Can the anonymous author of the below posts, please please contact me at Rosalindhutton@aol,com. I promise absolute discretion and anonymity. I had intended to devote a blog to them, but my embarrassing technical skills led me to put the matter aside. Thankfully, the astute Teddy picked up on them, so apologies from me and many thanks to Teddy.
Meanwhile: highly recommended reading:
WARNING: Do not read if you are of a sensitive disposition or Hinge and Brackett.
There are dire warnings on the pass the smelling salts site of JATKY2. Apparently the text below is VERY DANGEROUS INDEED and the police have been informed! I am inciting readers to risk their lives apparently. It is presumed that readers of my blog are incapable of understanding that the scientific experiment described is very dangerous and was carried out by 'scientific individuals' in 'scientific circumstances'. It is academic research and I hope it will be of great value to one of those 'good cops' or 'good investigative journalists', so the truth can be discovered and Brenda's good name cleared.
To those reaching for the Valium or stretched out on the chaise longue, please learn to censor only yourselves, you will be a lot happier, trust me. Meanwhile just because you can't handle 'icky' topics, doesn't mean you can rule them off limits for others. We are discussing the suspicious death of a child and the suspicious death of an innocent woman. And bear in mind, if the naming and shaming of Brenda Leyland had been a success, all the rest of us, were next!
Whilst I appreciate they are sensitive souls, and in constant need of supervision on JATKY2, the rest of us are rarely, if ever, sent into a frenzy by something we read. We don't need or want Parental Guidance. Just as the maker of a popular song or film is not responsible for that one 60 million who goes on to commit suicide or a killing rampage after listening to their music or watching their film. A 'moment of madness' is usually an accumulation of a lifetime of anger and resentment and there is no way of predicting what can trigger it. It can be anything from The Evil Dead to Catcher in the Rye to Jane Austen (or is that just me?). The idea of protecting the public by censoring texts and art is ridiculous.
I am not inciting anyone to try out the experiment, I am merely publishing the result of an experiment that has been undertaken by a responsible contributor to my blog. Nowhere am I, or the author, encouraging anyone to try this themselves. And given the amount of hassle involved and the equipment needed, not to mention the expense, who the heck would want to? Again, another red flag, would a woman of 63 really go to all that trouble? I know I, and many women of my generation avoid technology like the plague.
Hi Ros. Before I commence I would just like to state that I did not know Mrs Leyland and never entered into any conversation with her on social media or elsewhere. In recent months I have been researching the inquests of Mrs Leyland. I have studied the findings of the inquest and I have questions to ask. Here’s a brief summary.
First the toxicology report. All drugs/meds were at therapeutic level except citalopram, I note one of the other drugs being amitryptyline, citalopram and amitryptyline are from the same category (anti depressants),(therapeutic duplication).Amitryptyline is a 1st gen anti depressant while citalopram is a SSRI.SSRI's are much safer in overdose than 1st gens. Why would one not opt for the more potent amitryptyline if taking an overdose?I would have expected the coroner(who is a qualified nurse) to ask the doctor if Mrs Leyland was prescribed both of these drugs. Although not unheard of it is rare that these 2 drugs be prescribed together. These 2 drugs taken together can cause serotonin syndrome/coma/death.(Drugs.com gives a major warning to both consumer and professional re the interaction). Next the iPad. "The iPad was open on the bed, Sarg T tapped/touched the screen, it came on, and the website mirrored the scene". From iPad user manual, “After 2 minutes non use the iPad falls into lock mode”. Thereafter you will need to do more than tap the screen to get it back on? Which model iPad was this? A/one of the many versions or B/one which has not been invented yet. Staying with the iPad>>"The website mirrored the scene”. I have looked at many of the self-deliverance/ euthanasia sites and I fail to see the scene,>>A lady lay on her back on a bed and cradling a gas cylinder. Instead I note the general instruction is to sit upright in a chair/on a sofa with the cylinder away from you. The inquest does not mention any exit bag/hood or other paraphernalia.
A look into the helium. The common party balloon helium cylinders (bright pinky/red ones)(colour was not mentioned at inquest) come in sizes of 0.25 cubic metres and 0.41 cubic mtrs. In court these cylinders were described as this big (holding hands apart) 10 or 12 inches tall, this would give me the idea that they were the smaller 0.25 cubic mtrs, (the larger are 17 inches tall with a 38 inch circumference).The question is this>>Is there enough gas in the 0.25 cubic mtrs to kill? Answer, yes there is, but this depends on method used. If one was inhaling this gas direct from the nozzle of a high pressure cylinder there is a high risk of suffering Barotrauma, no mention of this at inquest. I am sure you will agree that if you are breathing out you are not breathing in, it takes just as long to exhale as it does to inhale so without using exit bag method half the gas is escaping into thin air. It is recommended the gas flow should be 15ltrs per minute,(did Mrs Leyland have a gas flow reg fitted to measure the prescribed flow?),it is said that after 12 seconds of inhaling helium you will pass out, it then takes a further 12 to 13 minutes to kill. Let’s do the math:
1. 0.25 cubic mtrs = 250ltrs.250 ltr cyl at 15 ltrs per min= 16.66 mins running time,without exit bag half is escaping,you are left with 8.33 mins running time. 8.33 mins is not the required 12 to 13 mins. While researching I looked among the euthanasia/self-deliverance forums and found some interesting reading. A number of people on these forums who are seeking self-deliverance were saying that they had tried the helium method with exit bag and all the set up and failed. One such person said they had tried this more than 6 times and failed each time having woken up with bad taste on tongue and fingers and toes tingling. Another stated that they had connected three of these cylinders together and was unsuccessful. What was going wrong? From what I can gather since at least 2013 the common party balloon helium has been being contaminated with upto 20% O2 for the following reasons:- 1/ Abundance issues.
2/ To reduce the risk of harm to those who wish to talk like Donald Duck. I noticed on these forums that because of the unreliability of the helium that some were recommending the use of nitrogen (same effect) but it's not as readily available as helium (Argos, party shops don't sell it). One would most likely have to visit a stockist. I did a little research on a few of the selling sites and looked at customer reviews, here are a few:- 1/ "Was supposed to inflate 50 balloons but mine only did 25".<<(could be the balloons were bigger than 9"). 2/ "Won't be buying anymore of this, it only filled 1 balloon".<<(sounds like under filled or leaking cylinder). 3/ "It filled all my 15 balloons but they didn't seem to float for very long".<<(maybe due to the 02 content). Looking at these reviews it seems like hit and miss. There is much more to my research and testing of the helium and I would like to return and explain in more detail in the near future. Now on to the pathology report. The main issue being that the pathologist said that there is 'no test' for helium in UK ?? Do you think if someone of notability from UK was found in these circumstances there would be no test? If lesser developed countries know how to carry out this test then so does UK.>>At autopsy remove lung and place in bucket of water, tip bucket upside down into another bucket, gas will escape from lung and will form in bubbles on sides of bucket, take sample using syringe. To Test>>chemical toxicological analysis using gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry. I found the details of this test described in a Romanian medical journal. If they know how so does UK.
It was interesting to note that no physical evidence was produced in court
to support cause 1b.
I will leave it at that for now. IMO something is not right, this inquest
needs looking into.
You will recall that in my previous comment I said that I would like to return and
give you more information on my research into the helium and the testing of it
so here goes.
After reading the self-deliverance sites and customer reviews of certain outlets I
decided to purchase 2 helium cylinders and put them to the test, I had to
employ the help of a very good friend of mine. Here’s what we did.
Firstly we got the map out and drew a 10 miles radius of Mrs Leyland's former
abode, we wrote the numbers 1 to 12 on the circle (as if a clock face). We
established 12 shops/outlets that sold helium evenly spread around the 'clock’,
the numbers 1 to 12 were put in a 'hat' and one was drawn at random, it was
number 8. We went our separate ways and visited each shop, I visited numbers
7 to 12 and my friend visited 1 to 6.Some shops stocked both sizes 0.25 cu mtr
and 0.41 cu mtr and some only stocked one or the other. In each shop we asked
if it was possible to have a look at one of the cylinders and all obliged. The
reason for this was to establish the colour of the cylinders and at all 12 shops
they were the 'bright pinky/red ones'. I purchased a 0.41 cu mtr cylinder from
shop number 8,(they didn't have the 0.25 cu mtr in stock).
Now for my second purchase.
During my research I came across a well known gas stockist who sold helium
and I inquired to them as to the purity of it, I was informed that it was 100%
helium. I purchased one of these online and it was delivered to me 2 days later.
This cylinder has its own registered name, it’s called the 'GENIE' and is blue in
colour, it has a digital gauge attached to it so you know how much is being used and a built in alarm to indicate when the gas is about to run out, wheels and a handle can be added for portability. It contains 45% more gas than the equivalent standard steel one. Cylinder number '8' is recyclable and the 'GENIE' is returnable. Next I made an appointment at a lab in Yorkshire to have both the cylinders I'd purchased analysed. I took both the cylinders there on the arranged date and was told to return one day later for the results,(a fee was paid for this service). The results. The GENIE was filled to stated capacity and had a content of 99.98% helium. The cylinder from shop no 8 was filled to stated capacity and had a content of 85.77% helium and 14.23% 02 (oxygen). Back home I inflated 2 x 9" latex balloons, one from each cylinder and allowed them to float to the ceiling, I used a sizing template to ensure both balloons were equal in size. The purpose of this exercise was to see how long it was before they started to drop. The 2 balloons were put in my spare bedroom where they remained for 2 weeks, I didn't check them again until the 2 weeks had lapsed. After this time period I rechecked and the balloon which was inflated from the GENIE was still touching the ceiling, the one from cylinder 8 had dropped about 4 inches and reduced in size slightly. At this stage both balloons were popped and disposed of. No further tests/experiments were carried out with the GENIE.A Further test was carried out with cylinder number 8 but before I get onto that I want to explain how these cylinders operate. They have 2 valves, TAP and TILT. The TAP is the main valve which you turn on then you press down on the TILT valve to release the gas. Now with the tap turned on I pressed down slightly on the tilt valve and gas was slowly released but a slight touch further and I got an
absolute blast,(not much control),had I had the valve pointing in my mouth at
this time I would most likely have done serious damage to my lungs
(BAROTRAUMA). The TILT valve/balloon inflator can be removed but I needed
the help of a spanner to slacken the nylon hex nut, I unscrewed it the rest of the
way by hand.
**So the scenario is that I'm lay on a bed cradling the cylinder, TAP open, I’m
pressing down on the TILT valve and inhaling the contents and after about 12
seconds I lose consciousness and due to losing consciousness I also lose bodily
function and due to losing bodily function I'm no longer able to press down on
the TILT valve so the flow of gas ceases. In my opinion the only way to ensure
uninterrupted flow of gas without having to touch the TILT valve is to remove it
or jam it open in some way.**
Even if one was using the exit bag/hood method it is essential to get the gas
flow rate right, too much pressure would result in the exit bag/hood blowing off
one’s head. Based on my research and testing it is my opinion that suicide by
helium is not an easy method.
The final experiment we carried out was as follows and I want to stress that
NOBODY should do this EVER,I was willing to take the risk,(that risk was partially
based on 1 and 2 below). I am physically fit, I don't drink alcohol, smoke or take
drugs. The test was carried out in a room in my home with the assistance of my
friend. The room size is 9ft w x 10ft l x 8ft h with one door (78"x30") and one
window (5ftx5ft) both door and window were shut (there is no air conditioning).
The TILT valve was removed from cylinder number eight and a flow regulator
was fitted and set at 15 ltrs per min. Although the cylinder I was using was the
larger one which is capable of some 27 minutes running time this test was
carried out for approx. 16.66 minutes as if it was the smaller 0.25 cubic mtr
cylinder. We set a webcam up in the room pointing to the upper half of the bed,
I lay on the bed cradling cylinder, the opening of the gas flow reg was about 7 or
8 inches from my face. The situation was that every 5 seconds I was to raise my left hand to the camera to signal that I was conscious, my friend was outside the bedroom door watching on a monitor, should I fail to raise my hand my friend would intervene. This experiment was completed and I felt no ill effects at all, I did wonder if I would feel some delayed symptoms the day after but again nothing. I will say that the only thing I did feel was a little aching of my left hand but I think this was due to the continual 5 second signalling to the camera, it was a long 16 minutes. I was a little edgy at the outset but knew that my friend was at the other side of the door and should I have failed the hand signal he would have terminated the test immediately. Again DO NOT TRY THIS!!!! I am aware that some would be of the opinion that the test we carried out could have proved dangerous. My lifelong friend who assisted me is from a medical background, means of resuscitation were in place. 1)The first thing the helium wants to do when released from the cylinder is to rise rapidly into the atmosphere, it is much lighter than air, sound travels through helium 3 times faster than it does through air. 2) In my opinion this method of self-deliverance without the use of exit bag/hood is a nonstarter, the added 02 rather defeats the object. Given my research into the inquest of Mrs Leyland and the tests/experiments I carried out and the possibility of the added o2 (in the case of Mrs Leyland) I am not convinced of (cause 1b). Sorry to repeat myself here but NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE was produced in court (no photo, no description of colour) and NO TEST for helium was carried out at autopsy. An inquest is there to provide answers, this inquest raised more questions than it ever gave answers. IMO had the coroner called on a jury, given the lack of evidence to support cause 1b, they would have returned a verdict of 'open'.
My research doesn't stop here. Both my friend and I have holidays coming up,
when we return we are going to see if it is possible to fill some of the blanks
from when we saw the doorstepping of Mrs Leyland to her being found
deceased at the Marriot. Should we have any success I will return and share
with you and your readers.
I wish Mrs Leyland eternal peace.
Thank you Ros.
Tuesday, 31 May 2016
Times must be very tough indeed for Gerry and Kate if they have owned up to using Madeleine's Fund for their legal battles with Goncalo Amaral. It flies in the face of everything they have said and everything they have promised. Complete transparency they said, every penny raised would be used to find Madeleine. In years gone by, if anyone had said (out loud) that they were using their daughter's search fund to
They also told us they had rich benefactors paying for their legal fees and PR. Where are they now? Unfortunately for them, the super rich have more sense than to fund Vexatious Litigants. Of all the addictions, libel addicts probably top cocaine and gambling as the most costly. VLs will not stop until they have lost every last penny, and other people's pennies too.
I am not quite sure what the spin message is in this latest McCann press release. Is it that they are having to use the last £750k in Madeleine's Fund on legal fees because of that horrible Goncalo Amaral? Unbelievably, Kate and Gerry continue to see other people as responsible for their ongoing misery. They refuse to accept responsibility for any of their decisions or choices, if anything goes wrong, it is always someone else's fault. It is as though they have never been to taught to accept personal responsibility.
They chose to pursue Goncalo Amaral, it was never the other way round. They wanted his book banned and they wanted his home and all his assets. They are driven by a personal hatred of him that has long since crossed the sanity line, it has eaten them alive for the past 9 years. In the summer of 2007, it was all going so well, Kate and Gerry were the photogenic victims of a sensational crime and the celebrity lifestyle was calling. In their minds, it is Goncalo's fault, that it all went so horribly wrong.
Of course, any policeman or detective the world over could have been handed that poisoned chalice and the evidence would have led to exactly the same place. Kate and Gerry needed a visible enemy, the abductor was never going to be found. Unfortunately for Kate and Gerry, their hate campaign against Goncalo Amaral has never taken off, and that's despite all the assistance they have had from the British media. Anyone who picks up The Truth of the Lie can see in an instant, that Goncalo is a gentleman, a scholar and a dedicated detective.
But back to that latest story. It is always fascinating trying to figure out all the scheming and machinations that go on in the heads of Clarence and Gerry. It is of course presented as a further instalment of the sufferings of Gerry and Kate and the injustices they have to put up with, but along with the whiff of burning martyr, it also has an air of resignation about it. There are no appeals for cash, no appeals for Madeleine, and sadly for them, no passion. If they themselves can't be arsed to express their outrage at the last appeal or seek support for what they believe to be a just cause, then why should anyone else? They are going to have to state their case in the Appeal they have just lodged, so why not present their argument and rally support now?
I think they have accepted that they cannot win in the Supreme Court, or even in the ECHR. If they were serious about fighting the next Civil trial, Gerry would have his whiteboard out. They barely had the stomach for the last round of trials, and it was obvious they were scraping the barrel for witnesses.
At the moment they owe shedloads, the legal costs accumulated over the past 4 years, of not only themselves, but of Goncalo Amaral and the two other Defendants. Even at a very conservative estimate, they must come to over £1m. Lodging an appeal puts off their need to pay all those costs at this present time. They are not even pretending that they want to win, or that they deserve to win - I think it is a delaying tactic. I think it may also be an acceptance that other events may overtake their civil actions with GA, perhaps they want to screw him one last time, by getting arrested and having all THEIR assets seized!
Saturday, 28 May 2016
Happily, most of us are blissfully unaware of other peoples' sexual peccadillos, there are some things, we just don't want to know. Like Oscar Wilde, we don't really care what others do, as long as they don't frighten the horses.
When it comes to children however, our protective instincts kick in, we are genetically programmed to fight for our young, it is why the actions of rogue predators are universally despised. Imagine a hyena going into a pack of lions to steal a cub?
And that's as it should be, not only do we love our kids to bits, they are our most valuable asset, the survival of our species depends on them. But we must be careful not to cross over into paranoia and hysteria. Our kids pick up on our fears, and raising them to be fearful adults won't do them any favours whatsoever.
Unfortunately as the subject of child sexual abuse and child pornography is so taboo, the only information we have comes from non academic 'experts' such as the late Ray Wyre and Jim Gamble and Mark Williams Thomas. Not only do the public accept the authoritative opinion of Jim Gamble and MWT but so too do the media, and scarily, the politicians. No-one wants to know the details, not even the Home Secretaries and no-one dare put up a counter argument.
It is a murky subject, that very few, myself included, want to investigate. It's one of those things we would rather someone else dealt with, not only because we don't want all sorts of freaky accusations thrown at us or our computers seized, but because we are just not emotionally tough enough to handle it.
Child pornography is, I believe, graded 1 - 10, varying degrees of undress etc. Trust me, I really don't want to go there, this is as painful to write as I am sure it is to read. How the grading system is decided, who knows, a weird job, but I suppose someone's got to do it.
What troubles me is the hysteria that now surrounds photographing children. With all the technology we now have, this generation are destined to have fewer baby pictures than their parents and grandparents. And we parents and grandparents are at constant risk of dawn raids, because we possess hundreds of photographs of our own little cherubs in the nip, in varying stages of undress, in the bath and dressed up as superheroes.
As ridiculous as the above may sound, these Child Pornography Laws that no-one knows anything about, not even the politicians, leaves just about everybody open to criminal prosecution. Teenagers can be prosecuted for sending saucy texts to each other! I believe one girl was prosecuted for sending a topless photo of herself - to herself! These kids are having their lives wrecked for doing what teenagers do! Who remembers the old polaroid, or in some cases, a hammer, chisel and cave wall?
Unfortunately, these ridiculous laws are being enforced because no-one dare challenge them. The voice of reason is drowned out by the hysterical chant 'think of the children!'.
Who planted the idea that the above picture of Madeleine was sexual? And how would they know? Surely the tastes and peccadillos of those who are into that kind of thing, are just as diverse and niche as they are in the mainstream? And again, how do you categorise what is, or isn't kinky? Would a child in wellies for example set off the rubber fetishists? I ask, because at the age of 2 my younger son wouldn't wear anything but wellies and a nappy, and if he kept the nappy on, it was a bonus.
It outrages me that this sinister myth that our society is riddled with paedophiles and perverts has taken such a grip over the public's consciousness. We are being indoctrinated to suspect everyone and every photograph. Why? If we told a lost tribe in Borneo that in the Western world, naked children, and children who are dressed up, are seen as sexual, they would be on their backs, feet in the air, laughing. They would then see us as very creepy and start throwing spears.
The real paedophile threat to our children comes from the home and the people who know them. Sadly, there are predators out there who will befriend and even move in, with vulnerable families. They are not hiding behind bushes or scouring the internet for pictures of tots in make up, they are grooming real, accessible kids.
As some commentators have already said, the above picture isn't relevant. Those looking for signs that Madeleine was an abused child, might do well to look for signs that she wasn't, especially those who want to retain a little bit of faith in human nature. For myself, I have nothing but empathy for mums trying to juggle 2 or 3 toddlers. Many of us have reached that 'something's got to give' moment. I used to go and have a long bath and think happy thoughts.
I'm not going to add to Kate's pain by speculating on these unfounded allegations of prior abuse. And as the most investigated parents in the world, if there was any evidence of it, this case would have been brought to a swift end.
Gerry and Kate, like the rest of us, were probably hit by a bombshell when their babies arrived in quick succession. It is probably doubly hard for parents who are used to being in control of their lives and their careers. I have no doubt they were struggling, they relied heavily on their families for support, but in PDL, they were on their own. Family holidays like Christmases, have all the ingredients for a 'Perfect Storm'. It's an opportunity to say all those things that have been sitting on the back burner, or, as happened, total avoidance as the days are filled with tennis lessons, solitary runs and group activities.
Kate is a feisty woman, Madeleine was a feisty child and on the day she disappeared, her father had THREE tennis lessons, one 'men only'. I may be speaking as a feminist here, but I would have wrapped his tennis racquet round his neck like a bow tie. If we stick within the realms of reality (and I know many have gone astray), it is perfectly feasible to believe that Kate snapped. And the obvious bruising on her arms and wrists would support this. It is the theory of Goncalo Amaral, and it is the only one that is credible.
There is nothing to be gained by all this speculation about prior child abuse and paedophile gangs, and in fact, it is fundamentally, cruel. Not only to the parents, but also to their surviving children. Please don't misunderstand, I am not fond of Gerry and Kate McCann, but I dislike cruelty - they are real people, with real lives. They suffer and will suffer, more than enough for the terrible things they have done, dreaming up more heinous crimes to add to the list, just borders on spiteful.
As unpopular as this topic may be, I'm going to stick with it, because I have quite a few questions of my own. I do find the photographs weird - they are unflattering and unhelpful, as far as recognition is concerned. As for the angles at which they were taken, I would be troubled by the photographer's agenda. Why not ask the child for a big, beaming smile? If I were the parents, I would have said, ta, but we'll do our own in the future and don't hurry back.
As for the cross over into child porn, child abuse, etc, that is a huge, huge leap. Do those who read something very sinister in those pictures honestly believe the McCanns were dressing Madeleine up in order to take abusive pictures of her? Once the shiver has reached the bottom of your spine, do they believe these doctors were going to sell or share these pictures of their daughter with like minded perverts online?
I spent a couple of years on the Jill Havern forum, playing verbal acrobatics to avoid the 'cooler' or being banned, lol, and was quite disturbed by the in depth, examination of the family pictures threads. Apparently, the way in which Maddie held her ice cream is a signal to paedophiles - who knew? I actually find the way in which they pour over the childrens' photographs looking for 'signs' quite creepy. It's like they are convinced paedos are involved, they just need to find the evidence.
To those who say this is a 'pro' blog, and that I am supporting the McCanns by not seeing what they are seeing, I will reiterate, I am looking for the TRUTH as to what happened to Madeleine McCann. I don't want it embellished with a load of nonsense and I am not going to accuse them of things I don't believe they are guilty of.
And I am not defending paedophiles or child abuse! Having spent 5 years of my childhood in a religious hellhole, I saw it on a daily basis. Not only have I experienced it first hand, I have spent a lifetime studying its' causes and the best in which to prevent it. I am totally opposed to the present 'witch hunts' led by Tom Watson. In chasing historic cases and well known 'names' they are saying 'look here, not over there'. It does nothing whatsoever to assist kids who are being abused NOW, and is little more than an opportunity for vitriolic politicians to get their own back on each other. And to those saying I am defending paedophiles, say it to my face, say it in front of me.
If any of the tapas children were at risk of abuse, the police would be criminally negligent not to take action. The same goes for all the professionals who are in contact with the family. Sadly for some, an accident or a crime of passion is not enough, they need a murky back story.
Neither am I defending the McCanns. I know they are involved in Madeleine's disappearance beyond reasonable doubt, but I won't accuse them of something I don't think they are guilty of for the sake of popularity. From a psychological perspective, Gerry and Kate are high flyers, each very attractive (to some, lol), and by their very natures, they sleep UP. They don't need to impress small children with their prowess.
Added to which, they spent 95% of their time avoiding their kids on that holiday. They were desperate for adult time, they were all 'so into each other' Kate told us, and I don't mean in a kinky swinging way, but in a way that any parent of young children is desperate for adult company. Behaviour, that any psychologist would deem the opposite of grooming child abusers who would be loathe to hand their children over to anyone and would want them in their company 100% of the time.
As boring as the waiting is, there is no need to spice it up with a murky backstory. It may well be that there IS a murky back story, but that's all part of the suspense. I have no doubt that Madeleine lived in a dysfunctional family - 85% of us do. And strict, religious, high achieving family are just as dysfunction as those living on benefits at the bottom. The question is, how do you define functional?
I think the safest and most humane way in which to look at this case, and the search for the truth, is to think about it rationally and logically. Kate and Gerry are indeed responsible for Madeleine's disappearance and gawd knows what since, but let's not pile on their shoulders the entire contents of Pandora's box. They have been used as much as they have done the using and they will have the rest of their lives to ponder it.
The paedophile aspects of this case, have been seized upon by the authorities because their agenda is 'spread fear among the population'. They need 'fear' in order to rule, as long as we have a big brother, we are safe. They need us to believe that our children will be stolen from their beds - just like Madeleine. They regularly feed us telephone numbers of children who 'have gone missing', yet there are very, very, few real stories to back them up. Take a peek at Wiki list of (global) abductions, to see how very few child abductions there actually are.
We are being sold the myth that our children are in constant danger - especially from the internet. The fact is, our children are in no more danger than they were 20 or 30 years ago Probably less. Most are usually far more computer savvy and street smart than their parents by the age of 7. In fact, I think it would be a safe bet to say, the younger generation probably advise the older generation on computer technology and safety, usually while laughing their heads off.
Some might say kids are now more vulnerable because of the internet, than there were 20/30 years ago. As we oldies know, years ago, we played 'out' til the sun went down, and we walked home in moonlight dreaming up excuses as to why we were 2 hours late. We were, to put it in a nutshell 'out and about', ergo, easy prey. As a young, reckless woman, I once found myself extremely drunk and lost and forlorn in the Old Kent Road at 1a.m ish on a Friday night/Saturday morning. I am not even sure I had any cash, but courtesy of a kindly black cab driver, I got home safely, he waited until I got the key in the front door and was safely inside before he drove off. Telling my friend about my predicament the next day, she shrugged and said 'God looks after drunks and fallen women'. I'm not sure that's a direct biblical quote, but I kinda like it, on that occasion I qualified on both criteria, so cheers to the black cabbies!
But a little less of the joviality - I cannot stress enough that the Government wants us to live in fear. But, here's a thing, it is FEAR that is stopping us from living! Kids are stuck in their rooms playing X-box and eating pizza (alone) because their parents are too afraid to let them out! It breaks my heart that they are missing out on so much fun. Don't go there, don't do this, and we're only saying it because we love you!
I am approaching 59 years of age, and I have the kind of past that I will turn into a 'sizzler' one day, lol. Given the choice between two evils, I always went for the one I had never tried. It must be said, at the time I had no sense whatsoever (I even voted Thatcher - yeh, it was that bad) and dated a multi millionaire record producer, I later heard that instead of emptying the ash trays he would buy a new car. I was 10cm away! doh! - if only I could have supressed the lunacy ;) But once again, I have digressed. I am drinking wine, which is very rare these days, and it has given me the giggles. I have the entire day, and the contents of the refrigerator to myself! Do chocolate covered peanuts count as an Hors d'Oeuvres?
The photographs were indeed weird, a very strange choice for parents who believe their daughter is the victim of a paedophile. The pale complexion, the dead eyes, the did she, didn't she, put the make up on herself question and why so sad? If the intention was to keep the fear of paedophiles in the mainstream news, then the choice to use these photographs is understandable and also despicable. They are effectively prostituting their daughter to stay on the front pages. What else can we think, if they have selected these from among many.
For me the sexualising of these photographs or reading more than face value, takes us into dark areas of organised and satanic child abuse etc and I just don't see it. I think prior to May 3rd the Mcanns and indeed their friends, were a pretty ordinary, run of the mill, group of friends desperate for a break from their stressful jobs. That they were selfish and narcissistic is a given, but that doesn't make them a paedophile ring or group of swingers. Again, I stress, they didn't want the kids around them.
As for the Gasper statements, they are not enough to convince me. I am sure that the Gaspers were being truthful, but following a trauma such as a child disappearing, it is inevitable that all those who know the characters involved will be wracking their brains for clues of any description. I still have enough faith in the police to believe that they would not leave vulnerable children at risk and I am sure if the Gaspers' statement had led to anything, the authorities would have stepped in.
Can someone who believes there is something sinister, or indeed sexual, in the above photographs, please give me an explanation as to what it is they see, and what they imagine the photographs were going to be used for? At the moment I am mystified, because it is a question too distasteful to debate. What am I missing? Genuine question.
In response to 18:33 on my previous blog, and the make up photographs of Madeleine released on the 3rd anniversary by the parents, it is the public's reaction to the photographs that I find strange, rather than the photographs themselves. Taking an educated guess, I would say approximately 80% of the public would say the above picture was weird, with as much as 50% of those, believing it to be paedophile related. Not because they have any expertise in the matter, but because that is way indoctrination works. We now see kids wearing make up and dressing up, as somehow 'dodgy' and sexually deviant, ideas that would never have occurred to us 20 or even 10 years ago. Sadly, because of this myth, Kate has had to detach herself from the game, 'Madeleine raided her make up bag' is the accompanying explanation.
Mums and daughters have enjoyed playing dressing up with their little girls since time began, and long may it continue. I remember as a small child, my mother cutting up a dress to make matching mini skirts for the two of us, and how happy we were showing them off. They were precious moments. It was the early 1960's and mini skirts and backcombed hair was all the rage. I am fortunate to have lots of pictures from that time, and my hair is usually backcombed to the hilt (at my insistence)and I am posing like a diva.
At the age of 4, my mother was dressing me in a mini skirt and backcombing my hair. Does that make her abusive? Not at all, it brings wonderful, happy memories flooding back. I actually hate it that people place sinister connotations on one of the most joyful stages of mother/daughter bonding. Little (and indeed big) girls and boys love dressing up, it is one of life's pleasures, there is nothing creepy about it. Look at the way selfies have taken over the world, lol, birds do it, bees and even educated fleas do it, lol. It's an art form and art is in the eye of the beholder, it is whatever YOU perceive it to be.
I'm not for one moment, throwing the 'perv' accusation at you 18:33, the idea that children and their images are sexual, is a particularly repugnant lie propagated by the ruling elite in order to keep the masses living in fear. Paedophiles and perverts are this century's witches, and if we know what's good for us, we will demand a Witchfinder General to root them out.
I am referring to the DOMINANT ideology, the ridiculous myth that we are all lusting after kids. We are being to indoctrinated to believe that children are sexual. To 99.9% of us, they aren't, but propaganda would lead us to believe that child predators are lurking on every corner. Schools who ban cameras at their nativity plays etc, are just downright insulting. They are going with the assumption that the majority of the audience want to photograph the kids for masturbation purposes! Its rubbish of course, but it does allow them to cash in by charging parents for 'official' school stamped photos.
I agree that the make up pictures are not particularly joyous, and yes, a little odd. But the way in which a picture is posed, or indeed captured, by the photographer, has little to do with the subject, and everything to do with the photographer and the client. These photographs/poses were probably chosen from dozens, if not hundreds. Iirc, they were taken by Jon Corner, a professional, who would have taken reels, rather than a few odd snaps.
In releasing these photographs, what message were Team McCann trying to get across? I suspect they may have wanted to keep the paedophile/predator message out there. And of course, public sympathy. They may even have been going for sensationalism - controversial pictures that would grab the front pages and open up discussion (again). There is no such thing as bad publicity.
From their own emotional perspective, if they have one, a happy, laughing, Madeleine would be a very painful reminder of what they have lost. They have to keep up their automaton, outer appearance and they avoid emotional triggers.
I am of course only taking an educated guess at their reasons for releasing those particular pictures. This case is so complex, there could of course be many more!
I don't however read anything into Madeleine being dressed up and wearing make up. It's a game enjoyed by little girls and boys the world over, and long may it continue. I think it is cruel to assume Kate did not enjoy those special mum and daughter moments with Madeleine, and humane to think Kate wants to hold onto them, and keep them to herself.
In 9 years, we haven't seen any evidence of child abuse in Madeleine's family or indeed, any other family involved. And, given the circumstances, had any such abuse been suspected by the police, either in Portugal or the UK, these detectives wouldn't have spent 4+ years reading files while it continued.
While I agree, the photographs are a little creepy, again, that lies with those who selected them and their true agenda. It also lies with the way they are interpreted by the beholder. Some people are going to inordinate lengths to sexualise them. Why? Immediately after their release 'crime expert' and McCann supporter, Mark Williams-Thomas waded in to say how inappropriate they were. And thus we had a media storm and the potential for future libel pay-outs.
Tuesday, 24 May 2016
|Note: No witnesses took part in this reconstruction.|
Twitter spat over, let's look at the 'neglect' issue and some of the barmy theories that surround it. Loathe as I am to mention the outside interests of the prominent Maddie theorists, for those new to this case, it could save them hours of being led up the garden path, and possibly 20+ quid for the videos.
Many are being introduced to this case via Richard D. Hall documentaries. This is unfortunate because not only have they had to sit through 4+ hours of tedium, they may well have gone on to read copious volumes of Thus Spake Tony Bennett. For all of that, they have my sympathy, at least the lawyers at Carter Ruck got paid by the hour.
Before taking the works of Richard D. Hall too seriously, I suggest viewers look at his other main area of interest: Aliens. As for the verbose preacher and creationist, a quick glance at Tony Bennett's Wiki page should tell you all you need to know. His rightful place is on an orange box at Speakers Corner, but as he probably has no listeners there either and may well be barred, he has brought his deranged rantings to the Madeleine case. This has suited the machinations of Kate, Gerry and Team McCann, because it gave them an enemy who was bound to drive legions to their side. If you believe God made the earth in 7 days, and in living a clean life of chastity and temperance, then Tony's yer man, and to be fair, you're probably beyond help anyway.
The authoritative way in which the documentaries are presented give the impression that its' creators have some sort of insider or specialist knowledge about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. They don't. They have the same information as the rest of the general public, ie. the 9 year old Portuguese files. From these they have concocted stories that come purely from what they personally are projecting.
Are there really paedophile gangs and swingers everywhere? Approaching the grand old age of 59, it's not something I have ever come across, in any environment (outside of the convent), and I have lived a far from sheltered life. Could this group of doctors be deviant enough to take their kids and mother in law on a sex holiday? Who thinks like that? The problem is, they have had 9 years to chat among themselves and a simple accident just isn't enough.
Unfortunately, in order to make the facts fit their theories, they have accused a large number of independent witnesses of lying. And in order to support these accusations, they have pried into their personal lives of these witnesses in order to smear and discredit them. Richard Hall and Tony Bennett for example, continue to accuse Robert Murat (the first suspect), despite the fact that the PJ really did clear him, that is, they were pursuing the McCanns, not Murat, when Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation. What Hall and Bennett are doing is despicable, they are literally hounding him.
In order to give their on sale documentaries a beginning, middle and end, these armchair detectives claim to have solved the mystery. At the moment, given the interests of the producer, the hot tip is aliens, which is well worth a fiver each way. I've never been able to sit through them, so I have no idea where he is going.
Those claiming 'no neglect', really haven't paid very much attention to the characters of the tapas group. They all had high flying careers and they were all very competitive, they spent their days running and playing tennis. For many professional, middle class women, childcare is seen as menial. You can see from their statements, that there were no mother hens within the group, even Fiona Payne's mother preferred to play tennis than look after her grandchildren. They were all 'right on' women, determined to have as much freedom on that holiday as their husbands. The men meanwhile, were jockeying for the position of alpha male, as illustrated by Gerry in that short bus clip. Seriously, does anyone see Gerry staying in to look after all the kids while the others went out to dinner?
Apart from the arrogance of the group, no adult in their right mind would take responsibility for 9 babies and toddlers spread out in different apartments or all in one room. What if one kicked off? What if they all did? Kate couldn't cope with 3! The idea is far more chaotic than using the night crèche.
The statements show that some of the adults suffered sickness and diarrhea and stayed in their apartments and this is the thrust of the 'no neglect' argument. Most of us know that dicky tums are part and parcel of going away. The tapas groups speak freely about the babies having diarrhea and vomiting and Russell had to stay in to change his daughters sheets etc. I have no doubt the children were unwell, which makes the decision to leave them alone all the more horrifying. So if the kids had dicky tums, the adults probably did too. Rachel says she was in her apartment on the Tuesday night. This is the night Mrs Fenn hear a young child crying in Apartment 5A for 1.4 hours. If Rachel was looking after all the children, she wasn't doing a very good job of it.
In May 2007, what the tapas friends feared the most was criminal charges of child endangerment, child abandonment and child neglect. Charges that would not only bring them public shame, but that would end their medical careers. The Portuguese Authorities could well have seized ALL the tapas children and placed them in care. Understandably, they were all frantic and on their mobile phones all night. And to those who say Maddie died earlier in the week, why did they leave all their phones calls to the night of the abduction? Especially as they could have made untold phone calls in the days leading up to that night and ensured those calls couldn't be traced.
There is no greater criminal charge for up and coming medical professionals than child endangerment. Unless you go into the 'perv' areas as discussed elsewhere, what could be worse? So why on earth would 4 doctors confess to crimes they did not commit? And they do not acknowledge they committed any crime in leaving those children on their own. They have been justifying the checking since night one. Their defence to any child neglect charges has been in place since the very beginning, because those were the charges they feared.
The reason Kate and Gerry fail to acknowledge that they did anything wrong, is because it would make them culpable for child neglect (at the very least) and it would be used against them in a Court. They have lessened the neglect charges, by changing their actions from the reckless (or even wicked and premeditated) act of abandoning their babies, into an honest mistake anyone could have made, and naivety at worst. Kudos to them, it has been their greatest success.
Imagine that group of parents going out to dinner each night and leaving their babies alone and vulnerable would send a shiver down any caring adult's spine, which is why it is so difficult to accept. However, instead of spending hours, studying phone records, timelines and graphs, I suggest those searching for the truth, skip the tedium and read the statements of the Tapas group. The characters that come through in those statements will tell you all you need to know. Sometimes a cup is just a cup.
Sunday, 22 May 2016
I think Sharon Osborne has become the icon she is, because she will say exactly what she thinks. It's hard to imagine that any 'D' notices or threats from Clarence Mitchell would put the wind up her. She has no qualms in pointing out the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, she is too feisty and unpredictable to be restrained by grey men in suits waving Writs at her - she would eat them for breakfast and spit out their injunctions.
She is absolutely right of course, babies and toddlers should never, ever, be left on their own. And the danger wasn't 'stranger abduction', the danger was accident. Every parent knows that toddlers are walking, talking, weapons of mass destruction. They have no boundaries or sense of danger. Turn your back for one moment and they will be eating the contents of the cleaning cupboard or putting lipstick on the dog.
It is unbelievable that this large holiday party, that included six doctors, thought it was not only safe to leave their very small children on their own, but that it was socially acceptable in the UK. And the UK MSM picked up on it - 'We ALL do it', gushed luvvie TV presenters and newspaper columnists, making child abandonment a traditional British custom along with football hooliganism.
Those condemning the practice of leaving babies and toddlers alone in strange environments (or indeed, any environment) were labelled 'haters' and 'pitchforkers', devoid of compassion, they were the worst of humanity unleashed. And in fairness, the tapas group's half arsed form of childminding had worked perfectly well for 5 nights running. If what happened, hadn't of happened, as Kate would say, they could have been role models for parents everywhere.
The McCanns were of course completely blameless, they could not possibly have foreseen the one in a zillion chance that a predator, who looked exactly like Gerry, would break into their apartment and steal a child. Presumably when they ticked the boxes of their risk assessment the chances of the children climbing out of their cots, exploring the strange apartment and swallowing mum's pills scored, or going up in flames: nil points. Bizarre, and indeed callous, as six of them were doctors and must have spent some of their training in A&E.
The mythology that the ONLY danger to the 9 toddlers left on their own throughout that holiday, was stranger abduction, and the chances of that happening remain one in a zillion, took hold. The message is, carry on regardless folks, go out with your mates, relax and enjoy yourselves, and if you do check on them, don't bother actually looking at them, pulling their covers back up, or planting a gentle kiss on their cheeks. Listening at the window will suffice, if they are not actually crying, all is well and you can return to the bar, safe in the knowledge that you are a responsible parent.
I am of course being ironic. Sadly, there are some parents out there who will like the 5 nights in a row odds. They will dismiss all the worries and fears that plague every parent because they want to go for a drink with their mates. Most mothers instinctively develop a heightened sense of awareness of all the risks and dangers that may threaten our young. Women for example can hear at a higher pitch so they can hear their baby's cries. Just as a mummy tiger will clear every danger from her cave, a human mother will be attuned to every sharp corner, every hob unguarded, any reachable unedible substance. We are physically unable to switch off, many of us, I am sure, didn't sleep for years!
To pretend that the McCanns and the Tapas group did not endanger their children, is in my opinion, one of the most wicked lies in this whole wicked debacle. Those little tots were not safe and secure for 5 nights! They were ALL at the highest risk imaginable. Not from stalkers, paedophile gangs or anguished couples seeking to adopt, but from being left home alone! They weren't even in familiar surroundings, they were in a holiday apartment where the parents could neither see nor hear them. One of the babies had diarrhea and vomiting - she could have choked, and listening at the window every half hour wouldn't have saved her. Perhaps it's their collective 'there but for the grace of God, go I' mantra that holds them together.
As for Sharon Osborne, she is now under fire from the McCann supporters, not that she will care. The attacks on her parenting skills and on her children have already begun. She'll ride it out, the proof is in the pudding, and she has much to be proud of. As for the attacks on her marriage (low blow), if she is as clever as I think she is, she will always be the one pulling the strings, and her marriage will be what she wants it to be.
Sharon is pointing out something that should have been an issue when news of this case first broke. 'Are there any lessons to be learned' Gerry is asked in one of his first interviews. 'Yes. We didn't do anything wrong' Gerry replied. And that's what the mainstream media went with. I hope when this case finally reaches a conclusion, the 'authorities' condemn this tragically dangerous form of child minding as they should have done 9 ago.
Tuesday, 17 May 2016
In 2009/10, Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie, was removed from the bookshelves, seized from the printing press and stockpiled in a warehouse ready to be shredded or placed on a bonfire. It might just as well be a bonfire in a public square, because it would effectively be a warning to all detectives and authors, that the Law of the land will not tolerate their right to have an opinion. I know the urge to peep out the window and check we are indeed still in the 21st century, is irresistible, but bizarrely, tis true. As a writer and libertarian, I always find history's bonfires of the vanities the most disturbing and sinister when new 'regimes' take over. The banning and burning of books should have no place in this century.
And before we go castigating the old fashioned value system of the Portuguese Justice system, the Libel Laws in the UK are more antiquated than most. So antiquated in fact, that the media giants have been dancing to Kate and Gerry's tune for 9 years for fear of having to write them out another cheque.
Unfortunately, 'controlling the press', doesn't come cheap, Kate and Gerry have employed an army of specialist lawyers, PR Agencies and a small group of psychos/saddoes to patrol social media 24/7. It is difficult to estimate their monthly outgoings, other than, 'a lot'. As a former legal secretary I know that lawyers charge hundreds of pounds per hour, per letter written, per phone call made or received - phoning a sex line would be cheaper.
We have seen the phenomenal rate at which Kate and Gerry have got through the millions donated to them when Madeleine first went missing. They were spending like lottery winners, confident that their futures were secured. Sandra Felgueiras' interview with Kate and Gerry in Autumn 2009, when they were going broke, is revealing*. The very direct Sandra, lists all the Fund's payroll and outgoings and asks them how they could afford to pay for it all. 'It's not ideal' says Kate, but 'we can't stop'. Gerry scathingly mentions an auction at the twins school (have they no shame?), but they were planning much, much, bigger things for the future.
In those days, the McCanns had no qualms about asking the public for money. They sent out letters to their supporters and they created a campaign poster telling the public what their donations would be used for. £10 for a helpline for one hour, £50 for prayer cards, to be honest distaste makes it difficult to remember the details, but they were confident the public still believed they were searching for their daughter. They did not ask for cash shyly, they came straight out with it.
This time their cause is quite clearly themselves, and no-one cares. Even when they were hop, skipping and jumping for Missing People, they were hard pushed to get sponsors. And 'help us take the family home and all the assets and future earnings of the Detective who investigated us', just doesn't have the same popular ring as 'Help Search for Madeleine'.
If they truly believed they had been wronged by Goncalo Amaral, they would be complaining about the injustice of it all to anyone who would listen. They would be appealing to the Hacked Off lobby and similarly minded book burners for their support. They would be knocking on doors brazenly, as they did when they were in full fund raising mode, and they would take every opportunity to put forward their case. This time, there is no passion behind their pledge to carry on, no zest, no oomph, no banners declaring they are right, dead right, no 'victims of the Portuguese police' photographs of the couple appealing for public sympathy.
They have milked the public sympathy vote to its natural conclusion and then some. The tap's run dry. Whining about how hard done by you are for 9 years is not endearing. Laugh and the world laughs with you, weep, and you weep alone.
Unfortunately for Kate and Gerry, as their coffers run dry, their nemesis, Goncalo Amaral goes from strength to strength. Presumably, he now has access to the royalties from his book, but if his assets remain frozen, the public will happily fund him again. The recent 'honourable' troll article in the Daily Mail and all the other papers that picked it up, has opened floodgates. Not only would those who contributed to Goncal's legal fund, contribute again, so too will thousands more as the full extent of the McCanns' spiteful vendetta against the former detective becomes public knowledge. The tables have turned, the public are on Goncalo's side and they will happily fund him all the way to the European Court of Human Rights.
To take a case all the way to the ECHRs, you need a powerful lobby behind you. You need to prove that the way you have been treated has the potential to affect hundreds, if not thousands, in the future. A ruling by the ECHR will be used as a precedent in every future libel case throughout Europe. The three Appeal Court Judges could not have made it any plainer. Goncalo Amaral has a right to have an opinion, and a Court of Human Rights will not take that away from him.
Sunday, 15 May 2016
I don't know if Gerry and Kate McCann are still paying to keep themselves on the front pages of the UK tabloids, but if they are, this week has been a bonanza, though maybe not quite as they would have liked. The newspapers have picked up on the one year old story, that young Birmingham student Leanne Baulch raised over £52,000 for Goncalo Amaral's legal costs. Leanne was appalled at the injustice being dished out to the former lead detective of the Madeleine investigation in Portugal. Goncalo was being forced to hand over all his worldly goods to the two former suspects prime suspects in that investigation. And here is why she did it, and why the public responded so generously.
In their spiteful six year legal pursuit of Goncalo Amaral, (and they are the pursuers, not the pursued), they have destroyed his long time police career, had his book banned, and protected their forthcoming booty, by freezing all his assets. Not only did they prevent him from earning any money with which to support himself, they wanted to ensure that he did not have the funds to appeal to a higher Court.
Such is the nature of litigation and libel actions in particular, those with the bottomless purses often win. The McCanns were armed with a large (not a Charity) Fund to search for Madeleine and 'support the family'. The ratio between searching and supporting is blurred, but after 9 years, I think 'support' has got the edge.
For many years this has been a 'David v Goliath' battle. For whatever reason, the British establishment were taken in by the comically bad acting of Gerry and Kate McCann to such an extent that they offered their undying support for the abduction fairy story. As an aside, I think everyone attaining high office (especially within the police) should be forced to attend a 'Spot the Loon' course run by mentalists, savvy wideboys or just your average bog standard housewife. Your average bog standard housewife for example, would have said, 'you're having me on' within 5 minutes of this particular tall tale.
Goncalo Amaral has been demonised by the British press, portrayed as an incompetent, barbaric cop, too lazy to search for Madeleine, and what hurt him most, 'a bad dresser'. Not true, he is actually quite elegant. Those spinning the dirty cop ideology were gunning for him, he was to become the patsy. Within reading 1 to 2 pages of Goncalo's book The Truth of the Lie, however, it is quickly apparent that Goncalo is the opposite of the villain that has been portrayed.
One of life's gentlemen, he speaks his truth quietly and clearly. There is no sensationalism, the truth doesn't need it. Nor is there any spite, somehow he has managed (I couldn't have) to keep his opinions professional and objective, he even shows sympathy towards the parents, despite everything they have done to him. With all his years on the frontline, his wisdom and understanding shine through. He is not about vengeance, he is about justice for the victim. His agenda remains the same as it did, when he was first handed that poisoned chalice. Find the child. He is the stuff good cops are made of. When he is given a job, he completes it.
But let's get back to those 'trolls'. Although this week's headlines are still calling disbelievers 'trolls', the accompanying pictures show attractive, bright and vibrant women who look nothing like the demons described by the McCanns, Jim Gamble and their unfortunate stooges, Martin Brunt and Summers and Swan. The 'evil troll' and 'hater' stuff is finally being exposed as the 'McCann Myth' it is. It is not unreasonable or hateful to disbelieve obvious lies. It is however, unreasonable to demand the public overlook the 5 nights of unbelievable child neglect by SIX DOCTORS and the sycophantic way in which the Establishment have looked after them ever since.
For more years than I care to remember, we non believers of the McCanns have been almost criminalised by the UK MSM. To such an extent that many people dared not reveal their names on social media. What happened to Brenda Leyland was a long standing threat to all of us. Especially to those of us who's named were contained in the notorious Death Dossier. Being negative about the McCanns could seriously damage your career and indeed, life - friends, neighbours and family were also to be informed about your online activity.
Obviously, the McCanns have never been able to find a real person to fit the image of their mythological troll, I'm thinking small plastic endomorph with a shock of neon hair, sinister thug, wielding nunchuckers or a tediously boring ex lawyer with binoculars. For almost 9 years the only villain they have had, has been the self publicist, and off his trolley Tony Bennett. And he has played his part admirably, creating news stories and photo opportunities at every opportunity. Tony Bennett was the example the MSM used whenever they wanted to portray 'antis' in a bad light.
Gerry McCann wanted an example made of the 'trolls' (formerly haters and pitchforkers) who hounded him and his family online. Gerry cannot be blamed entirely for thinking of himself as a Supreme Being, because it seems whatever Gerry wants, Gerry gets. An ordinary person was chosen. They wanted to convey the message 'it could be you', to anyone even thinking about questioning their abduction story. Brenda was not only shamed, exposed and driven out of her home (surely what they were aiming for?), she took the tragic decision to end her own life. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, 'what a way to go Brenda!'. Because in ending her life, she blew the McCann 'evil troll' myth wide apart, and she forced Sky News to hang its' head in shame.
In 9 years, the McCanns have not been able to find anyone (other than Bennett) loathsome enough to support the claim that they are being victimised and hounded, or that there is an organised campaign working on behalf of their nemesis Goncalo Amaral. Whilst those of us intrigued by this mystery continue to follow this ongoing saga, we have no desire to take over the investigation or dish out the punishments ourselves. The majority of the vigilantes have long since moved on, and the few that remain are getting the message that no-one wants their kind of justice.
Meanwhile, well done Leanne, your initiative may well have changed the entire direction of this case! (who do ya want to play ya in the movie? I'm thinking Scarlett J ? :) ) And well done Ann-Kristine and Karen - you look absolutely fab!
Monday, 2 May 2016
In July 2007, British National Search Advisor, Mark Harrison suggested that the Portuguese police should bring in two dogs who were specially trained to detect blood and the scent of human cadaver. Keela, 'the most amazing dog in Britain' and on a higher rate of pay than the Chief Constable, and Eddie, the cadaver dog who had never given a false positive in over 200 cases. Mark Harrison asserted that 'if the dogs came to signal Maddie's death, then it would be a fact'.
The dogs not only signalled, once, twice, three or even 4 times, they signalled 11 times and only in relation to the McCann possessions. And they told a story, behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, and in the back of the hire car. The scent of the poor child's body clung onto to her cuddly toy, her mother's clothes and her last places of rest. She left all the clues behind.
Whilst the alerts of the amazing British dogs changed the entire course of the investigation, without scientific evidence to back it up, they could not be used in a Portuguese court. This loophole has been Gerry and Kate's lifeline ever since. When Gerry says 'there is no evidence', what he really means is there is no evidence that can be used against them in a Portuguese court. 'Find the body and prove we killed her', he challenged, seemingly knowing that they couldn't.
Taunting your opponent is never a good idea, especially when you are standing on a very wobbly pedestal. I suspect for a lot of Portuguese police Gerry and Kate have made this personal, everything from sardine munchers to fucking tossers is no doubt stored within their collective memories. If they had just kept their traps shut, maybe it would all have gone away.
The supporters of the McCanns have done everything within their power to discredit the evidence of the blood and the cadaver dogs. Initially they claimed the handler was prompting the dogs to alert - why the world renowned Martin Grime would risk his and his dogs reputations and futures to incriminate Gerry and Kate is a mystery. The dogs fecked up in the Attracta Harron case claimed the McCanns, err, no, they didn't. The evidence must have been planted said Kate's mum, which of course begs the question, why would the Portuguese police leave a child predator on the loose in their home towns in order to frame Kate and Gerry?
Like most deceivers trapped in a corner, the McCann and their entourage have a tendency to over explain everything. Kate was a GP, she was always in contact with dead bodies (which makes her sound like Shipman) and the car was used to transport the twins smelly nappies. Note to K&G, you empty contents of nappy in lavatory before bagging and binning. But I digress, the ever helpful proactive family and friends, gave explanations of sweaty sandals, rotting meat, dripping blood and regular trips to the garbage dump. This lot really need to attend some sort of basic NVQ hygiene course. Meanwhile, don't let them borrow your car.
There can be no denying there was a foul odour from the boot of the hire car. In Goncalo's documentary of The Truth of the Lie, he explains how a witness, a neighbour of the McCanns' holiday villa, came forward to state that the boot of the hire car had been left open several nights running. If human beings could detect the smell to the extent that they have to air the boot night after night, how likely is it that the dogs got it wrong?
The McCanns evidence against the dogs is flimsy and has nothing to back it up. If they had an expert witness who could dispute the findings of Eddie and Keela, they would have produced him/her a long time ago. As it was, the over explaining Gerry, had to make a last ditch appeal to the Portuguese Judge to ignore the dogs' findings as their farcical damages claim against Goncalo came to an end.