Monday, 23 June 2014

Seven Years On and Still No Evidence of an Abductor

For 7 years now, the UK's great, good and influential have promoted Kate and Gerry McCann as the victims of an inferior nation's corrupt police force. They have shamelessly exploited the little englander prejudices of the nation's tabloid headline skimmers, to promote a mythical lost child and a couple who's happiness depends on the public's love for them. 

Madeleine's abduction was manna from heaven for those who would have us believe child predators lurk on every corner and that there is an all pervading evil at the heart of the internet.  Freedom of information is bad for us, but no-one's going to buy that, so they tell us our children are in danger and we all take up arms and hand over our DNA.  Therein lies the conspiracy.

The abduction 'Lie' worked as well for the authorities as it did for the parents. Here was tangible proof that our youngest and most vulnerable are at constant risk from strangers.  The government were shamelessly preying on our primal instincts to protect our young over ourselves (take note K&G). Kate and Gerry's flying the flag for Amber Alert (and eventual microchipping) went hand in hand with their 'search' for Madeleine. So too the McCanns' enthusiasm for restrictions on our 'free' press.  They volunteered for the Leveson Enquiry, wrote the scripts for Hacked Off and put on their best hang dog expressions as 'victims' of what freedom of speech can do when you let it run wild.

But lets start at the beginning.  The show case opened in a huge blaze of publicity, the like of which we have never seen before.  Everyone wanted to help, and wanted to be seen helping.  Nothing like a 'good cause' to boost one's popularity. Every canny politician,  pope, newspaper baron and dodgy policeman wanted a big slice of the popular Missing Maddie pie.  An attractive, cherubic tot, stolen from the safety of her bed hit a nerve with the public.  We all put our kids to bed and expect them to be safe, the public's outrage at the scenario put forward by the McCanns blinded many to the reality of what actually happened. 

The McCanns left 3 children under the age of 4 alone in their holiday apartment every night.  The Tapas bar, was nothing like 'eating in your back garden', it was out of sight and sound and the danger to the children was further increased by the patio doors being left open.  Their claim that they checked on their children every half hour is questionable, one witness claimed that one night she heard a child crying for over an hour. 

Normal parents don't do that, and it shames those who claimed they did.  It is child endangerment and it is cruel by any nationality's standards, including those of the British. The biggest danger to toddlers left on their own in an unfamiliar apartment is an accidental fall - it is a zillion times more likely than a random paedophile stumbling across an unlocked door.


Why did so many journalists dismiss the 'neglect' angle as an 'easy mistake' and 'something we all do'?  In their efforts to spare the parents' feelings, the neglect element of this case was completely whitewashed and with it the opportunity to point out the dangers in leaving babies unattended.  They opted to promote an irrational fear of child predators so that young families could never enjoy a relaxing holiday again. 

During the course of the original PJ investigation, and at the suggestion of the British police, Scotland Yard's top blood and cadaver dogs were brought in. They alerted behind the sofa in the front room, in the wardrobe of the parents' bedroom, to items belonging to Kate, including 'Cuddlecat' and to the hire car. They only alerted to McCann related items - nowhere else.  As they did not find a body, this is only deemed 'intelligence', but it takes a huge stretch of the imagination to accept Gerry's mantra of 'no evidence Madeleine has come any harm'.

Despite the evidence of the expert dogs, everything pointing towards a fake abduction and the Portuguese police naming Kate and Gerry as Arguidoes (suspects) in the disappearance of their daughter, the McCanns were feted in the UK as the conquering heroes of third world injustice.  The word of the two arguidoes was believed over that of the Portuguese investigating police officers the Portuguese judiciary and the barks of the dogs.  The McCanns were officially innocent in the eyes of the British establishment and the negative publicity towards the Portuguese police began in earnest. 

But did the Portuguese police bungle the first investigation?  Lets look at the facts.  The first two policemen who arrived on the scene in PDL that night (charmingly re-named Tweedledum and Tweedledee by Kate in her book) described the parents strange behaviour in their statements, and it was later reported that they suspected a staged abduction.    

The PJ conducted the biggest search in Portugal's history for a lost child, and they conducted a thorough investigation (confirmed by the release of the files) - no evidence has ever been found of an abduction.  The only suspects at the end of the original investigation were Robert Murat and Kate and Gerry McCann. 

Contrary to the Team McCann press releases, Kate and Gerry were never cleared, in fact the final report from the Portuguese Attorney General states 'they [the McCanns] lost the opportunity to prove their innocence'

The British press have portrayed the McCanns as the grief stricken parents of a missing child who have done everything in their power to find their daughter, whilst anyone who passes even a cursory glance over the facts of the case will see that Kate McCann stopped answering police questions on 7th September 2007.  They will also see that the McCanns and and their holiday friends refused to return for a reconstruction. In this country such behaviour from a suspect would be described as not co-operating with the police, but in the topsy turvey world of McCann, the fault is seen with the Portuguese investigation rather than the suspects. 

Seven years on and no police force has been able to come up with an abductor, and if those two police forces continue to ignore that which is directly in front of them, then it will continue for another seven years.  Scotland Yard's search for an abductor has been and continues to be as fruitless as the searches by the fraudulent detectives hired by Mr and Mrs McCann. You cannot find someone who doesn't exist, how many times over do the police have to prove that to themselves, before they accept they are looking for the invisible man - a 'Bogey Man' made up by the McCanns to explain their daughter's disappearance. 

They won't find him, because he doesn't exist. He is as fake as the bogey man parents used in the past to scare kids into staying in their rooms and going to sleep.  Now, one of the world's proudest police forces are actively looking for him and the world looks on in wonder.  Perhaps they will also find Peter Pan and the witch who stole Hansel and Gretal. 

This case did not need millions of pounds invested in it, and it didn't need a 37 strong Scotland Yard task force to rubber stamp the Portuguese investigation, or whatever it is they are doing.  In what universe are suspects allowed the option of a second opinion before co-operating with a police investigation? 
The case was solved 7 years ago, indeed some might say, the case was solved that very first night.  Perhaps they should have saved a few million quid and had a quick word with Tweedledum and Tweedledee. 






No disrespect to the GNR officers intended. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

93 comments:

  1. I personally know people who were at dinner with the McCanns that night and I can assure you that there was nothing strange with regard to their behaviour that night. If you would have been there as they searched frantically for their child, rather than a couple of thousand miles away, then you would would not be flinging unintelligent accusations from the comfort of your armchair. Yes, they did make a huge mistake by leaving their children in the apartment that night, like many of the parents staying at that establishment, but in no way were they responsible for the abduction of their child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you must be one of the Tapas 9, although not all of them did any searching THAT night, least of all the parents; 'soul' or otherwise

      Delete
    2. I agree with the poster at 05.00. The McCanns acted perfectly normally on that fated evening. I cannot imagine for the life of me that parents could or would carry on as normal had something terrible happened to their child.

      It seems to me and to many I speak to that the McCanns are smeared by internet armchair detectives who really need to put a sock in it. If you don't know what happened then just keep quiet and leave the detective work to those with expertise.

      Delete
    3. Of course they were responsible for the child`s disappearance - it was the parents` decision to put their children at risk. If you placed your child in the middle of a main road, and it got run over - would you say it wasn`t your fault?.

      Delete
    4. so Tapas, which one are you? are you the one who called the press instead of the police?; went to a morgue in your holiday clothes with your child's stuffed cat in their pocket?; washed everyone's clothes prior to the forensic search and seizure?; conveniently imagined a person awkwardly carrying a child across your path and not say anything about it until hours after?; tore up the missing child's sticker book in order to create a timeline to suit?; set up a limited company in the guise of a charity for missing persons that actually pays for libel lawyers and other non connected expenses? even a blind person could see that NONE of this is normal behaviour

      Delete
    5. I personally know people who were at dinner with the McCanns that night and I can assure you that there was nothing strange with regard to their behaviour that night.

      The people who were at dinner with the McCanns that night were fooled and manipulated by McCann, and they know it although nobody says a word. After all, their children were also being left alone, weren’t they, albeit the Paynes used a baby monitor.

      And I can assure you that there is nothing strange with regard to the fact that most teenagers want to be left alone from time to time. But you know that, don’t you?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, you state that you know people who were having dinner with the McCanns, you also state that the McCanns searched frantically for Madeleine.

      The people you say you know, dined with McCanns must have been all or some of the Tapas 7, in other words, the McCanns mates. They were the only ones dining with the McCanns.

      If I were you, I would take a good look at the PJ files, because the information in the files state what the McCanns were doing when they should have been out looking for Madeleine.

      If Cristobel would allow me to do so, I would love to put some links on here, links that contain information that states what the McCanns were doing, when they should have been out looking for Madeleine and in my opinion, would have been out looking for Madeleine, if they played no part in her disappearance.

      In my opinion, anyone who supports the McCanns and lies on their behalf, is almost as bad as the McCanns and anyone else,who played a role in Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
  2. Annon@ 05.00 ''THAT'' night. How many nights. With one night of protracted cryng for over an hour. But after they all searched, was your friend, like them WENT TO BED. Even if you didn't or couldn't sleep would you and your freinds, ACTUALLY HAVE GONE TO BED. Yes they made a mistake, but it 's Madeleine who has paid the price.

    But I would say to you this, after seven years of closely following the case, you are the FIRST person, to post, that you knew someone who was there. The first!

    The other mystery about this case is the silence of the people who were there. Why don't they speak for themselves, stand side by side with the McCanns?

    Why didn't the good friends and independent witness that night, JW JUMP at the opportunity to prove the timeline & Jane Tanner's sighting of the abductor?

    Of course, after seven years this has been discounted. Strangely enough, never believed by the Portuguese, but we have had a good number of years of searching for Mrs Tannner's sighting. Had the group co-operated and JW that would not have been time wasted!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. No I agree they were not repsonsible for the abduction of their daughter there is NO evidence that an abduction even took place! More evidence that she died in their apartment - what do they hav e to say about that then!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I take it the 'anonymous' poster above was also there on that holiday too. If not i would take anything told by them with a shovel full of salt. Abduction has been proven time and time again, to not have been possible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous 05.00 - a 'mistake' is putting salt in your tea rather than sugar - leaving 3 under-4's alone in a dark, unfamiliar apartment abroad - night after night and even after the eldest allegedly said she and another cried - is child abuse, plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous 05.00. Searched frantically for their child? By Kate's own admission they didn't physically search! They went out the following morning for 'at least an hour' and that was the sum total of their search.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .... and a witness (George Brooks) spotted a couple carrying a child near the Marina about 6am.
      Hmmmm, wonder who that could have been?

      Delete
  7. Batty as ever Ms Hutton. Your conspiracy theories tell us a lot about the author's state of mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why use the word 'conspiracy?' She has a 'theory' about what happened. A bit like the saintly McCanns have a 'theory' about that night, that their child was 'abducted.'
      But their theory has been tested by two police forces, and neither of them believe it. Therefore, the McCanns (and friends) are lying.

      Delete
  8. Great article that puts this case into a neat nutshell. No chance of the McCanns being brought to justice though - too many friends in high places. As for "conspiracy theories", the only "conspiracy theory" is the one perpetrated by the British Media that Madeleine McCann was "abducted" - it's a fairy-tale.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A complete fairy-tale.

      Maybe Peter Pan took Madeleine off to Neverland. She'd be far better off there than with Cherry McKann and Kay Tealey.

      Delete
    2. and the nice Mr Redwood was in charge of the Jill Dando case...and we all know how that ended eventually

      Delete
  9. A mistake? Part of the spin for 7 years. Also naive was used. Two doctors, naive about childcare for a whole week? How does friend explain the constant media circus for 7 years and the inconsistent statements? The mantra of 'no evidence of harm' etc means little since there is no evidence of abduction either. After such a long time and lots more money than any other missing child I agree it is time for the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Replies
    1. I'm in awe of yourself Joana, so that is a huge compliment, thank you :)

      Delete
  11. 5.00 must be one of the tapas friends. "I can assure you there was nothing strange about there behaviour that night " so this person had to be there to know that !!

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am the person who posted anonymous at 05.00.

    Anonymous 06.30 - "The other mystery about this case is the silence of the people who were there. Why don't they speak for themselves, stand side by side with the McCanns?"

    The people who were having dinner with the McCanns did speak for themselves and did stand by them - but of course this is not what you would want to hear.

    All those present that night frantically searched for Madeleine.

    Niki -" I take it the 'anonymous' poster above was also there on that holiday too. If not i would take anything told by them with a shovel full of salt."

    At least I know people who were there - and they did not lie. You weren't but you are prepared to believe any drivel put before you that proves your twisted beliefs.

    Perhaps to remind you of the delays and mistakes made by continental police forces when dealing with crimes against children (another case that eventually required intervention of the UK police) the you should remind yourselves of this: -

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/jun/07/schooltrips.education

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure that knowing people who were at the Tapas bar that night gives you greater insight Anon, the statements of the people who were there are available to all of us via the PJ files. The McCann group joined the initial searches but they did not carry on through the night as the volunteers did, they stayed in Apartment 5A writing out a timeline and phoning the UK! It's all in the statements Anon, and the 'not searching' is a sticking point for many people, particularly as Jane saw a man 'walking' away with the child, not 'driving',

      I object to 'twisted' beliefs. If you suspect that a child you know is being abused, would you have 'twisted' beliefs if you reported it? Would you be seen as attacking the parents or protecting the child?

      Those of us who speak out in this case are concerned about the missing child, Kate and Gerry made themselves the issue, we didn't.

      And you finish your post with a dig at 'continental police forces', how quaint!
      .

      Delete
    2. Yes, Gerry, Kate or whoever you are, and many "who were there" stated that you and your buddies never left the Tapas bar all night. You lied about the checks as you have about everything else. You've excused the non-answering of 48 questions by saying you were advised by your lawyer. How come then on the last question you did not tell the P.J this rather than concede you were hindering the investigation?

      Delete
    3. a Grauniad reader, that explains it!

      Delete
  13. I am prepared to believe facts not 'drivel'. That is what the McCanns want everyone to believe. Fact is there was no forced entry, only Kates prints on the shutter. Noone can seem to make their minds up what actually happened that night. So many inconsistancies in statements from so many people. Regardless of whether you believe their fairy story, they left 3 under 4s alone in a knowingly unlocked apartment, in a strange and unfamiliar country. Your so called friends thought was appropriate behaviour. I could never be friends that would be guilty of such things, hope you dont let them babysit your children!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well said, Niki. There was no abduction and the friends know that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In my initial comment, I said that they made a huge mistake in leaving the children alone in the apartment. Unfortunately they allowed themselves to fall under the misapprehension that the holiday complex was safe. They will have to live with that mistake for the rest of their lives. However, to insinuate that they were physically responsible for the death/abduction of Madeleine is just plain wicked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh please! A huge mistake? That they have to live with for the rest of their lives? Well Madeleine won't get that chance will she?

      I fail to see how supposedly intelligent medical people could 'fall under the misapprehension that the holiday complex was safe'. Forget the 'complex' for a minute, did the apartment not have electric sockets? Taps? Windows? Furniture that could be fallen off?
      It is NOT safe leaving 3 under-4's alone, as a former GP Kate would know this (and had a patient told her they did this she likely would have had to inform Social Services too)

      You are attempting to defend the indefensible.

      Delete
    2. so hang on... how do you know they will have to live with that for rest of there lives if madeline was 'abducted' she may get found 7 years on or not! something doesnt add up and surely everyone is entitled to an option! madline is the victim here, i couldnt understand how it would feel for this to happen to me but i certainly wouldnt play the victim in this, id be completely distraught to even have time to worry about making sure a timeline fitted. well tell me this... is there was nothing to find why mess with the timeline, surely you wouldnt mess with anything in the hope youd find your gorgeous child? regardless of what happened before.

      Delete
  16. Gerry or Kate , Your "made a mistake" mantra is very boring and has no basis given you left Madeleine and the twins not one but every night. Equally as boring is your insinuation that those of us who agree with the conclusions of the Portuguese Police are "plain wicked" What is "plain wicked" is a pair of child-neglecters treated like celebrities by the British Media and protected by the British Government. It may well be that is politically expedient for both the English and Portuguese governments to exonerate you. I suspect that Scotland Yard will eventually conclude that a dead paedophile murdered Madeleine. I also think your protection is such that your friends in high place may succeed in swaying a Portuguese judge to ban Amaral's book. Both don't think for one moment that it will be the end of the matter if these two things come to pass. Too many people are sickened by your crimes and will not rest until the truth about your daughter's disappearance is revealed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Re the above, please stop referring to me as Gerry or Kate. I am neither and I have never met them.

    Can I give you an example to ponder on. I come from the island of Jersey. Here, during the '60s and '70s we were plagued by a serial child abuser Edward Louis Paisnel, or the Beast of Jersey. He used to climb into homes where windows had been left unlocked or insecure and then rape children or abduct, rape and then return them. He threatened to come back and kill the children if they told their parents what had happened. Would you say that those parents who had left windows unlocked or insecure should have been pillorised for the terrible things that befell their children? We all make mistakes, even with our children, most of us are lucky enough not to be punished for them.

    Furthermore, another person was accused and hounded by many members of the public for those crimes. He was arrested on a number of occasions and eventually exiled himself to some offshore islands. Only later was he proved to be innocent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's to ponder and how would you compare the cases?
      I take it that in your Jersey example the children were not left alone?
      If, as the McCanns say, the children were left alone night after night in that apartment, abduction would be the most remote danger facing them.
      Falls? Electrocution? Fire? Oh no, Kate said the door was left unlocked so they could get out if there was a fire!
      Ultimately, MADELEINE payed the ultimate price... why never mention her? why always 'the price Kate and Gerry have paid for their mistake'?

      Interesting that you say you aren't Kate, or Gerry, and have never met them - ultimately you know no more than anybody else here, then?

      Delete
    2. Can't you just accept that they screwed up and will be paying the price of losing their child for the rest of their lives.

      I don't know if you have been perfect in your life but I have raised a child and I have made mistakes that could, if I had been unlucky, been punished. I've gone to bed and forgotten to lock doors or windows, driven over the speed limit with my daughter in the car, messed up with her seat belt, been distracted when she's been in the water or riding her bike. But if anything had happened to her I would never have been able to forgive myself and the McCanns will be thinking the same way. Isn't that enough.

      Delete
    3. When you say "just accept that they just screwed up" what you are in effect saying is that you wantme to believe that Madeleine was abducted because of their "mistake". I don't and I believe every word of the writer of the piece.

      Delete
    4. Interesting that you state '...I have made mistakes, that if I was unlucky, been punished' - wouldn't that be mistakes your CHILD would be punished for???
      It seems to be a pattern that McCann apologists constantly mention the effects for them, the children don't get a look in.
      Why is this?

      Of course no parent is perfect, but those who would (or say they would) happily leave 3 under-4's alone in the dark night after night to have a meal they could have taken said children to, are not fit to call themselves parents.
      It is child abuse.
      Maddie allegedly told K+G she and Sean cried the Wednesday evening, even saying "Where we're you, why didn't you come?" yet instead of being checked by that, shamed by a not-yet four year old proving their absolute indifference, they did it again!
      Indefensible imo.

      Delete
  18. Re the above I don't for one minute believe that you're not Gerry or Kate McCann. Your prompt reply to my last post is an inadvertent give-away. My own prompt retort is because I know you're anxiously monitoring threads like this and knew you would respond to me in double-quick time. I mean given you're track record as a cruel child-neglecter and serial liar you don't can't seriously expect me to believe you can you? I also said in my last post that your "made a mistake" mantra was becoming boring yet you chant it again!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Gerry/Kate gave themselves away in their initial post when they said they know those who dined with the McCanns. In attempt to disguise the error they re-posted as another poster in support. How ironic in their second post they tell us stop playing armchair detectives, "put a sock in it" and leave it to the detectives with real expertise. Well we all know what conclusions those detectives with "real expertise" came to don't we! In fact it was a British Crime "Expert" who recommended the use of blood and cadaver dogs, And we know what conclusions the dogs came to!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Re anonymous 10.50 - I'm afraid that you are a bit deluded. Rosalinda could you please check my ip address in your logs and confirm to this person that I come from Jersey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have access to IP addresses Anon, all that appears is 'anonymous'

      Delete
    2. All blog hosts have access to IP addresses - all you have to do is install Google analytics or Yahoo web insight or check with your host - they will provide that facility

      Delete
  21. Dear Rosalinda, you need not bother. I would hardly expect Gerry or Kate to give their ip add, as Rothley. The poster stated initially that she knew those who dined with the McCanns -yet subsequently did not the know the McCanns themselves. I'm sure your intelligent enough to do your own Maths. The poster's advice for us all to "put a sock in it" was similar to the belligerence shown by you know who to reporters outside of Portuguese courtrooms.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no doubt Gerry and Kate are frequent users of twitter and other social media, their malevolent personalities just shine through. Kate I'm sure is 'webmaster' on the OFM fb page - she runs the campaign, I doubt they can afford media monitors anymore.

      Delete
  22. I'll join the rest of the wicked non-believers on here who don't believe the abduction story!!! For the simple reason, why get the government involved? why set up the FIGHTING FUND? why all the inconsistencies in statements? After-all if you're telling the truth there'd be no need for all the er's, and you knows. Also leaving the doors open to the apartment when you know your child is prone to sleepwalking is just completely crazy, Madeleine could have come out of the apartment and walked straight into the pool that was just yards away.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 14.33 anon - I am a he - not a she - and I found this blog through link on a a Jersey site - Rico Sorda, who actually has a lot of interesting fact-based stuff to say. And my ip address is Jersey - it's easy to check. You don't want to believe anything that doesn't fit your fantasies - very sad.

    Those dining with the McCanns who I know were friends they met at the holiday complex.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FWIW, I don't think you are Kate or Gerry.
      You said they made a huge mistake, something the McCanns have never had the ba**s to do.

      Re your ip, worthless as anyone who knows even a little about computers knows that 1)your ip comes from where your provider comes from, not where you are and 2)it is not difficult to 'bounce' an ip address to disguise even further where you are

      Delete
  24. Dear Rosalinda, yes their malevolent personalities just shine through. Are we supposed to believe that a neutral poster from Jersey would refer to you as "Batty Miss Hutton" and deride your state of mind? Before my initial post, other posters had deduced the McCann apologist was one of the Tapas 9. The answer to a further deduction is that Tanner, Payne and co. have been seen or heard for a LONG time. And 9 -7 =2 Simple Arithmetic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The person who posted 'Batty Miss Hutton' was not me. The blog is public and invites people to make comments. There are other readers who will not agree with your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sorry Rosalinda, I missed the word "not" in the penultimate sentence of my last post. It should have read "Tanner, Payme and co have NOT been seen or heard"

    ReplyDelete
  27. I wonder if those who support the McCanns - particularly high-profile journalists and media personalities like Eamon Holmes, Lorraine Kelly, Richard and Judy etc. do so because their life-styles are shall we say "compatible" and as doctors they view Gerry and Kate "as one of us". They don't think that child-neglect is any big deal. Similarly, with the eminent politicians who in effect have rubbished the conclusions of the police "experts" who one McCann acolyte on this thread said we should heed instead of voicing our own opinions. Harriot Harman has stated on television in the last day or two that the McCanns were "victims of a crime" Of course Mrs Harman did not have any problems with some of the blue films her husband purchased to view. I cannot help thinking therefore that she also has an ambivalent view about activities like child-neglect and swinging. I apologise to her if I'm wrong about that.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anon 04.10

    "I cannot help thinking therefore that she also has an ambivalent view about activities like child-neglect and swinging. I apologise to her if I'm wrong about that."

    Typical - You cast the stone ...... and then apologize in case you're wrong!

    This is so typical of most of the posters on this blog. You are all so self righteous and so quick to judge.

    A bunch of nosy, paranoid Miss Marples who have never left the cosy village of St. Mary Mead.

    ReplyDelete
  29. How does reading the PJ released files and comparing them to the obviously questionable actions and statements of the main characters equal being nosy, paranoid Miss Marples? I do believe that she (Miss Marples) would have wrapped this up by now (in about an hour usually) using common sense and sound judgement, neither of these traits you seem to possess!

    ReplyDelete
  30. You just cannot stop your "malevolent personalities" seeping through can you Gerry/Kate. The Miss Marples smear is also another give-away as to who you are. You've referred on other threads to Miss Marples. As previously stated, posters on here are only "noisily" (you've deployed the term "noisy" on other threads also) concurring in various ways with the police experts you were telling us leave it to in of your initial posts. With regards to apologies, I think I was being magnanimous offering to apologise to Harriot Harman,if I was wrong about her liberal views on her husband watching pornographic films, extending to child-neglect and swinging.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is the first time I've ever posted on this blog or any other thread and you keep referring to me as Gerry/Kate - that is why I'm calling you a nosy, paranoid Miss Marples.

    Why can't you leave the detective work to the professionals instead of taking cheap shots at the McCanns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the detective work was done by the professionals, both Portuguese and British who concluded there was no abduction and that they should in fact be looking for a body, a dead one at that. if the PJ had been allowed to conduct their investigation without fear or favour, they would have concluded this earlier but they were played by guilty parties. let us remember that all this revolves around an innocent three year old who deserves justice. just because the child's parents are doctors with very powerful friends doesn't give them any rights to abrogate responsibility. the truth will out.

      Delete
  32. If being noisy is trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, then I think our accusers have a damn cheek, considering it's the tax-payers money being spent on, TRYING? to find out what happened to her! If the parent's hadn't been so selfish in the first place and put the needs of their kids first, then we wouldn't have the situation we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Nosy - not noisy!

    So, are you saying that tax payers money should not be spent on trying to find out what actually happened to Madeleine?

    However, if you are saying that you have a right to be nosy (or is it noisy?) because tax payers money is being spent, then does that give you the right to investigate all crime investigations? Or perhaps you just have a morbid and disproportionate curiosity with regard to this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are definitely missing the point here aren't you? or is it that you too are a narcissist and can't admit that you've been played? why don't you look up the definition of Occam's Razor, you may then realise (although I doubt it) that you're defending nonsense.

      Delete
  34. Anonymous at 13.56, you referred to EVERY poster on here as Miss Marples - and by definition that must include Rosalinda Hutton the author of the article. I quote you "a bunch of noisy paranoid Miss Marples" Once again with regards to leaving the detective work to the professionals, you do know that the professional detectives who conducted the original concluded that an abduction was simulated and made the McCanns arguidos (main suspects) in their daughter's disappearance? Then in pursuit of justice for the missing child, in stepped the British Government and had them flown out Portugal. The rest as they is history. Finally, in regards to "leaving it to the professional detectives" I suggest you take your own advice and stop excusing cruel and contemptible child-neglect as "a mistake"

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous at 06.46

    Following on from your comments, there is a difference in Portuguese law between being an arguido and being actually charged or arrested. In order to be charged you need to be an arguido but you being an arguido doesn't mean that you will be charged. It is just another stage in the process which is peculiar to Portugal. The McCanns were never charged nor formally arrested by the Portuguese police.

    And please define what is cruel and contemptible child-neglect. Would you say that it would, taking into consideration my earlier post, include forgetting to lock doors or windows at night, driving over the speed limit with your child in the car, messing up with your child's seat belt, being distracted when your child is playing near a swimming pool, at a playground or riding their bike. Any of these examples could result in the death of, or serious injury to, your child.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being distracted is nothing like making a conscious decision to leave your children alone!!!

      Delete
    2. 06.46 (I won't refer to you as Gerry/Kate) "Arguido means "formal suspect" and certainly does mean a person WON'T be charged which is what you are trying to infer. The British Government were not taking any chances with that and arranged for the McCanns be flown out Portugal in rag-time. Your analogy with a couple who left three infants every night in a foreign holiday whilst they socialised, with people driving over the speed limit , messing up seat belts etc is pathetic. Of course those offences are by no means acceptable. Indeed, they are against the law and offenders are often punished. I certainly have never seen any such offenders paraded in the British Media as national celebrities as the McCanns have been.

      Delete
    3. To state that the McCanns were paraded in the British media as national celebrities is totally ridiculous. They were castigated and subject to insinuation and rumour by the British media.

      Delete
  36. NO, I'm not saying that tax-payers money shouldn't be spent on trying to find out what happened to Madeleine, what I am saying is it should be spent on a proper investigation, and NOT A FARCE!!! Your statement that 'perhaps I must have a morbid and disproportionate curiosity with regards this one' IS absolute bollocks!! The reason I took an interest in this particular case is because it wasn't investigated in the normal way, for instance how many missing children's parents get the Government involved? get a private plane to fly them home? their own spokesman? and set up a FIGHTING FUND? all these things make normal thinking people think..Hang-on, there's something very fishy going on here, why are a couple of Doctor's afforded this level of help/protection? For your information I've watched this pair in various interviews, read all their statements (gobble-de-gook) and still find their account of what happened on that night unbelievable, along with the MANY inconsistencies!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Dear Rosalinda, I missed the word "not" out in the first sentence of my reply at 15.05. It should have read "it does NOT mean a person won't be charged" Hence the British Government's arrangement to have the main suspects flown out of Portugal. Had there been no prospect of them being charged, there would have been no need to take such a step - especially as Gerry had stated a few days previously he would "leave no stone unturned" and would remain in Portugal until Madeleine was found.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were obliged to go because of the Portuguese legal process. The fact is that they were not then charged.

      Delete
  38. What have the following in common?
    Shannon Matthews, April Jones, Tia Sharp, Caylee Marie Anthony, Bianca Jones, Joana Cipriano, Harmony Jude Creech, Dominik Takacs, Leonardo Giovanni Sendejas, Riley Ann Sawyers, Marina Sabatier, Michael Daniel Smith, Alexander Tyler Smith, Keisha Weippeart, Zoe Evans, Ruth Breton, Jose Breton, Samuele Lorenzi, Jhessye Shockley and Jamie Lavis.
    Answer: in EVERY case the above persons were reported as being 'abducted' or as 'missing' or in other ways a 'false statement' was made to police AND in EVERY case they had in fact been the subject of 'harm' by members of their family or by persons close to the family who knew them. ONLY Shannon Matthews is alive as this was a case of attempting to pocket the reward money by deception.
    The odds therefore of find Madeleine 'alive' based on the above and the facts from the PJ case files is....zero.
    You could of course believe the 'abduction' theory based on the accounts of the Tapas 9 in which case the perpetrator had 80 seconds to commit it, yes that is 80 seconds or 1 minute and 20 seconds to enter the apartment, sedate the kids, select the child and then egress, all of which was done in the dark.
    Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both the Portuguese and UK police are satisfied that the McCanns did not kill their daughter. But of course you know better ......

      Delete
    2. the case remains unsolved within the PJ, therefore the parents aren't ruled out of anything, I know better not to believe the MSM and follow the facts. may I suggest you read the official documents before you start quoting what is in fact not true. you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time (Abraham Lincoln).

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter what the UK police think it's not in their jurisdiction, as for the Portuguese, the case is unsolved so they are not ruled out of anything. So yes of course I do know better .....

      Delete
    4. Who are you 04:42 Angus McBride I suppose?

      Delete
  39. Poster at 04.42 No, the PJ whom you stated "never charged the McCanns" - as I explained this was because the British Government ensured they were not going to get the opportunity to do so - released publicly available files stating an abduction was simulated . Scotland Yard have stated that they are not suspects. The case however, is ultimately not theirs. The investigation is ongoing and it remains to be seen how it concludes. If I were a betting man I would predict that it will be confirmed in the near future that Madeleine is dead. A patsy(s) will be blamed for her fate - it is the logical conclusion to a sickening and evil political cover-up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please explain to me why you believe it is a political cover-up.

      Delete
    2. In 2007, Gerry was part of COMARE a group set up to advise Gordon Brown et al, regarding Nuclear Power Stations and the environment impact thereof. It is implied that this connection led to the assistance from the UK who deployed various experts including the, dare I say it, cadaver dogs. It follows therefore that whilst the UK, believing the abduction theory wished to assist, the cadaver dogs put a turn on the investigation, an awkward one at that. So speculation has it that because too much assistance from the UK had been employed in believing the innocence of a potential future Health Minister it was far too late to do a U turn, we then get into the game of plausible deniability etc.

      Delete
  40. And I suppose we should all forget about the cadaver in the apartment! I wonder how that will be explained away.Nobody died in there before the McCann's took up residence, as far as I'm aware!!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why is it that those who believe K&G et al bang on as if this is some kind of game? This whole case is about right and wrong NOT winning or losing. It's about the justice that Madeleine deserves as SHE is the victim here NOT her irresponsible parents.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Dear Rosalinda, given the personal insults you've had to endure, I think you are very lenient allowing members of Team McCann to comment on your superb article. If however, you are going to let them post could I suggest you correct them when blatant untruths are posted? Lies such as they had to leave Portugal because of a peculiarity in the country's law. Lies such as the P.J. believing they were not involved in their daughter's disappearance. And as for Gerry/Kate whoops! sorry poster 13.51! demanding an explanation as to why I believe this case is a political cover-up, who the hell does the poster think he/she is? As I've implied, they're lucky to be even allowed to post on here. If they were stopped posting on here, it would be a dose of their own medicine - given that they've used money that has been embezzled from pensioners and schoolchildren to stop writers such as yourself Rosalinda from being published in the British press. All the factors that indicate and make me believe that this a cover-up are all highlighted by other posters on this thread in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dear Rosalinda, if I may quickly follow up on my previous post: Perhaps Gerry/Kate could explain to ME why this case is a political cover-up! I know I'm not the only one who would like to know what connections they had with Gordon Brown, Clarence Mitchell etc. I know I'm not the only one who would like to know what political connections got them access to the Pope, the White House etc.. Please poster at 13.51 let us know!

    ReplyDelete
  44. The other great difference between the truth and a lie is that the truth is usually simple and a lie is invariably complicated.
    "We went out to dinner leaving the kids most nights and we came back and they were still there" is really simple.
    As is, unfortunately, "We went out one night leaving the kids but one of them got out of the apartment and fell off the balcony". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had had a serious accident". Or, "We went out one night leaving the kids and we got back and one of them had got out and been run over by a car."
    The alternative is somewhat more complicated: "We went out one night leaving the kids, not realising that we'd been watched by a predatory paedophile for several days, who we hadn't noticed, despite the resort being quiet and despite the fact that we felt it was safe to leave the kids, who targeted Madeleine rather than the other kids because she was special, who got into the apartment between our checks, despite the fact we'd doubled the frequency from the night before following the crying incident, which we can't recall happening, avoiding being noticed by Gerry, who was talking to Jez, on the other side of the road to that claimed by Jez and Jane, who wasn't seen by Jez or Gerry anyway, just before she saw the abductor, who must have gone out through the window, despite no-one noticing it open and without leaving any marks, because the door slammed when Kate went in, and it's odd about those dogs, but Kate had handled dead bodies when she went to work in her holiday pants and took the cuddle cat, and anyway the twins' sandals were in the boot of the car with the nappies and the rotting meat, but we're totally confident in each other's innocence and our legal and PR team are too."

    ReplyDelete
  45. Clarence Mitchell, a former advisor to the English government, has been their PR controller of information. During an interview to Sky News he is told that a certain criminologist theorised that Maddie’s abduction had probably taken place in an unplanned manner, that Maddie had wandered out of the apartment looking for her parents and a paedophile had passed by at the time and took her, Mitchell says an interesting thing: "that didn’t happen, that’s ludicrous, Kate knows it, she knows that didn’t happen".
    So if none of them were there when 'it' happened, how does she 'know' this is not what happened? And more importantly this infers that she 'knows' what happened.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Much is now being mooted about the 'credibility' of Tannerman and how it gives a much better understanding of the abduction theory, so lets ask the nice Mr Redwood if he can provide the evidence to back up Tannerman, because the world of ergonomics currently proves that Tannerman (unless he is super-human) does not exist.
    Firstly, the description of the adult is male, 35/40y, 1.70m tall, slim physical appearance; the child is described as older than a baby, thinks child was a girl but only saw legs (assumption based on pyjamas). So we have a slim male carrying a toddler (confirmed by sketch) lying across both arms in front of his chest. If it were a child say of about 3y it would weigh about 30 pounds. This male has now been identified as being a holiday maker returning from the crèche with their child (in order to eliminate them as a suspect). Now unless you were carrying a child of this nature a very short distance you would have them in a vertical position as close to your center of gravity as possible, probably with their head on your shoulder. The distance from the crèche to where Tannerman was first seen was aprox 250mtrs, based on the direction of travel and we don't know how farther they were going either. Take into account the fact that the same mass increases in weight the further the distance travelled (i.e. you will get weaker under the stress of carrying said weight) and Tannerman would have been on his knees by the time he was seen, or as suggested he was a super-human. Now Tannerman was said to have been moving 'hurriedly' inferring that they may be 'up to no good' not breaking under the strain of unnaturally carrying his daughter. And for all the doubters out there, you wouldn't switch between vertical and horizontal carry with that much weight over that distance.
    So Mr Redwood, please back up the claim that Tannerman is real, because again the facts would seem to prove otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you believe in the Abominable Snowman, little green men from Mars, fairies, and Father Christmas, then you probably believe this man exists.

      Delete
  47. 2.03 Yes, it tells us everything doesn't it? What is even more damning is that the McCanns not only did not sue this criminologist, but neither did they sue Danny Collins who wrote the book 'Vanished'. That book perpetuated a similar thesis to the criminologist you refer to. In fact the McCanns agreed to take a percentage of the sales of the book! Perhaps Goncalo Amaral may mention this in the forthcoming libel trial.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 08:31 Yes you are correct about the conclusion of the 'Vanished' out of court action. This appears to be their strategy all along (or rather CR's), but do remember that the GA case is Portuguese and is a claim for damages not libel.

      Delete
  48. 08:31 Yes you are quite correct. This would appear to be their strategy all along (or maybe it's CR's?). They have a fight on their hands in Portugal because the case with GA according to their laws is not libel.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Posters 13.46 and 21.09, the point I was trying to make in regards to 'Vanished' was that the McCanns had no problems with the publication of a book that forwarded a theory which by definition they regard as "ludicrous" (I quote Mitchell on television in response to the criminologist referred to by the poster I responded to). It makes one wonder if Amaral had agreed to give them some of the profits from his book, they would have helped him promote it rather than attempt to ban it! I'm being satirical of course.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Posters 8.31 and 21.09 The point I was making regarding 'Vanished' is that the McCanns had no problem with the publication of a book that perpetuates a theory which by definition they regard as "ludicrous" One speculates if Amaral had agreed to share the profits of his book with them, they might be promoting it rather than attempting to ban it! I'm being satirical of course.

    ReplyDelete
  51. There does seem to be an increasing doubt in the claims of the T9. Statistically this blog alone has the majority not being hoodwinked by their 'story'. It'll probably end up next to David Kelly files in the 'disclose after 70 years archive'

    ReplyDelete
  52. In answer to your query on JH forum - in 2007 on radio 5 live it was said that GM had met RM at a Labour party rally and they had known each other before May 2007.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Dear Rosalinda,
    I hope you don't mind me using your blog to wish Goncalo Amaral all the best for tomorrow, he has suffered so much through that money grabbing pair. I don't belong any forum but read plenty of what's going on as far as the McCann's are concerned. Without your input, and the many other contributors on the forum you belong a lot of people would not be able to make any sense of this baffling case.

    Thank you, B

    ReplyDelete
  54. Hi
    Brilliant blog as always. Love you style of telling it as it is - love the bit about Peter Pan & Hansel and getal :-D
    Just been watching the interview of today (during the break in the hearing in Lisbon), and am confused to now hear that GM has told the public that there is possibly a WOMAN abductor... Wasn't it Jane Tanner who was CERTAIN that she saw a MAN ? this web of deceit just gets more and more tangled. The more that couple say, the more they shoot themselves in the foot.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "I personally know people who were at dinner with the McCanns that night" - Indeed. I wouldn't call that first hand knowledge of anything really. Could you find out why
    1. Kate "instantly knew" that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone to go back to the tapas to raise the alarm, and why she didn't ask anyone at the table especially Matt if he had seen anything suspicious?
    2. Why T9 didn't instantly search in the place/direction that JT insisted she saw Tannerman and why the description kept changing?
    3. Why Kate didn't inform the GNR that Madeleine had been "abducted", why there was such a delay in raising the alarm and why they didn't ask Mrs Fenn if she had seen Madeleine/anything/anyone unusual and why they instead told her that "a little girl had been abducted"
    4. Why they woke JW but insisted he didn't need to take part in the search
    etc etc

    I think "abduction believers" are interesting because they go to the ends of the earth to defend the couple yet do nothing at all to try to locate poor wee Madeleine or theorize where she might be.

    ReplyDelete