ploy

Marketing indeed...

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:It's interesting CH. Suggests the level of conspiracy is perhaps as high as it would seem to be.

Everything starts at the top...

Jellybot wrote:I don't know CH, I would have thought if that family were involved their names would never have appeared in connection with it.

Sir Jimmy Savile is a name that is no longer wanted to be connected to the royals....

I still struggle with the idea that many of the influential participants in this case are anything other than happy idiots who for self-serving reasons wanted to look good jumping on a bandwagon and are either too naive to recognise they've been done, too dim to bother to inform themselves or too proud to admit their suspicions.  At the end of the day the Pope, the Prince and the Public - if ever proven to have invested faith and favour in a deception - will simply cop to being well-meaning optimists, and pass the buck to the involvement of the media or the failure of police/intelligence services to protect them from doing what seemed like the kind thing to do...

I suspect that from the earliest happy idiots became key enablers without knowing it. I do wonder if the real 'shut down' on the part of government was not to 'cover up' what happened but to head off what might be revealed if people or evidence or accounts ever went to a court where exhaustive digging would be done. I think of HDLG and see a clear reason why certain influential powers do not want the UK to bear mass witness to a high profilecracked case in which EVRD dogs were key and their skills affirmed. I imagine that if any mandate could be passed through the ranks to suggest 'we don' t care how you get a conviction, just keep at it as long as you need until you build a case so watertight that the dogs never need to be mentioned again' it would keep some very uncomfortable powers slightly happier for the foreseeable future.

CynicAl wrote:I still struggle with the idea that many of the influential participants in this case are anything other than happy idiots who for self-serving reasons wanted to look good jumping on a bandwagon and are either too naive to recognise they've been done, too dim to bother to inform themselves or too proud to admit their suspicions.  At the end of the day the Pope, the Prince and the Public - if ever proven to have invested faith and favour in a deception - will simply cop to being well-meaning optimists, and pass the buck to the involvement of the media or the failure of police/intelligence services to protect them from doing what seemed like the kind thing to do...

I suspect that from the earliest happy idiots became key enablers without knowing it. I do wonder if the real 'shut down' on the part of government was not to 'cover up' what happened but to head off what might be revealed if people or evidence or accounts ever went to a court where exhaustive digging would be done. I think of HDLG and see a clear reason why certain influential powers do not want the UK to bear mass witness to a high profilecracked case in which EVRD dogs were key and their skills affirmed. I imagine that if any mandate could be passed through the ranks to suggest 'we don' t care how you get a conviction, just keep at it as long as you need until you build a case so watertight that the dogs never need to be mentioned again' it would keep some very uncomfortable powers slightly happier for the foreseeable future.

Hi CynicAl

I always chuckled at your posts in 'the other place', not because of the content - which was always insightful - but because of the reaction you received.

I've never subscribed to the theory that the political interference so obviously present early on in this case was to protect a VIP, that it was to do with swinging in PDL, or that the McCanns had some explosive secrets with which they blackmailed the government of the time.  I believe it all came down to the personality of Gordon Brown, a brilliant political mind unable to relate to us mere voters, a bad tempered, socially inept Prime Minister in need of popularity.  Blair had his 'Diana' moment and Brown sought to emulate it by supporting the McCanns but soon realised, via whispers from MI5 and SY, that he'd backed the wrong horse.  It must be galling to crave power one's whole life only to gain it and find you're crap at wielding it.  A politician is judged by their judgement and when he realised he'd screwed up, he did everything in his power to scupper the PJ's investigation into the McCanns.

However, we've had a change of government since then.  Whatever I think of Cameron, he's a father and has had tragedy in his family life.  I believe the review of 2011 was instigated by Rebekah Brooks telling Cameron what she knows about the McCanns, what we know and more, and that was the basis of SY's initial involvement.  Leveson has muddied the waters since then but I believe the investigation is now a juggernaut that can't be derailed.  Perhaps it wasn't only a moral choice by Cameron but a political one - I don't care.  All I know is that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seems to be nearing the endgame.

I don't believe this is all about minimising the EVRD findings because of HDLG - I watched those dogs bounding over the scrubland in PDL earlier this year with glee and feel that when this case reaches court, their silent testimony - naive, apolitical, damning - will be instrumental in seeking the justice we all crave.

But what do I know?

You know a lot IMO

Yes, fantastic post Winston!

I'm just reading 'Off Message' by Bob Marshall -Andrews, very good read, also on Gordon Brown.

Winston Smith wrote:

CynicAl wrote:I still struggle with the idea that many of the influential participants in this case are anything other than happy idiots who for self-serving reasons wanted to look good jumping on a bandwagon and are either too naive to recognise they've been done, too dim to bother to inform themselves or too proud to admit their suspicions.  At the end of the day the Pope, the Prince and the Public - if ever proven to have invested faith and favour in a deception - will simply cop to being well-meaning optimists, and pass the buck to the involvement of the media or the failure of police/intelligence services to protect them from doing what seemed like the kind thing to do...

I suspect that from the earliest happy idiots became key enablers without knowing it. I do wonder if the real 'shut down' on the part of government was not to 'cover up' what happened but to head off what might be revealed if people or evidence or accounts ever went to a court where exhaustive digging would be done. I think of HDLG and see a clear reason why certain influential powers do not want the UK to bear mass witness to a high profilecracked case in which EVRD dogs were key and their skills affirmed. I imagine that if any mandate could be passed through the ranks to suggest 'we don' t care how you get a conviction, just keep at it as long as you need until you build a case so watertight that the dogs never need to be mentioned again' it would keep some very uncomfortable powers slightly happier for the foreseeable future.

Hi CynicAl

I always chuckled at your posts in 'the other place', not because of the content - which was always insightful - but because of the reaction you received.

I've never subscribed to the theory that the political interference so obviously present early on in this case was to protect a VIP, that it was to do with swinging in PDL, or that the McCanns had some explosive secrets with which they blackmailed the government of the time.  I believe it all came down to the personality of Gordon Brown, a brilliant political mind unable to relate to us mere voters, a bad tempered, socially inept Prime Minister in need of popularity.  Blair had his 'Diana' moment and Brown sought to emulate it by supporting the McCanns but soon realised, via whispers from MI5 and SY, that he'd backed the wrong horse.  It must be galling to crave power one's whole life only to gain it and find you're crap at wielding it.  A politician is judged by their judgement and when he realised he'd screwed up, he did everything in his power to scupper the PJ's investigation into the McCanns.

However, we've had a change of government since then.  Whatever I think of Cameron, he's a father and has had tragedy in his family life.  I believe the review of 2011 was instigated by Rebekah Brooks telling Cameron what she knows about the McCanns, what we know and more, and that was the basis of SY's initial involvement.  Leveson has muddied the waters since then but I believe the investigation is now a juggernaut that can't be derailed.  Perhaps it wasn't only a moral choice by Cameron but a political one - I don't care.  All I know is that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seems to be nearing the endgame.

I don't believe this is all about minimising the EVRD findings because of HDLG - I watched those dogs bounding over the scrubland in PDL earlier this year with glee and feel that when this case reaches court, their silent testimony - naive, apolitical, damning - will be instrumental in seeking the justice we all crave.

But what do I know?

Must of missed these posts before.

Excellent, both of them I must say and when you dust it all down and apply some occam's to it then it all seems to make perfect sense.

You often can't see the wood for the trees in this case with everything that is purported about it so it's great to read posts like the above with clear and rational thoughts.

Hope you both post more often on here.

I've never subscribed to the theory that the political interference so obviously present early on in this case was to protect a VIP, that it was to do with swinging in PDL, or that the McCanns had some explosive secrets with which they blackmailed the government of the time. I believe it all came down to the personality of Gordon Brown, a brilliant political mind unable to relate to us mere voters, a bad tempered, socially inept Prime Minister in need of popularity. Blair had his 'Diana' moment and Brown sought to emulate it by supporting the McCanns but soon realised, via whispers from MI5 and SY, that he'd backed the wrong horse. It must be galling to crave power one's whole life only to gain it and find you're crap at wielding it. A politician is judged by their judgement and when he realised he'd screwed up, he did everything in his power to scupper the PJ's investigation into the McCanns.

Excellent post Winston and the above section I have been saying over and over again. Brown distanced himself PDQ but stopped short of reversing the damage he had done in being supportive, simply as a means of protecting his own political career, as he didn't want to be seen as a "knee jerk reactionary" with a terrible judge of character and situations, so it was brushed under the carpet. Notably though it wasn't "disappeared" it was always just sitting there, waiting for the right moment. Who knows though, if the McCanns themselves hadn't kept pushing it, looking for yet more money and their ultimate goal, complete exoneration from an official source, the case may have remained on the shelf for ever..but not any more, the can of worms has been truly re-opened once more and this time it isn't just going to go away imo

Andrew wrote:

Winston Smith wrote:

CynicAl wrote:I still struggle with the idea that many of the influential participants in this case are anything other than happy idiots who for self-serving reasons wanted to look good jumping on a bandwagon and are either too naive to recognise they've been done, too dim to bother to inform themselves or too proud to admit their suspicions.  At the end of the day the Pope, the Prince and the Public - if ever proven to have invested faith and favour in a deception - will simply cop to being well-meaning optimists, and pass the buck to the involvement of the media or the failure of police/intelligence services to protect them from doing what seemed like the kind thing to do...

I suspect that from the earliest happy idiots became key enablers without knowing it. I do wonder if the real 'shut down' on the part of government was not to 'cover up' what happened but to head off what might be revealed if people or evidence or accounts ever went to a court where exhaustive digging would be done. I think of HDLG and see a clear reason why certain influential powers do not want the UK to bear mass witness to a high profilecracked case in which EVRD dogs were key and their skills affirmed. I imagine that if any mandate could be passed through the ranks to suggest 'we don' t care how you get a conviction, just keep at it as long as you need until you build a case so watertight that the dogs never need to be mentioned again' it would keep some very uncomfortable powers slightly happier for the foreseeable future.

Hi CynicAl

I always chuckled at your posts in 'the other place', not because of the content - which was always insightful - but because of the reaction you received.

I've never subscribed to the theory that the political interference so obviously present early on in this case was to protect a VIP, that it was to do with swinging in PDL, or that the McCanns had some explosive secrets with which they blackmailed the government of the time.  I believe it all came down to the personality of Gordon Brown, a brilliant political mind unable to relate to us mere voters, a bad tempered, socially inept Prime Minister in need of popularity.  Blair had his 'Diana' moment and Brown sought to emulate it by supporting the McCanns but soon realised, via whispers from MI5 and SY, that he'd backed the wrong horse.  It must be galling to crave power one's whole life only to gain it and find you're crap at wielding it.  A politician is judged by their judgement and when he realised he'd screwed up, he did everything in his power to scupper the PJ's investigation into the McCanns.

However, we've had a change of government since then.  Whatever I think of Cameron, he's a father and has had tragedy in his family life.  I believe the review of 2011 was instigated by Rebekah Brooks telling Cameron what she knows about the McCanns, what we know and more, and that was the basis of SY's initial involvement.  Leveson has muddied the waters since then but I believe the investigation is now a juggernaut that can't be derailed.  Perhaps it wasn't only a moral choice by Cameron but a political one - I don't care.  All I know is that the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann seems to be nearing the endgame.

I don't believe this is all about minimising the EVRD findings because of HDLG - I watched those dogs bounding over the scrubland in PDL earlier this year with glee and feel that when this case reaches court, their silent testimony - naive, apolitical, damning - will be instrumental in seeking the justice we all crave.

But what do I know?

Must of missed these posts before.

Excellent, both of them I must say and when you dust it all down and apply some occam's to it then it all seems to make perfect sense.

You often can't see the wood for the trees in this case with everything that is purported about it so it's great to read posts like the above with clear and rational thoughts.

Hope you both post more often on here.

--

And I second that, great read.

Third that!

The impression I got when Gordon Brown was in power was that he was in completely over his head blundering from crisis to crisis and, with hindsight,
it was only Sarah, his staff and spin doctors that prevented an earlier bigotgate style event.

I've always thought that there is much more to the review than simply solving or whitewashing:

- For Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch, the arrest and conviction of the McCanns will be a license to print money. Gerry has always been bursting to show off how clever he has been so a few drinks and a bit of flirting from Rebekah and he probably told her everything (off the record of course)

- For David Cameron, he knows the last government interfered with the investigation so he has the labour party hog-tied. Haven't you noticed that the opposition haven't done any serious opposing? It may simply be that they are useless but it could be that David Cameron is holding the McCann case over them - "Do as you are told or I'll show how you interfered with the original investigation into the death of a little girl." A conviction would also give him kudos in Portugal.

- Scotland Yard need this conviction to go some way to restoring their reputation.

Of course this is all pure speculation.

And that is a great read too, Poe :-)

Thank you Châtelaine.

Something else to bear in mind is that Rupert Murdoch has hidden his online versions of The Times and Sun behind paywalls.

Why would he do that? There are so many free alternatives. Very few people are willing to pay for information that is freely available elsewhere and advertising revenue will be reduced as well: fewer readers = fewer clicks. To me, that doesn't make sense.

It does make sense if you think that Madeleine is a massive story that has been trundling on for years and is about to explode in the most spectacular way imaginable. Rupert Murdoch/Rebekah Brooks have a vast archive of information including secret meetings and exclusive information such as Kate's diary. Suddenly a paywall seems a very shrewd move indeed.

Once again this is pure speculation on my part.

Intersting, Poe, the paywall thing. I never thought of that, although I've long thought Murdoch will either make or break this case. I agree it was him behind the nudging of Brooks to get the case review and, as we all know, Cameron and the conservatives are in thrall to the Sun, who decides the outcome of elections. Just ask Brown.

If Cameron loses Murdoch's Sun backing, he's lost the next election. Simple as.

So, the next few months are critical for Cameron. And (coincidentally?), it appears to be approaching critical point for the investigation as well. Will Redwood's retirement be the excuse needed for a new man to step in and pull all the findings to a swift conclusion?

And what conclusion does Murdoch want? And are the Portuguese on side? I do think if the case hasn't been 'solved' one way or another before the next election then it never will be, from the British end at least. We'll be fed an 'inconclusive' line and the investigation closed.

My opinion only, the above.

Likewise, I have never thought of that scenario either.

Does sound plausible the more I actually think about it.

Will be up there with the biggest criminal trial ever when it gets to that stage.

Some clever pre-planning by Murdoch and co.

Pre-planning or orchestration?