McCanns get Special Branch treatment
If this report is accurate: "There was some help with their four large black suitcases from the Special Branch officers who had chauffeured them the 16 miles from East Midlands airport to Rothley. But only Mr McCann seemed to have the know-how to unfasten the two child seats from the unmarked police car". Perhaps, the current Home Secretary, who is Jacqui Smith, can explain why the Special Branch is involved in the first place? And, secondly, why officers who are normally employed as guardians of our security have been employed as chauffeurs to two suspected child killers?
5 comments:
Mr Hirst, one of my questions,seen's as you have an insight is, if they have done it, is it easy to live with,or do you have the need to get it off your chest, so to speak......i don't want to offend, also from your personal experiences, which i know doesn't qualify you as a professional,what makes you think they are involved,i really hope you can answer, thankyou,
Judith: To answer your first question, it depends upon the individual or individuals concerned and upon the circumstances of the case. For me it was a simple matter of confessing what I had done because I could not see an escape, and going on the run would have only prolonged the process because I did not believe that I would be able to evade justice. So, I faced it. With the McCanns, it is different, they had their reputations to protect. They have got nothing to lose by fighting to protect it.
Prisoners, particularly lifers, having gone through the process themselves, they have seen and heard it all before and know when they hear or see a report if what they see or are hearing adds up. In the McCanns case it does not add up. The abduction theory left too narrow a window of opportunity. The accounts of regular checking were full of inconsistencies. The changing of statements of some of those involved to try and create a story more believable only served to create more inconsistencies.
In cases like this, it is more rare for it to be as a result of stranger danger, than someone in or close to the family who is the perpetrator. I think it is telling that Gerry has failed to answer 40 questions put to him by the police. I thought he wanted to know what had happened to Madeleine?
To be honest, I really haven't a clue whether or not they are guilty or innocent but from the start of the whole thing I have said they should be suspects purelty because most murders (which I think this definitely is) are committed by people close to the victim.
It's a sad truth but parents DO kill their children. The only reason people are so vehement in their denial that the McCann's may be guilty is because they are an affluent, clean cut, upper-middle class family. If they were a family of benefit claiments from a sink estate people would hope they were innocent but there wouldn't be nearly so much uproar at the suggestion that they may not be.
I think they should take a lie detector test. The only reason I happened across this blog is because I Googled "McCann family Lie Detector" to see if anyone was of the same opinion.
Thank you Mr Hirst, i hope i didn't offend you in any way.
As for inconsistencies, well i have found at least 30, so i don't know how many the P.J have found, i've also connected the entire family to it! including uncle john who owns castle craig rehab centers for the "famous", he has a house in gozo malta, where i may add maddie was spotted several times,
John, as a lawyer I always start from the premise of innocence. From the start my inner instincts told me something was rotten inthe state of Denmark. Too many things did not add up. Also, the behaviour of the McC's raised suspicions. Parents were qyickly upset by their implying that everyone left kids as they did.
The tide appears to be turning (D Mail reports tht they may be checking the local church)
Therefore, given public reaction it could justify security. Mob reaction could prevent a trial happening. We have all witnessed the self-appointed guardians of the law baying at prison vans carrying (sometimes decoys)the accused.
It does, however, rankle that they had such treatment on the plane. Maybe try that line next time I fly.
Post a Comment