Let me just throw a couple of scenarios out there for you.
Gerry McCann was a part of a Government quango called COMARE, as a hired “Medical Expert”, brought on board as a talking head for the government, as Gordon Brown was very keen on further developing our use of nuclear power, and needed someone to tell the people that nuclear power was perfectly safe for residents, and that the reports at the time linking instances of childhood cancer and leukemia to nuclear power facilities was a load of bollocks. Gerry worked alongside Gordon Brown’s brother, Andrew, on this project, and is a friend of his.
And another.
The Ocean Club Resort, is owned by a pretty powerful/influential family, namely the Symingtons, of Port Export “Empire” fame. They count a very close friend in a certain Sir John Major. Who is not only a close friend of the Queen of England, but also of Lord Timothy Bell, of Bell Pottinger, the UK Government’s go-to PR Firm. Who immediately dispatched one Clarence Mitchell, the Government’s Official Media Spin Doctor to become the McCann’s Official Spokesperson. (For two random British Doctors? Really?)
The same Clarence Mitchell, who said this:
Clarence Mitchell in his own words, on 29 September 2007 to Espresso:
“I was the head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media."
The McCanns are threatening anyone that sells the book in the UK with legal action.
So your kid has been missing for nine years, you’ve just lost substantial damages in a court and will now have to pay costs for the libel trial. There is also a Supreme Court verdict coming up.
So what do you do? Threaten to sue anyone that sells a book that is already available on the Internet or elsewhere. Because that’s a good way to spend the fund used to find your daughter.
When the likes of Savile have been afforded protection that goes right the way to the top, it’s quite clear that anything is possible if you know the right people.
The slant in the media has not helped an objective investigation. As JS says, there is no credible evidence, whatsoever, supporting an abduction. There is plenty of evidence that points in the direction of the McCanns.
Beyond the very early days, the UK press has always gone with the abduction theory as a point of fact. Even the reconstructions that were eventually undertaken (notably the one for Crimewatch) are predicated on abduction being the only explanation.
The issue isn’t that Amaral bungled. It’s that he did his job, and they didn’t like his conclusions.
It is always POSSIBLE that his conclusions were wrong. I have no great issue in understanding that 2+2 will sometimes not equal 4, and over the years we have seen many legal cases where evidence has not necessarily produced an equitable or correct result (or has been interepreted/presented badly eg OJ)
But the uneasiness of yesterday when I read all of this for the first time still persists, and what surprises me the most is my (and tbh this forums’) lack of surprise.
The whole cover up conspiracy is just far too plausible especially on top of the presented evidence.
Perhaps the wisest thing the McCanns could have done was to just keep quiet. Repeated comments makes this go all Celebrity 3 in a bed and back into the public eye.
I never used to mind the monarchy, but after the recession, and finding out that the Queen cannot be convicted of any crime, think HRH was a bit out of order for not doing a few bank jobs to muck in for the exchequer. I am against them now
Mind you, it would be like robbing someone for your own selfies.
The slant in the media has not helped an objective investigation. As JS says, there is no credible evidence, whatsoever, supporting an abduction. There is plenty of evidence that points in the direction of the McCanns.
And let not the following absolutely crucial bit of information be lost, amidst the reams of overwhelming facts I’ve recently laid out.
Originally posted by Jack
Clarence Mitchell in his own words, on 29 September 2007 to Espresso :
“I was the head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media."
why is that Important? Isn’t that just normal PR Job? What am I Missing?
Oh Bear. If I need to explain to you the importance of the self confessed Head of a Government Media Monitoring Unit, actually going on the public record, to admit that the entire purpose of their function, their reason for being (in a country with a supposedly ‘free press’) – is _ “to control what comes out in the media” _ – I think you’re probably beyond my further help mate.
Originally posted by Bearsy
Edit: respond in words, not link to 3hr youtube documentary pls
It was funny the first six times, but it’s getting a little old now my friend. I think you might be in need of some new material.
not really, which is why I’ve left it. It sounds like bollocks to me, but you lot are free to carry on.
Which is a much healthier attitude than you see elsewhere.
It is an actual point proffered about the case, true or not, in a thread which is full of points that are considerably less contentious, yet still address some of the concerns around the case.
Right now over at TSW, their thread is just about taking the piss out of SOG. I think they’ve rather forgotten the bold proclamations they all made a page or two earlier.
Regardless, the outcome of this appeal trial should actually get this case moving in the right direction.
I must admit, I have refrained from making a commment as I know absolutely feck all about it. I am however, a little confused over the idea that any effort to avoid the ‘truth’ would reach so high up the foodc hain, no matter who knows who.
For me, the fact that the McCanns left their children alone, in a foreign country, meant they were always going to be viewed through a more negative lens. Is there not a sense that because of this, it created the whole ‘there must be something more to it’ suspicsion?
I have no idea on the strength of the evidence presented in the book, but has not the publication of this book and the ‘evidence’ contained there in, meant that it could be dismissed by a court as possibly compromising a fair trial?
Do I think the McCanns have told everything as it happened ? Probably not
Do I think the UK Government has covered up some Paedo ring and child murder because someone knows someone? No, I cant believe this to be the case. This is not some black ops thing with state sponsored murder of a terrorist, but the murder of a child and there is simply no way that such a cover up would not leak, given the numbers of folk involved and the sickening nature of the crime
Jack, I am not suggesting that you are not presenting facts as you see them, but I do think that maybe there are more possible conclusions from all this than conspiracy?
I hope for the childs sake there is truth and justice one day.
