Hutton's probably drunk, or stoned, or both - I don't know what Bennett's excuse is.
Re: MADDIE: COPS AT WAR - Daily Star 18/2/14
Post Cristobell Today at 3:42 pm
Cristobell wrote:
Why Tony? For what reason?
Lets look at historical cover ups.
Dr. Kelly = reason: Government committed to war and Dr. Kelly's opinions threat to that.
Hillsborough = reason: Bad decisions by high level Police and perseverance of the Families' pressure groups. [And big to Brian Reade and Andy Burnham]
I just cannot imagine anything of such magnitude surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine. I appreciate it is difficult for you to answer given the absurd restrictions on your free speech (yes, it still outrages me!), but perhaps you can put forward something that will lead my thinking in the right direction?
Bennett wrote:
I fully agree with you that any cover-up must have a reason. That's clear and logical thinking and I agree with your assertion.
For legal reasons I cannot put forward here on the forum what I think may lie behind this cover-up (if it is a cover-up), but be patient please for a day or two and I will send you a 'pm' rather than continue this particular discussion on the open forum.
There is a thread on the forum called 'The people who rushed out to Praia da Luz' (or similar) and there I raise the question of why so many important people suddenly descended on PdL when it was perfectly possible, so far as we knew at that stage, for Madeleine to have been found alive and well any day.
Most respectfully, I would invite you to consider - for each person who suddenly went out there - why was it necessary for them to go, why did they go, who sent them there, and who paid for them to go there? And finally, what did each of them achieve?
Hutton:
Ok, lets look at the people who flew (or drove) out there. The British Consul, Buck I believe, Justine McGuiness, sent by the Government, but not a government employee by the look of her CV on linkedin. Lawyers from the Family Law Association, Lawyers from other major law firms. Spiritual assistance in the form of priest(s), emotional assistance in the form of Alan Pike (travelling psychologist) and a huge assortment of relatives and friends.
I suppose at the time Clarence Mitchell would have been considered a Big Gun, he was fairly high up in Labour's media department, but, and this cannot be stressed enough, he quite his job with the Government to work for the private Fund of Gerry and Kate McCann. The Government not only severed links with the McCanns (Buck quietly withdrew), but they severed links with the McCanns's spokesman!
Justine McGuiness has moved on, no mention of her role in the McCann drama in her Linkedin CV. So too Esther McVie, her CV also omits her Directorship of the Madeleine Fund. She has succeeded in her career despite her association with the McCanns, not because of them. Of the Law firms, they have had a steady form of income since 2007, win or lose they are still wracking up the hours.
If you are referring to the nephew of a former ex Labour Minister who was already out there, imo, he is a teeny weeny minor character, certainly not one who would warrant this scale of cover up. He is not a President, a PM, or a member of the Royal Family.
Were the McCanns visited by members of the Secret Service? Unlikely imo, as good as the McCanns are at keeping secrets, anything that would suggest their government had 100% faith in their innocence would have been made into a feature film starring Nicole Kidman and broadcast on all the major networks. The McCanns simply cannot keep a secret if it shows them in a good light - they need everything they can get. For this reason I don't think they are in any loops. They smile at the cameras and tell the interviewers that they are being kept fully advised, but they did exactly the same in 2007. Kate's book confirms they were lying, what was going on behind the scenes was entirely different.
But I digress, these visitors, or officials would have had to get through a barrage of journalists and photographers to visit the McCanns in the summer of 2007. Kate even opined in her book that one of the lawyers who flew out to see them was highly conspicuous due to his flamboyant attire. Men in black would have stood out like a sore thumb.
I haven't ruled out the possibility that Gerry is some scheming Dr. Evil, with something BIG on an important person or a large organisation. The favours he has received are rather more than quid pro quo, and some might even think they were extracted forcibly rather than given freely with a benevolent smile. Especially when that called in favour comes back again and again at every anniversary. The problem for controlling/demanding people is that the hosts they feed off eventually get fed up with them. I think in the case of the McCanns, that happened quite some time ago.
____________________
Cristobell
