Friday, 8 January 2016

A MATTER OF NEGLECT



Unfortunately for Gerry and Kate McCann, whenever there is a crime that involves an element of child neglect, their own case will be cited as an example. This latest case is that of Louise Fielden, the British policewoman who's baby son was taken away by New York Police after she was accused of leaving him alone in a hotel room for 30 minutes while she sterilised his bottles. 

I want to feel sympathetic towards Ms Fielden, and indeed, the UK newspapers have portrayed her as the victim of a terrible injustice.  Even though the charges against her were dropped, her baby son Samuel is now in the care of NY authorities, and what gripes Ms Fielden the most, with a foster carer  of dubious morals who promotes lesbian and gay rights. 

Looking at People v Fielden*, the charges against Ms Fielden are pretty flimsy, and the possession of codeine charge gives it all a whiff of desperation to prosecute on the part of the NY police.  What I fail to understand is why this relatively minor case of child neglect escalated to such an extent that 6 months on, the baby is still in the care of NY authorities. 

I find it stranger still that Ms Fielden is making a case against the foster carer, rather than pleading her case as a distraught mother.  She seems less concerned that her baby has been taken from her, than she is about the quality of the foster carer.  The newspapers both here and in the US carried a picture of Ms Fielden's injuries, received when she resisted arrest.  Unfortunately, the finer details of what actually occurred are not available (unless anyone knows different?), so did the police barge into the hotel room of a single mother with a baby, heavy handed, which would be appalling, or is there more to this story than meets the eye?

I'm afraid Ms Fielden aroused my interest with her use of the McCanns neglect argument, it is British Culture, she states, to leave babies and young children alone for long periods of time.  For me, that is like a red flag to a bull.  I do not know a single person, British or otherwise, who think it is acceptable to leave small children on their own.  Ms Fielden's continuation of the McCann lie that it is part of British culture, gets my heckles twitching.  And I haven't, even yet, mentioned her boasts of being a good Christian and a proud Homophobe. 

But let's return to the 'we all do it' prototype, this absurd charter for neglectful parents.  Going by People v Fielden, had Madeleine been 'abducted' in New York, this elite group of doctors would have had every child endangerment charge in the book thrown at them.  Could they have foreseen any danger in leaving babies and toddlers alone?  Hell yeh!  They were doctors!  Being struck off would have been the least of their worries, prison sentences would have been far more likely. 

The biggest fear the McCanns and their friends had on the night of 3rd May was charges of neglect.  ALL of their careers were at stake, they would not have known what Portuguese Law was with regard to leaving children on their own. Note how they 'lawyered up' straight away.  Look what happened to Ms Fielden in the US, she was arrested and her child was taken into care.  The McCanns have fielded the neglect issue from Day 1.  Quite brilliantly, it must be said, they even had dizzy sofa queens squealing that they did it too.

It is the neglect aspect of this case that, arguably, irks me the most.  Are there any lessons to be learned the parents were asked in one of their early interviews.  Yes, we did nothing wrong replied Gerry, checking' is a responsible form of parenting, we were just unlucky.  The chances of an abductor being out and about whilst our babies were alone and vulnerable was something we could not have foreseen, ergo we are innocent.  The question that should be asked of these doctors is 'What were the chances of babies and toddlers having an accident whilst alone, in the dark, in surroundings they were unfamiliar with? What were the chances of the whole group being charged with neglect if one of those children had an accident and died, as Rachel suggested?  Or, as Gerry suggested as a worse case scenario, what if all 3 had been taken? Just what do these parents have to do or not do, to be liable for neglect charges, if leaving babies alone and one missing is not enough? 

Lessons should have been learned, the main one being that it is morally unacceptable for responsible adults to leave babies and children on their own.  It doesn't matter how many ancient traditions the McCanns and their supporters cite, we have moved on considerably since 1950's Butlins.  There is a reason these 'traditions' have been abandoned by all thinking adults, it is because they were downright dangerous!  We no longer give teething babies a noggin of gin either.  The definition for toddler, should be 'accident waiting to happen'. They are a danger to everything and everyone around them, especially themselves.  And for those still arguing the 'abductor' corner, the biggest danger is of course, ACCIDENT.  In an average home, you will hear the thud of any little tyke falling out of the cot he/she has just learned to escape from and the patter of little feet as they go in search of mischief.  Listening at a door or window would not pick that up. 

I suspect there will be a lot of red faces when it is finally acknowledged that what the McCanns and their friends did with regard to their childcare on that fateful holiday was wrong on every level.  The statements of the doctors make chilling reading, their attitude towards their children, downright bizarre.  There seems to be no sympathy towards the babies and children who were suffering from sickness and diarrhea. Their innate selfishness both appals and astonishes me.  There are no signs of remorse, no signs of guilt (even if we are not guilty, we feel guilt), and no accepting of any blame whatsoever for the tragedy that occurred.  And perhaps, more significantly, no signs of shock. 

From the very beginning, the neglect aspect of this case has been brushed aside.  It was seen as cruel to discuss the subject in the face of the parents' terrible loss. They are being punished enough their defenders say.  And it could have happened to anyone, say the brainwashed. 

Those who argue there was no neglect, have 'bought' Clarrie's tales hook, line and sinker.  If there was no neglect, the rest of the Tapas group had nothing to fear.  Why would they voluntarily put themselves at risk of criminal charges?  Charges that would destroy their careers.  They have all defended their decision to leave the children on their own, going so far as producing a timeline that would protect them, should neglect charges be brought.  We were checking regularly, look, we have written it down. 

The McCanns have campaigned tirelessly to defend the neglect issue.  It shared top billing with Madeleine on the night she disappeared.  Convincing the world Madeleine had been taken by an abductor was easier than convincing the world their form of child minding was responsible parenting.  Unbelievably they achieved it, and they still have morons on twitter repeating the 'we all do it' mantra as if repetition will make the lie, the truth. 

I sometimes wonder if the Portuguese had been less compassionate and gone for the neglect charges, there may have been a completely different outcome.  Ce la vie.  Suffice to say, rather than neglect being the lesser of any possible charges against them, I think it was the neglect charges that scared them the most.   

* http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2015/2015-ny-slip-op-51097-u.html

104 comments:

  1. Cristobell in my humble opinion i think the neglect charges scared them the least as for the Madeleine fell from the sofa and banged her head(brigade) is pure nonsense where was her dna in the apartment 5a running around the place for nearly a week why all the lies from others outside of the tapas 7 why all the media coverage on a scale of that of princess Diana i wonder what would of happened if this case would of took place in New York o i know they would of got on a plane(i can still see the live shots of the plane in the sky on skynews )and then got driven home to there front door.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually I think Goncalo Amaral's theory that Madeleine fell from the sofa is most likely 18:04. Both the blood and cadaver dogs were immediately drawn to that spot and blood was found underneath the floor tiles. And of course, significantly the sofa had been moved.

      As for the media coverage, it is understandable. Madeleine was an attractive, cherubic child, the parents photogenic and the story sensational. On top of which the parents and their friends had a lot of VIP contacts, all of whom they called on in their phone calls on the night of 3rd/4th May. They were not out searching for Madeleine, they were frantically telephoning anyone who could help them, not the child. The failure of the parents and their friends to search is, imo, one of the most damning pieces of evidence against them. They even told Jez Wilkins not to bother!

      How do you know that others 'outside' the tapas group are lying 18:04? That is a huge assumption, and one that none of us are qualified to make. I know a certain person spends an inordinate amount of time imagining what is going on in the lives of others, but it is pure speculation on his part.

      Most people are honest 18:04, I know that is hard to believe sometimes, but it is true nevertheless. And in the case of missing child the instincts of the witnesses will be to help as much as they can. Lying is very difficult for most of us, it is horribly stressful even in non traumatic circumstances. Those giving statements in the Madeleine case had the added element of knowing that a child's life was at stake. Do you honestly think they would lie, knowing their lies could cost a child's life and bring criminal charges against themselves?

      Delete
  2. Oh dear - I see poor Enid is gnashing her teeth over at havern's because she can't keep her spreadsheet up to date!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this comment in the right place? It's got nothing at all to do with the article above. You might at least have told us why 'poor Enid' can't keep up to date. (I think it has something to do with sparsity of information?)

      Delete
    2. I will not have an unkind word against Enid O'Dowd 21:30, she is an amazing woman, a lady I truly admire. Her financial reports are astoundingly professional, yet readable and easy to navigate even for non mathematicians like myself. I urge anyone wishing to understand what lies at the crux of this case to read them, they are very enlightening!

      Delete
  3. Who's to say they had no idea of the Portuguese law on leaving children alone? coupled with the lack of public CCTV in Portugal.
    Then the rapid set up of the fund. It could be argued the holiday destination was cherry picked to suit the agenda.£££.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree the destination was to fit the agenda.

      Delete
    2. I suppose it could be argued that they knew Portuguese law before embarking on the fateful holiday 23:53, but I don't see it. The premeditated argument is a little too far fetched for me. There are far simpler and less incriminating ways to dispose of a child than to stage a lavish abduction circus.

      It is possible they may have glanced at basic child neglect law if they had already planned on leaving the kids alone, but again I doubt it. If they thought their pre planned behaviour might put them at risk of criminal charges, they would have been better prepared. Another couple of child listening devices perhaps?

      In their collective decision, this arrogant group of doctors believed they had found a far superior routine of 'checking' than that devised by Warners and non academic childcare staff. Rather than having shame for the 5 previous nights when the babies were left alone, they use those 5 nights to illustrate how successful their system was!

      I find the idea that Portugal was specially selected a tad absurd, it would have required a degree of planning that would take this case into the realms of Dr. Evil and the ridiculous.

      Whilst I believe that there has always been a sinister hand at the top of this particular food chain wielding the whip, I believe this tragedy was pounced on by opportunists. Ordinary people, which is what most of the witnesses, including the nannies, are, have nothing to trade with the big boys, ergo they are incorruptible.

      Delete
    3. Ros says "There are far simpler and less incriminating ways to dispose of a child than to stage a lavish abduction circus."

      Perhaps you could give some examples Ros?

      Delete
    4. Well, the staged lavish abduction circus was a success from their point of view, wasn't it? They got away with it. So it couldn't have been that bad...
      And maybe something had to be altered from the original plan, which made people think it was all opportunistic.
      And....having people believe it was a quick plan made up about the abduction where in reality there had been an accident is the next best option, isn't it? The best of course if the whole world believed the abduction really occured. Numbers two; they believe an accident was covered up. The absolutely worst thing for them is when more and more people realise how sinister the nature of Madeleines disappearence (death) REALLY is.

      Delete
    5. Good heavens I am not going to relay every Agatha Christie plot I have ever read, suffice to say they were staying at a seaside resort, the opportunities were endless. And, loathe as I am to say this, they were a group of doctors! They know what kills. Shipman got away with murdering people for years.

      Delete
    6. Yet you don't believe M was murdered, do you? I don't know what to believe frankly. What I do know, is that it's very hard (if not impossible) to die from a fall from a sofa. Ok head trauma could be at most, but the most common outcome from a sofa fall are some minor bruises. Not pleasant for the child of course...but dying?? We're not taking about an infant baby here, but an almost 4 year old.

      Delete
    7. I prefer not to think of this as murder 13:57, because I am not a roughy toughy police officer and I still have a glimmer of hope that there is still some decency left in this world. The pre meditated murder of a 3 year old takes evil to a scale I would struggle with.

      If the dreaded 'M' word is involved, I would imagine it to be more a crime of passion. The result of suppressed anger, bitterness, jealousy, resentment etc, reaching breaking point.

      Though the McCanns and their supporters try to portray Kate as a calm, serene and very private woman, we have seen the complete opposite. She is alarming quick to anger, we have seen flashes of her rage on many occasions. In fact, in her book Madeleine she graphically describes incidents where she lost control. Banging her wrists against the walls, smashing up the bed. Gerry has the same inner rage, his anger is constantly bubbling beneath the surface.

      Those who blame other people for things that go wrong in their lives are always angry, because those people will NEVER live up to their expectations. It is a cross they have to bear, 'if only so and so hadn't done this, or so and so hadn't done that, I would be rich, happy and successful'. It is an anger they have deliberately chosen to live with. Others hold the key to their happiness, they have given away their power. They believe that by making others look incompetent, it will shine a good light on their own efficiency. No-one cares about Madeleine (especially Goncalo Amaral), only us, the parents. We are the victims, but also the heroes. The McCanns are selling us the story that their family (the tragic victims in all this) will live happily ever after if Madeleine is returned to them. Or more accurately, if everyone stopped suspecting them and went back to contributing to their Find Madeleine Fund.

      I think sadly, children can die from a simple fall 13:57, indeed any of us can. Where the McCanns have drawn suspicion on themselves, is the big question 'why the need to hide the body?' It is this niggling question that brings murder into the equation.

      Delete
    8. "If they thought their pre planned behaviour might put them at risk of criminal charges, they would have been better prepared."
      You must be kidding me.....Brown, Bliar, Brooks, sky news all on speed dial.

      Delete
    9. Ros says "There are far simpler and less incriminating ways to dispose of a child than to stage a lavish abduction circus."

      Perhaps you could give some examples Ros?

      I asked

      Perhaps you could give some examples Ros?


      Ros says "Good heavens I am not going to relay every Agatha Christie plot I have ever read, suffice to say they were staying at a seaside resort, the opportunities were endless. And, loathe as I am to say this, they were a group of doctors! They know what kills. Shipman got away with murdering people for years."


      Delete
    10. "Good heavens I am not going to relay every Agatha Christie plot I have ever read,"

      Great answer Ros in reply to my equation "Perhaps you could give some examples Ros?"

      Delete
    11. 15:42. You state the McCanns had Brown, Blair, Brooks and Sky News on speed dial. Highly unlikely 15:42, and your use of reductio ad absurdum weakens your argument. Between the tapas group they had contacts and were quickly able to set a chain reaction in motion.

      The McCanns were not hobnobbing with prime ministers and newspaper barons before their sensational story broke, and they have not been with hobnobbing with them since.

      Delete
    12. Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron 'we're all in this together'

      Delete
    13. I beg to differ Ros, GM knew Gordon Brown et al end off.

      Delete
  4. Hello Ros....Over on titter w/can't tells us all children are left alone at some stage,ie when they're in bed.I suppose that is true to an extent,although you are asleep in the next room the child is on it's own in his/her bedroom.Most normal thinking people are danger aware,for instance a rug at the side of child's bed will cushion a fall out of said bed.
    This subject takes me back to when my child was 2-4 years old,I had a safety gate,could only afford one,during the day it was placed at the foot of the stairs and at night when the child was in bed it was fitted across her bedroom door,after all they are portable.Should she wake she is confined to the boundaries of the room and can't wander to the immediate danger of the stairs.Now this brings me to a photo in the PJ files (FOTO 15),a photo which I have always found very telling.Had I been holidaying in that apartment,dining out or not,that safety gate in foto 15 would have been moved to childs bedroom door each night.A child wandering out onto that patio is met by the potential climbing frame of chairs & table.A topple over that rail onto the stairway doesn't bear thinking about.
    A photograph tells a story,I like to read them and not just the text..
    All the best Ros,thank you for allowing me to comment..sb..

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whether we like it or not, there is evil in the world. The biggest problem I have with the theory of a Sudden incident with hasty opportunistic actions , is the psychological aspect. Their behaviour. it is so UNcompatible with a sudden accident happening to your child. Your precious daughter is DEAD, and you turn into a cold,egoistic calculating, SMIRKING person practically over night?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 12:17 I think you only have to look at their behaviour SINCE, to understand how they acted at the time. In Kate's book, she tells us how, when their world was falling apart, behind the scenes, they were able to keep up appearances in front of the cameras.

      Actually, I can do no better than quote Sherlock Holmes 'when a doctor does wrong, he is the first of criminals, he has the nerve and he has the knowledge'.

      Delete
  6. Many thanks for your interesting reply 09:34 (sb?) :)

    I would argue that children are left alone, it falls into the same 'everyone does it' category, to which the standard mother's reply is, 'if they jumped over a cliff, would you?'. Our babies and toddlers are always within hearing distance at least. And most of us look in on them regularly, because they are just so darn cute.

    I don't know if I was an over protective mother because of my background, but I was constantly peeping on my babies, and when they were newborns I was even daft enough to prod them if they were sleeping too deeply!

    I remember fondly, the times when each of them reached that stage where the cot could no longer contain them! There was the worrying dilemma of leaving the side up in the hope they wouldn't try again (fat chance) or leaving it down so they wouldn't hurt themselves too much when they landed. I think I opted for leaving a cushion, lol. Actually, I used to look forward to hearing the bang, crash, wallop, in the mornings, followed by the patter of little feet and a smelly little creature climbing in beside me! Attempts to pretend you are asleep are fruitless with little ones, they will forcibly open your eyelids! Bless 'em lol

    I too had gates that I moved around the house! And I invested in every Mothercare safety device going. All my sharp corners and plugs were covered and all my 'low' cupboards had safety catches on. I was an 'efficient' legal secretary at the time and had lists and tick boxes for everything.

    I completely agree a picture tells a 1000 words and then some. In fact, it was trying to find a picture that showed the actual distance between the tapas bar and the apartment that lured me into my obsession with this case. And as you say, the layout of the apartment and its' situation were alarming.

    Had I been the mother of 3 very young children staying at Apartment 5A, I would have been a nervous wreck! Those concrete steps, the hazards within the apartment, the corners of the table, the layout of the furniture. I think every parent instinctively looks out for danger wherever they take their child. We are not just watching the child, we are watching what is going on around them. We would not, for example, stay in a friend's kitchen with our child if she had her saucepan handles pointing outwards! Yes, I had a hob guard as well.

    As odious as Jimmy Saville was, he did a very enlightening safety series (early 80's I think), that highlighted all sorts of hazards and ways in which to avoid them. I'm surprised no-one has thought to do something similar since. All the best to you, and thank you for replying.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha ha 10:33, nice try (post not published), I am not giving publicity to one of Bennett's dim witted Petitions. Let the REAL detectives get on with their jobs!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IF ONLY THEY WOULD!

      Delete
  8. Should add, you odious people are petitioning for a running commentary from the police on a live case, because you believe you have the right to pry into the lives of everyone and anyone involved in it.

    Your motives for wanting to know the ins and outs of this case are not honourable. You are assisting no-one, least of all those who want the truth.

    Operation Grange has not come to an end. No conclusions (that we know of) have been reached, and no announcements have been made. What exactly are you protesting against? As far as I can see it is something that hasn't happened.

    Do you seriously want or expect Operation Grange to release evidence into the public domain that would make the lives of people (not charged or found guilty of anything), completely intolerable? Do you not see that the very idea is monstrous?

    You are complaining about something when you don't know the outcome, which is just absurd. But worse, should this case end in an unsatisfactory manner, this pointless Petition will have scuppered the chances of any future protests or petitions.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You really are thick BB1, where in the above blog have I reached a conclusion on the case of Louise Fielder? I have made it quite clear that there is not enough information to form an opinion.

    Claiming that I have said things that I haven't, shows what an out and out liar you are. The text is still there for anyone to read, your lies could not be more obvious.

    If you want to criticise me, do it in your own name, with your own face in an arena where I have a right to reply. Hiding in a stinking cesspit passing snidey notes to your equally cowardly friends, just make you look like a sick fuck.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There are far simpler and less incriminating ways to dispose of a child than to stage a lavish abduction circus."

    I am really fascinated with this statement by Ros.

    I see there are earlier references to "every Agatha Christie plot " but I am not happy with this.

    So I will ask Ros again to give some examples - without referring to non-fictional stories?

    What are the are the simpler and less incriminating ways to dispose of a child than to stage a lavish abduction circus?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find the idea of listing ways in which to dispose of a child utterly distasteful Dave, so I'm afraid I can't give you the reply you want. I am not going to write a 'how to murder your child and get away with it' guide for anyone.

      Delete
  11. I see thicko Verdi is spouting rubbish as usual. Just like his sock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. It's like Verdi and Bennett are putting £350k worth of effort into proving Smithman wasn't Gerry, lol, not very successfully though.

      Delete
    3. I'm sorry, but I am not going to post links to blogs associated with the cesspit and I find Lazzeri especially malicious and barmy.

      As for the Tania Cadogan link someone else is trying to sneak in, whilst I am happy to debate the neglect issue, I'm not publicising her blog here. I'm afraid I find her anti islam views very offensive.

      Delete
  12. And yet. Despite all their efforts they are still being publically reviled as 'neglectful.' So no result there then.
    They face daily internet accusations of neglect, swinging, paedophile activity and outright lying and STILL they won't tell the truth and put these rumours to bed once and for all. WHAT exactly is OG covering up and covering up they ARE ?
    With all your supposed knowledge of the case I am surprised that you are still quoting 3rd May as an important day./ night. You need to do more research .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As 3rd of May was the night Madeleine was reported missing, it is kinda significant!

      I assume my lack of research means my failure to accept the word of armchair detectives Bennett, HideHo and Textusa over that of Goncalo Amaral and the Portuguese police who were actually on the scene.

      I'm afraid I stopped reading the speculation of these odd bods a long, long time ago. They have reached their conclusions knowing only a tiny fraction of the facts and have since wandered off into their own imaginary cuckoo lands filling in gaps by accusing witnesses of lying and making up scenarios to fit their own personal theories. You can kinda see why they are armchair detectives and not the real thing.

      Delete
    2. Cristobell I do admire your work and can appreciate the criticism you have of Bennett and hideho but textusa is in a different class and her work is much appreciated by many

      Delete
    3. I'm afraid I don't 'get' textusa 13:54, I don't have the patience to read cryptic writing, it irritates me.

      The thrust of her argument, as far as I can see, is some sort of 'swinging' party. Hmm, I'm not buying it I'm afraid, being the parents of toddlers is exhausting, and adult CONVERSATION is much more desirable than hanky panky. And who the hell would bring the mother-in-law along?

      Delete
    4. I'd like to point out that Textusa has not come to any 'conclusion' at all; the blog discusses a theory, nothing more. Altho I can't entirely keep up with it (due to time), I've always felt that one of its greatest hallmarks is that they don't claim 'authority', as others clearly do.

      The swingers theory is possible, but even that the 'Textusa sisters' are reasonable about.

      There still exists a possible theory that extremely nasty people may have done away with Madeleine, who we know very little about. I don't think it's likely (certainly not as much as I once thought), but it's still possible.

      Also reading about Cadogan here, I thought I'd mention that after her Islamaphobic torrent she sent to me, I blocked her on FB - horrendous!

      Delete
    5. Oh, I think the swinging option is ludicrous. Kate and Gerry might be a lot of things, but they're obviously not "swingers". I mean, they come across as quite conservative and I've no doubt they believe in monogamy; they are practising Catholics, and I don't think that is for "show".

      I also agree with Cristobell. Who the hell has sex at the forefront of their mind when they're on a "holiday" with babies and toddlers?

      The maddest thing I think the McCanns and their friends did was to go on a "holiday" with that many small children in the first place. Sounds like my idea of an exceptionally tiring, draining version of purgatory.

      Delete
  13. I'd say Textusa fills in gaps and wanders off into cuckoo land but the others have nothing but reasonable conclusions. There is absolutely no way Madeleine could have died some time after 5.30 pm that Thursday, disposal of body and raising alarm at 10 pm. The 'real thing' (not armchair detectives) came to that conclusion including the neglect charade, those that continued after Gonçalo Amaral. Have you read their statements or did you stop reading after GA was gone?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never stopped reading 15:21, which is why I have not become fixated with one theory. The only thing the armchair detectives have convinced me of is that they suffer from OCD and a bizarre belief that they somehow know more than the official investigation.

      The conclusions they have reached 15:21, are not based on reality, they are based on speculation. And they are dependent on a number of people outside of the tapas group and family lying to the police and somehow being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

      Nine years is a long time to discuss one case and a few people have let their imaginations run away with them. They have become entrenched in a 'McCann' world and have lost all reason and logic. Throwing accusations at the nannies and the Smith family is simply insane. There is no other word.

      I have said this many times before, but I am a firm believer in KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid). While conspiracies can and do happen, they are not nearly as complex as we imagine.

      The biggest myth at the moment is that the McCanns have the kind of protection that is not even available to the Royal family or Prime Ministers. Whilst I agree it appeared that way for a short time in 2007, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it since.

      That the McCanns were invited onto so many morning sofas etc, and made the front pages of the tabloids regularly, is easily explained. They were newsworthy, bums on seats and all that.

      The mainstream media are not our moral guardians, they are capitalist corporations competing for viewers and readers. Sensationalism sells as doing being out and out obnoxious. Look at the dazzling career of Katie Hopkins, she gets bums on seats (though happily not in an academic environment).

      The McCanns used to attract a large audience and they loved the limelight, everyone was a winner. However, the muscle they had behind them is no longer there. Even when it was there and their media monitoring and legal teams were working at full capacity they could not silence the opposition online. Now with only £750k left in the kitty and Operation Grange coming to an end, libel proceedings are probably way down on their priorities.

      The McCanns are ordinary people, they don't have any super powers or super connections. Their success lies in the fact that they believe in themselves and have convinced others to believe in them too.

      Delete
  14. Tony's rude and obnoxious to anyone who disagrees with his obscure distractions then sends his minions to put up links to his disruptive, pointless petition. Pleased you gave him the bum's rush, like most sane commentators, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Neglect,Of course it was, but was it wilful neglect, or some kind of pre-arrangement, sort of a honey trap?
    No doubt in my mind, that early trip was carefully centred around the PACT, MISSING CHILDREN & AMBER ALERT & A Campaign that would see Gerry McCann a 33rd degree Master Mason,(I had read the task for this honour is to fight personal & religious injustice)and as things have turned out he has earned his badge, all this along with the millions that would be made setting up the EU Amber alert and yes you are right about Bennet and the website, after all he did campaign for Labour. More interesting to me are the Royal links to this case, one very close proximity to apt 5a Mrs F who was alleged vital witness in hearing Madeleine cry on the 2nd May (or did she) her niece visited her twice that week while on holiday, she to witnessed strange man slinking through gate next to Apt 5a, She drove quite a distance to visit her aunt, I have counted as many as eight Royal/Aristocratic links that week, some even closer with alleged substitute child in crèche, with people like this surrounding her case any wonder the truth is hidden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There speaks an out and out nutter. No wonder some of you are ridiculed.

      Delete
  16. @ Ros, just so you're aware of who says what about when Madeleine died:

    Favouring sometime after 6pm 3rd May: Goncalo Amaral, 'Textusa' and Pat Brown

    Favouring Sunday 29th April/Monday 30th April: HideHo, Bennett and a few of the regulars on Havern's

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 22:43. I wonder what Petermac thinks?

      Delete
  17. What is the latest on Sonia's documentary. Are you allowed to say? I heard it was being postponed until after Operation Grange had either arrested someone or been wound up. Do you know if this is true? If you can't say, we will understand, it's just that we were all really hoping she would blow this case wide apart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sonia certainly has all the material to blow this case wide apart 13:16, but the timing has to be right.

      Operation Grange is obviously coming to an end and it would be morally wrong to do anything that would interfere with it at this stage.

      It is up and ready to go when the time is right 13:16, and it will be well worth waiting for!

      Delete
    2. Ros says "Sonia certainly has all the material to blow this case wide apart 13:16, but the timing has to be right.

      Operation Grange is obviously coming to an end and it would be morally wrong to do anything that would interfere with it at this stage."

      What "case" are you talking about Ros - if it is the case of missing Madeleine and Sonia has material that will blow the case apart then surely she should be passing this information over to Operation Grange - not waiting for "the timing to be right"

      I will believe it when I see it!

      Delete
    3. How do you know she hasn't?

      That's the problem with you lot 10:42, you take a tiny piece of information, then make up imaginary scenarios to explain them. That's why you are looking like complete eejits now.

      Delete
    4. "How do you know she hasn't?"
      Because if she really did have "all the material to blow the case wide open" and had handed it to Grange, there would have been arrests and charges by now. So either she has the material and hasn't handed it to Grange, or the impact of what she does have is being massively exaggerated.

      What possible relevance does timing have? What is she waiting for? Is it, as I suspect, that no-one will touch it with a barge pole and she cannot sell it? Having backed herself into a corner by saying that it would only shown on MSM, it could be that she now has nowhere to go and is keeping quiet hoping that everyone will forget about it

      Delete
    5. Sonia is not backed into a corner AndyB, she is sitting on a goldmine.

      Timing is everything AndyB, not just in this situation but in many. Perhaps you should stop trying to second guess what is going on, you make yourself look increasingly more foolish.

      Delete
    6. A gold mine? I don't think so. Its obvious that had she managed to sell the documentary she would be shouting it from the rooftops (as would you).

      Perhaps you can expand on why the timing of a documentary on a subject that has been in the public domain for over eight years and the subject of many other documentaries during that time is so crucial?

      I don't see how asking perfectly valid questions about expectations that Sonia herself has set makes me look foolish and I don't understand why you feel the need to so quickly descend into ad-hominem attacks. Perhaps you are as much in the dark as everyone else?

      Delete
  18. Can you Ros or anyone else explain why, when Amaral says Madeleine died after 6.00 on the Thursday, and a recognised Criminal Profiler (Pat) says the same, people like HiDeHo and Bennett come along and say something completely different? Where is their evidence?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps people like HiDeHo and Bennett are influenced by various pointers to preparation, e.g., the 14 text messages sent to Gerry McCann on May 2, which he denied even receiving. If they were 'up to something', the question then arises as to whether they were planning their own daughter's abduction in advance or tidying up after something else.

      Delete
    2. Lots of strange things were happening the days before Thursday, Dr Martin Roberts has written a piece called The X factor which explains why Sunday/Monday is more likely to be "the day". The weird things actually do make sense in with everything else that went on earlier that week.

      Delete
    3. I can do no better than point you in the direction of Goncalo Amaral's book and documentary 'The Truth of the Lie' 14:46. Goncalo gives a clear, reader friendly account of the entire Portuguese police investigation and why they reached the conclusions they did.

      The problem I have with the 'armchair' theory that Madeleine died earlier in the week is that it implies Warners' staff were lying. What possible reason could the nannies have for lying and implicating themselves in very serious criminal charges?

      To make their theories fit, the armchair detectives have to alter the known facts and the witnesses statements. They have gone off on a trail of 'what ifs' and they are literally plucking imaginary scenarios out of thin air.

      They are 'working' on files that are almost 9 years old. And the old files are all they have to work with, they weren't on the scene as the PJ were, so they did not get a 'feel' for the resort and they haven't met any of the people. The idea that they know more than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ is ludicrous.

      Delete
  19. So not only Bennett and HideHo but also Dr Martin Roberts are all singing from the same hymnsheet? I shall go off and see what they all have to say, have to say it sounds very intriguing

    ReplyDelete
  20. 14.46 I did see a very good thread about the Last Photo with some photos from the ex-policeman in Spain and he made a pretty good case for saying that the Last Photo (Maddie and Amelie and Gerry by the pool) was taken on Sunday that week not Thursday. He based it on weather charts. That is pretty amazing if true and it did make me wonder if something did happen to Maddie on the Sunday. Else why would they say it was taken on the Thursday? Besides, where are all the other photos of Madeleine after Sunday that week? There aren't any, not one!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Using the KISS (Keep it simple stupid) school of thought, the lack of photos is probably down to the adults being so into each other (not in a textusa way)and simply not bothering to take any photos. It is possible they were simply embarrassed at their failure to keep a photographic record of their kids enjoying their holiday.

    As for the last photo, I have no idea if it is real or not. There are so few photos from that perfect holiday, that it is almost bizarre. There is video of Madeleine going up the steps of the plane, then some footage of the bus journey, a snap of the kids in the playpark and Maddie with the tennis balls.

    The last picture curiously, stands alone, as does the tennis pic. When we get the camera out, we don't usually take just the one picture, we take several, so where are the rest?

    It becomes stranger still that no bang up to date, holiday pictures were available for the police when the McCanns raised the alarm. Instead they gave the police a picture of the toddler Madeleine in her Christmas party frock, not the almost 4 yr old who was missing!

    It took 3 weeks before the 'last' picture was produced, and notably, that was only after a trip home to the UK by Gerry. I'm not technical so I couldn't possibly say one way or another, but there are a lot of huge questions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Ah well, it seems we have proof Bennett is not Verdi. No way in a zillion years would Bennett pay tribute to the cross dressing, openly bisexual (and amazing) David Bowie.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I wouldn't say that was proof at all. He has to have the odd conflict of opinion with himself to try and avoid suspicion, although that ship has long sailed.

    Would put several mortgages down that they are the same person.

    Regards, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's odd that on a couple of occasions Tony has amended Verdi's posts. Yes he can do that as a moderator but they were only minor typos; perhaps Verdi can return the favour and correct the typos in Tony's posts!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thanks to the KISS school of thought, the McCanns have 'stayed clear' all those years. THEY presented this way of thinking, and hoped for the rest of the world to follow it. Yes, very simple isn't it? Children left alone-dinner at tapas- regular checks- abductor came in between checks-daughter missing-raise alarm. Finito.
    Through the years that have passed since that day in May 2007, a lot of facts have emerged and many persons intrigued by the case (and wanting justice) have done deep research into the case. It is anything but simple. But the McCanns are happy as long as people keep it simple according to their version of events.
    Mind you, one could argue that a death earlier is the 'simpler'way. The other alternative is right out unlogic and against any common sense (death the 3d of May). To focus on the Thursday does keep eyes from another date....As Oscar Wilde says; the pure and simple truth is rarely pure....and never simple.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thanx v much Ros for answering my qu about Sonia's doc. What I take from that is that she's got some inside info on when Op Grange is to be wound up - then she's going to blast us all with what she's got. If you say she's 'sitting on a goldmine' - and I believe you 100% - when it comes out this is going to be good, good, good!! Can't wait! Atta girl! Go, go go!

    ReplyDelete
  27. From what I've read in many posts/threads at jillhavern, PeterMac is also in the 'death before 3d' camp. He has also made some excellent posts in which he expresses serious doubts regarding the neglect claim.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ 18.03, 14 Jan, Well I have now had a long look at what HidDeHo, Bennett, Dr Martin Roberts and now PeterMac are saying about the date they believe Madeleine died and it seems they are all in near-agreement. To be honest, they all put up pretty convincing reasons for their belief. And I've discovered another noted anti-McCann who thinks just the same, Tania Cadogan, the statement analyst who I think works very closely with Peter Hyatt who is an expert on this. One thing they all seem to agree on is that the abduction hoax was so cunning that it would need days of planning. I hope Operation Grange are reading what these guys have to say. Keep the pot boiling here, Ros!

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ 22.54 15 Jan. Hello again, yes I think the reasons are indeed convincing. And the statement analyst as you point out has also very insightful arguments for the same view. Once she wrote about the interview that, I think, was made in Australia pretty early on. The McCanns were asked "Did you kill your daughter?". Gerry answers, in length, and he says among other things " if Madeleine had died from an accident, how could we have hidden her body etc etc" He means specifically that there was NO TIME for all those activities on the evening that Thursday. Quite right. There wouldn't be time. But if one puts the timeline a couple of days back, it all makes sense. And they weren't watched by media or by anyone else then. Plus it fits with the strange things that Dr Martin Roberts mentions. Gerry is so self confident because he knows that most people are focused on the 3 May,

    A Big Thankyou to Christobell for having this space for debate (as not everyone is registered in a forum or have an FB account)

    ReplyDelete
  30. 19.36 16 Jan Agreed entirely, a good place for debate. Some very interesting points are being discussed here. I think the argument about the Last Photo is one of the most persuasive. We have three photos obviously taken on the first day, in the OC playground, including two at the Wendy House. Maddie and Sean are in the same clothes they wore on the plane. The tennis balls photo was allegedly taken by two different people on two different days, so highly dubious. What does that leave for the rest of the week? Only the Last Photo! Where are all those happy family snaps taken on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday?? Nowhere! The weather on Sunday was hot and sunny, just like in the Last Photo. Thursday was cloudier, windier, cloudier. I think they altered the date and time stamp to make it look as though the photo was taken four days later. WHY??

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ 8.15 A lot of people still say that the Last Photo was photoshopped, but PeterMac got two experts to look at the photo, one of them was an American Professor of Photography, and neither of them saw any evidence of the photo having been tampered with

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I accept that two experts have authenticated the so-called "last photo" but it should be noted that experts on any given subject don't always agree with each other. Others might well come up with a different opinion.

      Just as a matter of interest, one of the experts here is Professor Hany Farid. He has also confirmed the authenticity of another even more infamous photo.

      http://www.forensicmag.com/articles/2015/10/3-d-digital-forensic-analysis-confirms-lee-harvey-oswald-photo

      I don't think that I will ever be convinced that the photo of Lee Oswald is genuine.

      Delete
  32. They had the last photo in their camera, for crying out loud. So why on earth did they produce that 6" x 4" pic of Madeleine probably taken about a year previously? Why did they wait (I think) three weeks before we saw the last photo? I was always suspicious of the elaborate tale they wove to support their claims that this photo was taken on the Thursday

    ReplyDelete
  33. Up to now, I always thought that the screaming heard by the widow (who has since died) Mrs Fenn on the Tuesday night (1st May) proved that Maddie was still alive at that point. I have read up on all the stuff about Maddie having died on the Sunday, which is impressive. But this screaming incident went against that. I've now looked at Mrs Fenn's statement and one thing that stuck me was that after Maddie had been crying for over half-an-hour, she says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn. But then the crying carried on (so she says) for another 45 minutes. I find it very hard to believe that neither of the ladies could be bothered to pick up the 'phone to the police, the Ocean Club or anyone else. Besides that, who else heard this 75-minute continuous screaming? No-one it seems. I noticed also that Mrs Fenn didn't make her statement until August 20th. I wonder why she waited over three months to tell the PJ?

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ 16.47 I wasn't greatly impressed either by Mrs Fenn's accounts of how she nearly grabbed the ankles of a burglar as he leapt out of a first floor window to a concrete path some 4 metres below. Quite hard to do that at the age of 82, no? Also, there was no proof that she told the police about that, which seems very odd

    ReplyDelete
  35. Mrs. Finns last "statement" seems to be the most truthful...after all was said and done, she said -"It's all rubbish"! Probably a fair conclusion.

    @ 08.15 17 Jan Yes the so called Last Photo is surrounded by many questions...There is a swedish interview in a show called 'Skavlan' where Gerry speaks about that photo, he says it's his last memory of Madeleine. He keeps on telling the audience about the Thursday afternoon. They really,really want us to believe that Madeleine was alive and well then. A little bit too much emphasize...

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ 17 Jan 23.41 Excellent points. Another passage in Kate's book which reeks of over-emphasis is on pages 58 to 59 where she writes about an alleged 'ice cream trip' on the Tuesday. There are constant references to 'three' children. Yes, we get the point, Kate, you are trying to prove to us that Madeleine was alive on the Tuesday. On the very same pages, we are told that Gerry bought a pair of sunglasses that day. I wonder. Did he 'forget' to pack his sunglasses in Leicester? I doubt it. What was the weather like on that Tuesday? Oh yes, Kate informs us: "It was raining". You buy sunglasses three days into your holiday when it's raining?? We get it, Kate. If Gerry only bought his sunglasses on the Tuesday, then that 'proves' that the Last Photo was taken on the Thursday. It couldn't have been taken on Sunday because he didn't have any sunglasses then! Clever, eh, Kate? You can fool some of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Keep up the good work, Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  37. 17 Jan, 22.10 I read somewhere that Mrs Fenn said the attempted burglary happened 'one week' before the McCanns and the Tapas 7 came for their holiday. Then she said it was 'two weeks' before. In another paper it said 'three weeks' and in yet another 'several weeks before'. This hardly inspires confidence that she is telling the truth about this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What possible reason could Mrs Fenn have for lying 09:36? Bearing in mind a child's life was at stake and she could face charges of perverting the course of justice?

      Delete
  38. Can someone provide links to original sources in regards to the Mrs Fenn / Burglar episode please? (and that she grabbed said burglar by the ankles as he dived out the window, or whatever has been said)

    RIP Mrs Fenn.

    Regards, Andrew

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi Andrew, I got all the info from the McCannFiles site, this is the link you want: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id331.html The first article at that link is called 'Your Sis is Missing' and mentions the burglar. The second one mentions the 'grabbing the burglar's ankle' bit. There are other mentions of it in other articles if you scroll down. Yep, R.I.P. Mrs Fenn, it looks like the McCann Team got hold of her in August and got her to make up some stories. The poor lady couldn't take it and told the press to ignore all she said because it was 'rubbish'. Too true!

    ReplyDelete
  40. There you go Andrew!

    PAMELA FENN (Neighbour) Year 2007
    Ex-pat Pamela Fenn, a widow in her 70s. She claims she "scared off" an intruder who had broken into her apartment in the days before the McCanns arrived to stay in the holiday flat directly below her. Mrs Fenn has told friends she heard a noise as she watched television and found a man escaping through her bedroom window. Her niece, who was staying with her, also saw the man. The widow reported the incident to police but claims no one contacted her after Madeleine vanished - until two weeks ago, when British detectives called on her. Mrs Fenn's niece is travelling to Portugal from the UK next week to be interviewed by the Policia Judiciaria. Mrs Fenn is also said to have heard the McCann children crying two nights before Madeleine's disappearance.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 19:44. Whats the source... Please dont say the Sun or Tony sodding Bennett...

    Regards, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Andrew. Not seen you posting on candyfloss's forum for a long time. Are you still banned from there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, 07: 50.

      Tony Bennett made up some ridiculous nonsense that i threatened him, or whatever rubbish he spouted, so of course got a ban.

      Ive lost my voice in trying to find truth and justice for Madeleine because some silly old sod posted lies about me. And not for the first time.

      What a pratt. He said 3 months ago the police would take 6 weeks to track me down (even though i spoke to them the next day after his rubbish and gave them all my details). 3 months later and cant post on MMM because of his fairytales. The guy is an absolute weirdo. Poor chap. I actually genuinely feel sorry for him. Must be horrible to end up like that with severe mental problems.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
  43. At 21:25 This is where I copied it from

    www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk › DEATHS

    ReplyDelete
  44. I do not know why Andrew posts here as he was hostile towards Cristobell while he was on that forum. He supported some really unpleasant posters who were abusive to her, describing them as a loss to the forum when thankfully they flounced off for good.

    ReplyDelete
  45. .... will try again to post.

    Kathy -Apologies. Got caught up with the heat of the moment at that time. Don't have a problem with CB or anyone, well apart from the old goat, Tony, who gets his kicks in his latter years to make up stuff about me.

    Yes, i did respect those 'who flounced'. DFM, Resistor and Susible were 3 of the best posters on that forum. I cared a lot about that forum and it was imploding. Hence why i stepped in but shouldnt of done.

    Not been the same place since and if you are a member Kathy, then you would know that.

    Best wishes and sorry if upset you for placing the odd comment on here.

    No issue with Cristobell and likewise im sure she hasnt one with me either.

    As said before, i just want truth and justice for poor Madeleine.

    Regards, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hello Andrew,

    Maybe I got it all wrong, but didn't you admit that you actually had called Tony early in the morning? Obviously he felt that as some kind of threat. May I ask if there is something more personal between you and him? I remember you had some disagreements back when you were a member on jillhavern. But surely those different opinions can't be the reason alone why you keep writing extremely negative things about him...
    Yes I know he can be very "stubborn" when he makes his arguments and longwinded explanations, but it's not fair to say that he is making up things. Has he made up things about you? Again, I may not recall things as they were...but he probably just told others about those calls you made which made him feel uncomfortable.

    I know you want truth and justice for Madeleine, and I feel somehow even though I don't know you, that you are a nice person:-) So is Christobell for giving us this space. I enjoy reading her blog. Wish I could write like that!

    ReplyDelete
  47. 17 Jan 12.48 I think there are still some posters out there who think the Last Photo was photoshopped. PeterMac (who used to post on Havern's and candyfloss's) got two expert opinions. I can only find one of them, it was from Prof Hany Farid, from Columbia University I think. He wrote:

    "I have taken an initial look at the image. The artifacts eluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artifacts (as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artifacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

    I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon".

    Textusa is a dyed-in-the-wool ardent advocate of the photoshopping theory and has posted the most ridiculous theory imaginable of how it was photoshopped. She thinks that 2 weeks after Maddie disappeared, Gerry and Amelie pitched up at the Ocean Club for a photo-shoot to create the Last Photo. I always thought that many of Textusa's theories were quite crazy. But after reading that load of twaddle, I have given up reading her outpourings altogether

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes 12.48, it certainly is the most ridiculous theory imaginable!! I reached the same decision after I had read that post. Not that I enjoyed the riddle-like texts she produced before...and it's an even bigger riddle how people possibly admire her. I admit this case is anything but simple and therefore it gets more and more pointless to try to 'keep it simple'. That's why it's not been solved, everyone in this mess (and there are far more than just the Tapas9) have complex relations but somehow they are connected to the disappearence of Madeleine. Textusa tries to find this common denominator by making things even more un-simple. She puts more ingredients to it just to complicate things further. Photo shopping glasses.....swinging etc etc
      I also stick to PeterMac's analysis regarding the Last Photo. No need to complicate things further in an already complex case. The McCann's purpose was (and is) to make people believe their daughter was alive and well on Thursday afternoon. That's why that photo at the pool is getting über-emphasis.

      Delete
  48. The only reason the forum was imploding at that time was because of the bile coming from a few old hags. As you supported them, you cannot possibly not have a problem with Cristobell. That is why your decision to post here is most peculiar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My post at 22.22 yesterday was supposed to appear after Andrew's at 19.52. On reflection, he can't have seen the worst of the abuse as it was deleted for being on a level with Twitter trolls.

      I cannot believe that anyone who saw those posts would have respect for the people responsible.

      Delete
  49. @ Kathy I think it's unfair to refer to 'a few old hags', though I agree (I was a member of candyfloss's) that there was a huge amount of bile on that forum. My assessment is that most of them there just liked a good old gossip. The main subject of interest was always Jill Havern's forum. From what I could see, they spent a lot more time looking at that and spitting feathers at it than doing any serious research themselves. Today you'll be lucky to see any public posts, 90% of their gossiping is done in private these days. They used to boast that 'all of the good posters' were now with them (!), but the few who were worth reading left there months ago. A few old stagers like Chatelaine, dogs don't lie and dear old Mimi keep the whole thing staggering on. Not seen you Ros on there for yonks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair to all forums, there isn't much McCann news at the moment for them to talk about.

      Yes, there have been a lot of comments about the Jill Havern forum but the majority of them were to challenge the less than honest things said there about the new forum. I really do hope that all the unpleasantness is in the past now.

      As a matter of interest, who are those you liked who have now left?

      Delete
    2. I'm afraid I have developed a bit of a phobia, or more accurately, writer's block when it comes to forums and facebook groups. I hate being censored and I get hopping mad when threads are locked. I put a lot of time and thought into my writing and seeing 'removed by administrator' is like a dagger to the heart.

      The majority of the stuff that I write here would not get past the admin and moderators of most, if not all, of the 'organised' groups. I was banned from the large facebook groups a long, long, time ago. Apparently there is only ONE way to fight for justice for poor little Madeleine (slagging off the parents and other antis) and if you are not part of it, you become the new enemy.

      I'm afraid I don't 'get' group mentality and writing to appease the delicate sensibilities of small, dedicated groups of outraged citizens, has no appeal for me whatsoever. I'm not in the business of telling soothing, bedtime stories.

      I have a mischievous nature. I discovered at a very early age that sending prim and proper old ladies reaching for the gin and the smelling salts was great fun. I had a pet mouse I kept in my pocket. Shock and outrage are what I am usually going for! As you can see, this makes posting on forums somewhat difficult.

      Delete
  50. 22 Jan, 8.16 The funny thing about the Last Photo is that it probably IS the Last Photo. But taken on Sunday! I don't personally rate the Tennis Balls Photo as genuine. Two different people took it - and on two different days?? Pull the other one!

    ReplyDelete
  51. 22 Jan 18.24. Agree with you entirely. Whatever happened, happened not too long after that Last Photo. The following days are like a fabricated diary made to look as real as possible. Just as the Tennis Balls Photo, Another piece of 'evidence' trying very hard (über-) to persuade us all that Madeleine indeed was THERE and THEN.

    ReplyDelete
  52. 22 Jan 22.19 Yes. When Kate talks about that week in Praia da Luz, it's 'The FIVE of us did this', 'The FIVE of us did that', 'The THREE children this' and so on. It's far far too obvious. We must stop being blinded by Goncalo Amaral's declaration in his book that Madeleine died after 6pm on 3rd May. He only had 5 months on the job and could not possibly have been aware of the depth of deception and planning that went on from whatever happened on Sunday until 10pm Thursday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You say Goncalo Amaral couldn't possibly know about 'the depth of deception and planning that went on.......' as if the armchair detectives, with only a fraction of the information he had, have solved this crime from their living rooms and studies.

      Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? I can't help but wonder about the motives of some of these armchair detectives. It seems to me that they are out to trash the evidence of the Portuguese police and implicate people outside of the tapas group. The real question is why?

      Delete
  53. Ros, We actually know most of what's in the PJ files. And we've read Goncalo's book. But you must agree there's a wealth of research out there which has opened all kinds of new issues which Goncalo never had the opportunity to address. Take three examples: Dr Martin Roberts on Maddie's pyjamas, PeterMac on the Last Photo, and Richard Hall's look at Nuno Lourenco's obviously bogus claim of a kidnapping at Sagres. These and other articles makes us 'think again' about what happened and when.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I can see how intriguing all these theories can be 08:28, but the truth is, they are working in the dark. Though I respect Dr. Martin Roberts, I don't always agree with him, and the minutiae, such as the pyjamas, is not my area of interest. I used to respect PeterMac, up until he became fixated on the last photo and took the 'I'm right, dead right' stance. People who insist they are 'dead right' are a complete turn off for me. They might just as well be walking through life with blinkers on.

    As for Richard Hall and his (or more accurately, Bennett's)bizarre need to find perpetrators OUTSIDE of the tapas group - well that's 4 hours I will never get back! Doh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Devil is in the detail, so they say (God if you'd rather):

      http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/

      Delete
  55. But Christobell this is like saying that all that was done up until Gonçalo Amaral had to leave the case is enough. Nothing more could be done, and all GAs conclusions are final. Which is dead wrong to say. Remember that someone continued the work? Paolo Rebelo is his name. It's a shame he has landed in the background of all this. It's as if GA was the only one ever working with this, which is not true. If the investigations hadn't been shelved they would sooner or later have come to the issues mentioned above; The Last Photo, Nuno Lourenco (and the other guy's polish name I can't spell right now), Plus many more things. To reduce this by saying "all armchairs detectives are wrong" is the same as saying we might just as well give up trying to find outwhat really happened. I'm afraid I don't have much hope when it comes to Op Grange. But who knows. Whoever or whatever contributes to this case being solved, I'm sure PeterMac and others (yes, HideHo and Tony Bennett too) will see that they were right about quite a LOT of things. Dr Martin Roberts insightful posts during all years contain a big part of the truth as well. The disappearence of Madeleine McCann is like no other missing case. Never never ever this is something limited to the Tapas gang. It would have been solved a long time ago if it was all about a couple of families on a simple holiday...You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist (I'm not!!) to see that this involves more than 9 adults.

    ReplyDelete
  56. @ Ros, 22 Jan, 7.30 I can't say why Mrs Fenn lied (if she did), but I find it more than a tad suspicious that the British press, fed no doubt by Clarence Mitchell, printed a wodge of stories several days before she gave her statement, predicting exactly what she was going to say! And then as soon as she made her statement, she was seen on TV stating: "Ignore it - it's a load of rubbish!" I also find it unbelievable that she heard a child crying for 75 minutes yet no-one else did, and she did nothing, not even a 'phone call (except one to her friend Mrs Glyn), neither of them did anything. Also, did the twins sleep through Madeleine crying? Surely they would have woken up as well??

    ReplyDelete