Monday, November 02, 2015

What Have The McCanns To Be Thankful For?

Giving Thanks For Nothing, Courtesy Of The McCanns

Official Find Madeleine Campaign

We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt. We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in PDL leading up to Madeleine’s abduction in 2007.
Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced. We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.
Whilst we do not know what happened to Madeleine, we remain hopeful that she may still be found given the ongoing lines of enquiry.

Gerry and Kate McCann


Who thanks Law Enforcement for failing to find their missing loved one, in this case, a child called Madeleine, and for failing to make any arrests in relation to the disappearance (alleged abduction by paedophile according to the parents and supporters) of said child, Madeleine?

Guilty persons thank law enforcement for not finding their missing loved one or failing to make arrests for same.
They are thankful law enforcement failed as they get to remain free.

Innocent persons are not thankful when their loved one isn't found.
They are not thankful when no arrests are made in relation to their missing loved one.

What have they to be thankful for?

Their loved one is either still missing or, the guilty person or persons are still running around free, escaping justice.

Innocent people are furious their loved one has not been found.
They are raging the perpetrator has not been arrested and charged and cooling their heels in some prison cell for the rest of their miserable lives.
Anything short of finding their loved one and getting justice is simply not acceptable.
They refuse to understand why there is no progress in their case.
They refuse to accept the investigation is essentially completed, after all, how can it be essentially completed when their loved one is still missing and the perpetrator is still out there living a free life?
They will demand the case be kept open.
They will practically camp outside the station in order to know what is going on or, if they remember the slightest thing that could help find their loved one.
Doing nothing is not an option.

Shelving the case or winding it down is not an option, and most certainly not one to be greeted happily by the innocent parents.

If given the chance to keep the case open, YES is the only word expected to be said

Guilty persons however . . . more


Anonymous said...

I'm not saying I agree with her assessment of the police preformance but its a natural reaction

In a stinging attack after chief murder suspect Robert Howard died in prison on Friday, Ms Arkinson said: “I am 100% critical of the police.

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @14:41

With respect, I think you're missing the point. The author is not offering an assessment of the police, but the parents.

Be that as it may, only innocent parties would clamour for a case review wouldn't they? Unless, on the other hand, they knew they would not be proven guilty.

To extemporize upon the author's theme, NOT ONE of the McCanns' reactions to their various circumstances can be considered instinctive and genuinely natural. On the contrary, their behaviour over time has been consistently counter-intuitive. Are we to suppose therefore that their response to Operation Grange developments represents a break with tradition?

Much more likely is a scenario in which the world according to Gerry McCann is at least consistent:

No evidence that Madeleine is dead = Madeleine is unquestionably alive.

No evidence of the McCanns' involvement in Madeleine's ABDUCTION = The parents are above suspicion.

What a coincidence therefore that Operation Grange is on the cusp of delivering up, albeit by default, exactly the conclusion required to promote their exoneration?

tania cadogan said...

My comments relate to the expected behavior and language of parents and loved ones in a missing persons case where the parents and loved ones are innocent of any involvement in the disappearance, the expected, and then the behavior of the mccanns, their chums and spokesman the unexpected although in their case, as in any case where the victim is missing due to parental/familial or someone known to them, the unexpected is, in fact, the expected language and behavior of those guilty of involvement and also guilty knowledge of what happened.

What was unexpected and caught my eye and ears from the get go was the claim they and their chums left their children home alone every night with sporadic checks.
Medical people are hyper-vigilant as to caring for their children as they know exactly what can happen in a fraction of a second, even with the parent right next to the child.

Much as the mccanns would like this all to die down and go away, a crime once done cannot be undone.
Words once spoken cannot be unspoken.
Words once written and made public cannot be unpublished.

There will come a time when those investigating cannot be threatened or manipulated or controlled by the mccanns or their supporters.
Those once in power will, at some point, fall out of power.

They would be best to come clean and end this charade, their surviving children can then, hopefully, lead a normal life with no emotional abuse or threats to their lives from a mother who wants to press a button and they would all be togeather again

Martin Roberts said...

Tania cadogan @21:30

Tania, I was answering the (deliberately?) skewed observation of 'Anonymous', not endeavouring to re-interpret your own message which is perfectly clear. I would however debate this comment:

"There will come a time when those investigating cannot be threatened or manipulated or controlled by the McCanns or their supporters".

Much may hinge on your definition of 'supporters'. Personally I doubt that investigators are under the direct control of the McCanns. Operation Grange in particular has been bought and paid for by the Home Office and the UK government have a always had a say in its outcome.

I suspect a 'Faustian bargain' is in place, between the McCanns and those responsible for both suggesting and carrying out Madeleine's 'abduction'. Neither party can 'point the finger' without implicating themselves in some respect.

tania cadogan said...

Hi Martin,I agree, there is something we aren't being told or even having it alluded to, that is causing the investigation to spin gently in the whirlpool of a deep dark pond.

The Portuguese investigation will not be affected by the continued involvement or subsequent shelving of the UK investigation.
The UK police do not have control over what is a homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report case.
Maddie died in Portugal and the PJ are the ones investigating.

The UK, at best, can look at and investigate the fund since it was set up and is based in the UK.
Whether the UK police press on, shelve the case or bimble along throwing good money after bad, it will have no effect on the Portuguese investigation.
What is interesting is that the mccanns, clarrie and the British media are painting this as if the UK Police are investigating the crime and if they 'find nothing' the mccanns will be declared innocent and all their litigation is merited.
It is simply spin.
Only the Portuguese Police can shelve the case, a case is never closed if no culprit is found and found guilty, it can, and will be, reopened whenever someone finds new evidence, there is a confession, or they are intrigued and want to get justice for the victim

I do wonder though if, given the scope of their demands for donations throughout the world and the setting up of donation buttons in sundry currencies, if they could face charges in America resulting from wire fraud.

In the mean time, who will be the one to break,and there surely is at least one.
A secret is not a secret if more than one person knows.

Martin Roberts said...

Tania Cadogan 2.11 @23:09

I concur. Your reference to an international dimension regarding donations to the fund is v. interesting, but the stumbling block is, I imagine, likely to be 'proof' (again!).

Kind regards

Martin R.

Anonymous said...

Dr Roberts /Tania
Just first to say how much I love both your work and really enjoy your analysis on the events of this case. I am a long time reader and a short time commenter and I apologise if my comment (2nd November 14:41) offended. It certainly wasn't intended to. What I was trying to do when providing this article was support Tania's assessment that innocent people don't support the police lack of progress in finding the perpetrator of crime as the couple have done in their latest statement.
In this case the lady in question hit out furiously at the police and their lack of progress in locating the whereabouts of her sister.
This is a local case for me and I don’t support her assessment of how the police reacted but was trying to help convey Tania’s message that innocent people don't support the police lack of progress or perceived lack of progress in relation to their loved ones. Apologies again for the misunderstanding

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous @13:28

The misunderstanding was mine it seems. No need for apologies on your part. And you're right. Tania C. hasn't missed a trick - ever.



tania cadogan said...

Awwww, big hugs all round xx

Anonymous said...

What was intriguing about the statement put out by Scotland Yard last week is that British police are no longer talking about an abduction.

True, but Mr and Mrs McCann still do.

"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.

According to a source from the PJ they haven’t a clue what happened to Madeleine McCann, and according to Mr and Mrs McCann the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction.

One and the same case?

Just wondering. Mx

Martin Roberts said...

Anonymous (Mx)@9:06

'H's' take on the 'Portugal Resident' item is understandably guarded, since the source is unattributed. Fair comment. But the journalist in question (ND) has so far been exemplary in her coverage. Personally I take it as an ominous sign (but maybe it's just the mood I'm in).

As for the McCanns "MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007."

That is a subtle yet deliberate elongation of time. The MPS statement refers explicitly to events on May 3 whereas there is abundant evidence, within the original files even, to indicate that events of immediate relevance to the child's 'disappearance' occurred before then. Hence my being 'stopped short' by a claim of complete ignorance on the part of the Portuguese.

Same case? It does make you wonder. If there is anything like an 'entente cordiale' in this affair I doubt it genuinely exists between MPS and the PJ. More between those 'upstairs' I suspect.



Anonymous said...

M, Martin,

Those are exactly my own thoughts. Whilst it may be true that SY have become rather more hesitant on the point of abduction, we see no less calculation. OG appears to draw inexorably to it's spreadsheet ending, whilst inviting others (notably the McCanns - of course) to frame a conclusion. How terribly diplomatic of them. Yes, how Faustian.


Himself said...

Whereas it was never my intention to cast aspersions on Portuguese journalist Natasha Donn, and for the first time in years I use the word journalist quite deliberately in the case of Ms Donn, for now at least, this story bothers me somewhat.

Up to press I can only draw two conclusions.

One: The unattributed source for this story should make us more than a little guarded as to its veracity and thus not worth the proverbial carrot.

Two: This story is an unofficial official leak from the PJ. Should that be the case then it hardly needs me to tell you that we are in trouble; the PJ and the Met reading from the same policy sheet.

That said; there could never be an official PJ statement to this effect, if for no other reasons than (A) the credibility of said police force would then be then equal to that of the Met, and (B) the Portuguese would go absolutely bananas.

I think many of the older Portuguese, and perhaps some younger, still hold a pre 1974 opinion of the PJ, GNR et al, that said organisations are still a organs of the State and are neither to be trusted or liked.

How different they must be, the Portuguese in question, to our (Twitter) lot, who, despite an ever growing mountain of evidence to the contrary, display a faith in the Met that not only appals me but shames me as well. Countrymen mine? Gor blimey!

But this is to say this is not the case, the leak that is, how are we to know?

And lastly, a word of caution for Natasha Donn. Do be careful that you are not being used as a conduit for airing the views and aspirations of the political elite.

The PJ, like the Met, like Maria Emília de Melo e Castro, do as they are told.

Anonymous said...