To Follow Or Not To Follow

loopdaloop has left a new comment on your post "No More Doubts":

“Unfortunately Textusa you have read into this one wrong.

An investigative review means that they WILL be following up leads as if IT HAPPENED IN THE UK!

Which gives them more power.

Secondly, an abduction is what was reported so they will investigate that as Goncalo Amaral and the Portugese did. Once they realise that it leads to a dead end they will follow up the other leads!

I believe in Scotland Yard for this one! Don't forget that it was the British Police that helped the Portugese DEVELOP the 'accident and coverup' theory!

The evidence of Martin Grimes dogs is also not disputed in this country.

After clearing up the Stephen Lawrence case, Scotland yard will do the same on this one!!”

Posted by loopdaloop to Textusa at Jan 11, 2012 6:48:00 PM

Ldlp,

Thank you for your comment, however the expression used continues, for us, to be as clear as it is read. I understand your point of view, and might even subscribe it, if not concurrent with other details that make us have opposing thoughts.

You see, at this point in time, there isn’t anyone in the “upper layers” of British Society who isn’t aware of what really happened, as there isn’t one of them who doesn’t know, and understand, the exact implications of revealing publicly whatever the truth is now.

Yes, because this particular truth evolves daily, forever changing by incrementing its disastrous consequences with each person comes into "the club”. Either privately or publicly. The truth, say, on July 7, 2007, to just name a date randomly, was completely different both in scope and personal involvements than it was to be on Aug 8, 2008, as it is different from then to today, and so on.

That said, when the British PM allocated the 3£ mill to the Maddie SY Review, he had only one of two objectives: either to “fry” the McCanns, and end the embarrassment, or whitewash the case and do the best possible for the said embarrassment to go away.

I understand that it seems, on a first glance, that the terminology “abduction” could have been used as the natural sequencing of the ongoing investigation. Picking it up from where it was left off, or to be precise, archived at.

But picked up from whom or where?

Not from the PJ, because in its investigation, it clearly doesn’t conclude that there was abduction, does it? To qualify its conclusions with that word, it's completely inadequate and abusive in terms of Police work.

If it has to follow something then it can only be from what the couple alleges to have happened. They did say it was abduction, and the first page of the PJ Files does say “rapto” (kidnap). But as I said in the post, besides the couple and friends, the rest of the world, in which are included their “friends”, let the “abduction” term drop pretty quickly.

To use the word “abduction” to express the pick-up point would make SY be following up on what the McCanns had to say on the matter rather than what their Portuguese counterpart officially concluded. And from what we read, that's exactly what is happening.

Between the PJ and the McCanns, I know who I’d believe. I’d rather go on investigated facts, then from desperate claims from people who bear heavily burdened consciences, but that’s me.

Also, when one is writing a high-profile document, such as this one is, that one knows that’s going to be meticulously scrutinized, such as this one would be, one is very careful with the wording used. Each word and each sentence is, as is being written, revised by more than a single pair of eyes.

So, the author, if he wished to express, as seems to be the case, the level of commitment to be made by those responsible for the Review, saying that although it happened somewhere we’ll treat it as if it happened right at our front door, using the word “events” instead of “abduction” (“as if the events occurred in the UK”) would have served fully that purpose, without being minimally controversial. But that wouldn't fully support the "Official" version of things, would it?

Also, there’s the question of the results being published or not. It seems that they won’t be, which, as I’ve said it doesn't surprise me in the least. Are SY investigations usually published? No. Are PJ investigations usually published? No.

But is the outcome, or RESULT, of the investigations, either by PJ or SY, usually known to the public? Yes, they are.

Even if just to say something biased and false, like the Portuguese Judicial System said about the Maddie Affair: there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute the couple.

We now know it to be a completely ridiculous statement, but at least something was said, a result presented, which apparently will not be the case, with the Review. Just to say if they’re to prosecute someone or not, in a case determined by the Nation’s PM and paid for by £3 million of British Public Funds.

By the way, to say that they won’t publish the result of a certain investigation means, to me, that they have published something of the nature in the past. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any expectancy would it?

Then there’s the resignation. Why?

Now throw in the Leveson Inquiry (what a sad, pathetic spectacle put on by the "establishment") and the Phone Hacking Hearings, put all in an oven and keep regularly checking how it’s cooking.

I repeat that we stated only an opinion and we would dearly love for it to be wrong and would be happy to apologise if it is.

We aren’t owners of the truth, and we welcome opposing opinions as we’ve shown more than once before. The only people who really know for certain are those "in the know".

We know that they know that we know. That they know sums it up for us as regards them.

We don’t sit here in judgement telling others that what we’ve decided has now become fact. That is a style used by many a Black Hat dressed in White from head to toe.