Sunday, 15 January 2017


Those who have been following my blogs over the past couple of weeks are saying that I have changed, that I have gone over to the 'dark side' and that I am now supporting Kate and Gerry McCann.  Some have been concerned (Ok, one person, thank you Liz) that I am having some sort of mental breakdown, that I'm not myself. Unfortunately, as I have multiple personalities, I'm not sure which one of us she means.  I jest, it's not necessarily a diagnosis I agree with, I think we all have different 'characters' for different situations and most of us can keep the mad ones hidden for most of the time.  

But it would be true to say I have been hurt.  I have written about the Madeleine case for many years, despite the severe detrimental effect it has had on my writing career and my reputation.  Why? because I hate injustice, and because a child shouldn't just disappear with seemingly no questions asked of those who had care of her.  

I'm not generally a bullet point maker, but on this occasion I will make an exception, because I want to highlight the issues in this case that keep me here and keeps me putting my neck on the line for justice.

1.  Responsible Parenting 

When Gerry was asked if there were any lessons to be learned, he replied with many words, but basically, 'yes, we didn't do anything wrong'. Wrong Answer! Not only were the suspects claiming they did nothing wrong, but so too were the dozy mares on breakfast TV and in the newspaper columns. 

There were of course vital lessons to be learned, lessons that were totally ignored in order not to hurt the parents feelings.  Children die, and that's heartbreaking, but the only way to make any sense of a child's death is to try to make something good come out of it.  That is, do everything in our power to prevent the same thing happening to another child. 

The Abductor, Child Predator, story was false.  Not only has it cost two governments millions, it has been used to scare parents into having their kids microchipped and demanding a national DNA databank.  The whole debacle created a budding new corporation and enriched existing charities. 

The issue of the McCanns and the Tapas group leaving their children on their own has not only been swept under the carpet, the government have built a flyover on it.  All those millions of tabloids sold in the name of Madeleine, were not warning their readers about the dangers of leaving toddlers unattended, they were all but putting out posters saying your child could be next.  It has created a culture where this generation are confined to their bedrooms eating pizza.  It breaks my heart that so many children today have so little freedom.  They are being indoctrinated to live in fear - the message, there is a predator behind every lamp post has been this century's best seller.  

Accidents in the home are the biggest danger for toddlers, and that is a lesson that should have been stressed over and over.  Ironic as this may sound, in the 1980's I watched a child safety documentary presented by Jimmy Savile.  As a new and pretty clueless young mum, I learned more in that hour than I could have in a hundred books. 

2.  The involvement of the 'Establishment'  

No matter which way you look at this case, the original investigation was scuppered by the interference of the UK (New) Labour government.  Since taking Goncalo Amaral off the case in September 2007, the case has not moved so much as inch forward. If Scotland Yard or the PJ make the slightest move towards the Mr and Mrs, an entire house of cards comes tumbling down.  It is abundantly clear they had lots of help, a fair few perverting the course of justice in a criminal investigation. 

To myself, and no doubt to many who have followed this case throughout, we can see the enormity of the crimes, and we are astonished today as we were 10 years ago, that nobody seems to care.  Unfortunately, huge miscarriages of justice occur daily, some, such as Hillsborough will never be forgotten because their supporters, bless them, will never give up on their loved ones and the appalling, spiteful decisions that led to their deaths.  Ninety six people died at Hillsborough, and the establishment's involvement in the cover up was 96 times greater.  This is just one small girl.

While the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance has the potential to grab world headlines, it has fallen way down the ladder, it is competing with so many sensational stories, cover ups, financial scandals, and a raving lunatic as US President, that it is unlikely ever to get the same attention again.  The zeitgeist has changed, human interest stories have been replaced by glitz and celebrity, not a path available to the pap loving McCanns. 

Will those responsible ever stand trial?  Despite all I have said above, there is still a glimmer of hope.  Operation Grange remains live, so too, as far as I know, does the PJ investigation.  The PJ of course, were quick enough to shelve the case in 2008 when they realised they did not have enough to prosecute, and they were adamant for several years that they would not 're-open' the file without new evidence.  That it is still 'live' in Portugal should mean something.

Before moving onto the next point, I would like to be clear about my sympathy for Kate McCann.  Yes I feel sorry for Kate, as I would for anyone in a wretched situation, even if that wretched situation is of their own making.  I guess I am one of the few people who wept when Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death. 

I have stated again and again, that Law, Order and Retribution are really not my thing.  I am interested in crime because I study human behaviour, my quest is enlightenment.  The punishment part, not so much, OK, not at all.  It is an issue where I spend much of my time with my head in the sand.  It is not to say that I don't feel that anger and rage, I do, the face of Ian Huntley for example, incenses me, I don't think I could see him in the flesh without attacking him.

Now what I am about to say will infuriate my enemies even more, but Kate is not in the same category as monsters such as Ian Huntley or Mark Bridger, she is a mother for whom something went desperately wrong. Gerry was being truthful when he said 'there's been a disaster'.  That is she didn't kill her child for any sort of gratification, sexual or otherwise.  If there was a crime that night, it was a crime of passion.  Not premeditated or with malice aforethought.

The interim report of Tavares de Almeida concludes Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents did not want to give up the body. Anything else regarding the events of that evening is pure conjecture.  There is no mention of paedophile gangs, and no mention of orgies going on in the resort. 
The premeditated, malice aforethought crimes began in the aftermath, with the hiding of the body and the misinformation they were giving to the police and the media.  Far from going into a panic, they went into overdrive, their methodical scientific minds, planning not only ways in which to avoid any form of prosecution, but also ways in which to make a fortune. 

Though the financial crimes are whitecollar, they are just as damaging to their victims.  Millions in cash and resources has been diverted from genuine charities and genuine missing people.  People have been misled, taken for fools.  But the cruellest of their actions has been against Goncalo Amaral.  They have gone above and beyond to destroy his career and reputation, not because they were thinking about their daughter, but because they wanted vengeance. 

Had they confessed that night that there had been a terrible accident and that they were sorry they left the kids, they probably would have received compassion.  The public hatred for Kate and Gerry grew out of their lack of remorse - they have never blamed themselves, they have always blamed others.  But on top of that, they always looked so darn smug.  'What do you do if there is a sighting?' a reporter asked Gerry in the early days.  From the expression on his face, his first answer should have been 'try not to giggle', the second was 'not take them too seriously'.  Ie. the complete opposite of what you would expect from the father of a missing child.  They blame Goncalo Amaral, but their own expressions have told their story throughout. 

I don't think Kate deliberately killed her child.  Ergo, it is only natural that she would be bereaved.  I agree that didn't look like the case in the summer of 2007, both she and her husband thrived in the Portuguese sun, and that I think is something many of us find hard to forgive.  I can't because it shows a shallowness of feeling towards the child that reveals narcissism.  Any child, and there are many, who grew up with a narcissistic mother will have a deprived childhood.  Not in the sense of being deprived of food, warmth, or even suffering physical punishment, but in the withholding of affection, preference given to siblings and of course, jealousy. The narcissist mother will be jealous of the child who takes away attention that should belong to her.

Narcissistic mothers are so common, it doesn't count as abuse per se.  The child may grow up with self esteem issues, but they are just as likely to grow up twice as strong.  Little Madeleine I think, would have been the latter, as her nan said, 'that girl could throw a tantrum'.  The snippets we do know about Madeleine, show that she was not an abused child.  She had a wide vocabulary (always an indicator), she was outgoing and not afraid to stamp her feet.  Abused children have few words, and what they do have, they are afraid to use.

I want to see Kate and Gerry stand trial for every crime they have committed, but I don't see the need for internet researchers to make up a few more. Especially when the heinous crimes they are alleging, directly affect the lives of the children involved.  Kate would have be an automaton if she were not suffering now, the pain and stress is etched into her face.  Some might say she deserves it, myself too on occasion, but we are not Judge and Jury, nor are we law enforcers.  Right now there are a small number of people who have reached a verdict and are handing out their own form of punishment on social media, that makes me very uncomfortable. 


  1. So, Ros, we have some clarity about your views. You think the Tapas children were left on their own every night, albeit checked from time to time. The only evidence for that, however, is from their own mouths. You think Madeleine died on Thursday, probably from a bad accident, that they decided that very night to hide the body and pretend she'd been abducted (all major crimes). But let me ask if you've read Dr Martin Roberts' 'Nightwear Job'? This makes clear that Madeleine must already have been dead by Thursday morning, when she washed her pyjamas and then photographed them. She then sent that photograph to Leics police and then on 5 and 7 June held up the very same pyjamas before TV cameras, pretending they were Amelie's. Come on, even 2-yr-old Amelie wasn't fooled. "Maddie's jammies. Where is Maddie?"

  2. I read Dr. Martin Roberts years ago. However now, as then, I lean more towards the account given by Goncalo Amaral in his book The Truth of the Lie. GA is a detective with decades of experience. He was actually working the case and he was actually there.

    The theories of the armchair detectives only work if you disregard the evidence of the REAL detectives who were there, and accept the independent witnesses were lying.

    And this is where the armchair detectives have overstepped the line and become downright unpleasant. Not only are they accusing the witnesses of lying, they are fabricating reasons why. That is, they are using the most tenuous links imaginable to implicate anyone who's statements don't fit their theories.

    If you believe Madeleine died earlier in the week, then you must also believe that the nannies and staff of Warners were lying. And you must also believe that Goncalo Amaral and the detectives, who were there on the ground, got it all wrong. It really is a straight forward choice, who do you believe?

    1. The armchair detectives who only have access to 10 year old evidence or,

    2. The lead detective who actually worked the case and who's word the McCanns have spent the entire Madeleine Fund trying to suppress?

    1. This might be of interest:

      April 24, 2016

      "Amaral stressed nonetheless that the book ‘Maddie: The Truth of the Lie’ that the McCanns have sought to ban is not ‘his truth’ - nor indeed factual truth - but the opinion of the PJ in September of 2007 when it became clear their efforts were about to be archived.

      Since that time - and even when Scotland Yard became involved in 2011 and vowed to ‘peel back the layers’ of the mystery as if peeling an onion - none of those original lines of investigation have ever been revisited, resulting in the situation in which millions of pounds have been spent getting nowhere, or as Amaral put it: 'going down a one-way street'."

    2. Thanks for that 18:23. It is indeed astonishing that so many millions have been poured into trying to find a different conclusion to that of the PJ in September 2007.

      The case wasn't complicated! It was obvious to the first two policemen on the scene that the abduction had been staged. Even Inspector Clouseau would have figured out that if the mother's fingerprints were on the open window, and no others, then it is the mother who opened it! Suddenly remembering, over a week later, that you entered the apartment through the back door, not the front, is just another of those little clues that smack you right in the face.

      No matter how many fecking layers you peel back (and just how big is that onion?), the mother still opened the window to make it look like an abduction.

      It was never a difficult case to solve, but it seems to have been near impossible to prove! The problem has always been the lack of evidence and the pact of silence. As I have said before, it is unbelievable the number of criminals, even murderers who live quite freely among us. It must be endlessly frustrating for detectives to know 'who their man is', but they are unable to do anything about it. Good guys like Steve Thomas (Jonbenet's Avenger) and Goncalo Amaral, who has never given up on Madeleine. The cat and mouse games can go on for decades.

  3. Hello Ros.

    It is now a cliché to say that the net encourages aggressive comment. It also encourages, even more mysteriously, “mobbing” - behaviour last seen in primary school by most people - in which people you knew nothing about suddenly queue up to put the boot in – to the personality, not the argument. It can be a profoundly shocking experience for many.

    There is no community on the net, only self-deception and sentimentality. Supposed “friendships” are at the primary school level again - “crushes”, reversible at the drop of a hat into hysterical hatred. Such is twitter #mccann. You should stay away.

    That said, there is the question of Kate McCann. As anyone should realise from the case evidence, nothing has emerged to invalidate the Portuguese prosecutors’ statement that there is no prosecutable case against her in connection with the child. That, of course, means that there is no need for a cover up, but let that pass.

    Now if it turned out that she had been involved in the disappearance then her behaviour since May 4, including her relentless attempts to silence her critics and destroy her principal enemies, would have to be re-assessed. Such a re-assessment – and all this is hypothetical – could only result in two alternative conclusions: that she is genuinely insane or that she has been guilty of calculated wickedness on a gigantic scale, incorporating the deception of both the papacy and the UK parliament, no less - wickedness that has deliberately destroyed one life and led, via the net, to the death of another.

    I don’t know where sympathy fits in if you don’t believe she’s innocent.

    1. Many thanks for chastising me so eloquently John, and for taking the time to explain the anger I aroused. Your words have got through to me where a thousand insults failed!

      You are right of course, what was I thinking? Perhaps because the crimes has gone on for so long, I have become de-sensitized to the wickedness of them. Your 'calculated wickedness on a gigantic scale' hit home with the force of a sledgehammer! I needed to be brought back down to earth. Whilst her need to protect her surviving may, with a stretch of the imagination be understandable, her need to destroy others is indeed calculated wickedness.

      I am not so far up my own arse that I cannot accept when I am wrong. I can, especially when it is explained to me in terms that I can understand. My sympathy is of course misplaced, especially as the lies continue and the crime is ongoing.

      Now, as in the summer of 2007, there are still no signs of remorse from the parents, or acceptance of any blame whatsoever. Not only have they continued their persecution of Goncalo Amaral, with malice aforethought they set out to destroy Brenda Leyland.

      Again, many thanks John, that was the wake up call I needed

  4. I would add a third bullet point: the role of the mass media in the case.

    1. Yes indeed 15:54. I was also thinking along those lines, they too have played a huge part in ensuring that every penny that could be screwed out of the name Madeleine name, was, in every way.

      I think this is where Karma may step in 15:54. The newspapers are being devoured by their own lies. They are our least reliable news source as demonstrated by this never ending case.

      I had another one too. This threat this case poses to freedom of information and freedom of the press especially. Gerry and Kate have worked tirelessly to prevent the actuals details surrounding their daughter's disappearance from being made public. Both here and in Portugal. They want newspapers and individuals to be gagged, quite literally.

      That is an absolute affront to myself as a writer and a libertarian. I vehemently oppose censorship, and consider book burning medieval. There are few things I care about so passionately as freedom of speech. This is where I pick up the deep red of the people's flag. The blood of those martyrs who fought for our freedoms.

  5. Perhaps you will do an "update" and remove all mention of sympathy to Kate?

    1. I accept ownership of my words 16:05, even the foolish ones.

  6. Ros, you may wish to reflect upon your sorrow for Saddam hussein, go and educate yourself about this wicked wicked man and then retract your words, because if you cant have pity for KM then you cant have pity for him...end of !!

    1. As I understand it, it is not about ´sorrow for Saddam Hussein´, but about `Saddam Hussein dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death`. Please correct me if I´m wrong Rosalinda.

    2. " I guess I am one of the few people who wept when Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death."

      Yes I guess that you are.

    3. You are spot on 16:35, it was the brutality that made me weep. I know the man was a monster, but I just don't have the stomach for that kind of thing!

    4. "The execution of Saddam Hussein took place on Saturday 30 December 2006. Saddam was sentenced to death by hanging, after being convicted of crimes against humanity by the Iraqi Special Tribunal for the murder of 148 Iraqi Shi'ites in the town of Dujail in 1982, in retaliation for an assassination attempt against him.[1]

      The Iraqi government released an official videotape of his execution, showing him being led to the gallows, and ending after his head was in the hangman's noose. International public controversy arose when an "unauthorized" mobile phone recording of the hanging showed him surrounded by a contingent of his countrymen who jeered him in Arabic and praised the Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and his subsequent fall through the trap door of the gallows. The atmosphere of the execution drew criticism around the world from nations that oppose as well as support capital punishment. On Sunday 31 December 2006, Saddam Hussein's body was returned to his birthplace of Al-Awja, near Tikrit, and was buried near the graves of other family members."

    5. Many thanks for correcting me. In both cases I would only have seen through my fingers or peeping out from behind a pillow. I am a total wuss and when in rock bottom mode, it's as though I can feel the pain.

      I can, and occasionally do, lash out wildly, the angry child who can't make sense of what is happening. Not physically of course, but with my trusty pen. My hot head takes over, and it's at those times I miss the calming, thoughtful explanations of my father. With soothing words he could make me understand all sides of an argument, he could make me see that I was wrong without the need for punishment or humiliation. I'm guessing JB is a pretty good dad!

      As for Sadam Hussein and Colonel Gadaffi, as a manic depressive, I can rarely look too deeply into world politics and oppressive regimes. I clumsily used a nightmare image stored in my mind's vault, man's inhumanity to man.

    6. Rosalinda
      Anonymous 15 January 2017 at 16:45

      " … Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death."

      Not according to what is alleged in the official narrative.

      Perhaps Rosalinda was thinking of the alleged circumstances of another man’s death (Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi)?


  7. "despite the severe detrimental effect it has had on my writing career"

    I am interested to know how many books and plays you have written and have had rejected because of your comments about the Mccann case?

  8. Saddam Hussein wasn't beaten to death. He was hanged live on camera. It was Gaddafi that was dragged,raped and beaten to death live on camera. Both hideous events caused by hatred and lies. Lies cause more harm to Humans than anything else. Kate & Gerry tell lots of lies all the time. Ergo, they're evil and undeserving of our sympathy. They have lied to their remaining offspring. They may never recover when they find out. Ditto, the Tapasnik's children. A hideous crime all round. They've also inspired other miscreant parents.

  9. Yes, Saddam was evil. We know this because the western media, owned and run by his enemies told us so. He apparently gassed a village in retaliation to an assassination attempt in 1982. I've scratched my head and for the life of me i can't remember a rapid response from Uncle Sam's great liberators around that time-can you ?In fact, it wasn't until a good ten years later . Not exactly a knee-jerk reaction .He became 'evil' later on as our 'leaders of the free world' informed us,when he said he wouldn't be trading oil in the dollar.Now that's evil. But it's not an acceptable justification to blanket bomb civilians, depose their leader, establish a bank and make sure the dollar was still boss.No, there would have to be a far greater reason - or reasons- to wage psychotic war. Thank God for the Bushes ( you want a definition of evil?This crew make the rest look like the seven dwarfs)

    2 ends to every stick, as they say...

    1. Hi Ros ( personality No.4 ?)

      The 'dark side' has many's favourite dwelling place however is inside people.We all have a shadow inside and, sometimes, we have to let it out to see the day. Leave it too long, and it will force it's way out and the results are rarely pleasant.That's a little bit of Jungian thinking there . I know Freud and his extended family and descendants are more fashionable in the context of this and blogs of it's ilk, but trust me, it's best to be Jung at heart( here all week folks).
      I have no faith in social's various guises were all designed and put in place as 'pens' by the same thought police and corrupt liars that have utilised the mainstream media for so long. Big Brother will always be watching.He will always be in control.The 'alt media' is policed fanatically by him now. If we protests against yet another one of our 'freedoms' being removed in our democracy( lol etc) it means we either enjoyed 9/11 or hate 'da joos'.I personally don't enjoy either.I tried fakebook etc a few years ago. Like everywhere else in the world, the yanks had taken over and tried to boss it.I don't mean Zuckerberg( a fool and frontman) and the CIA, they're a given.I mean the users of them. It seems empty vessels make the loudest fonts.Don't get me wrong, I'm generalising here.Like everywhere else, there are a lot of good citizens and America is no different.But their shills on there? talk about transparent...You can keep social media. The only sheep i have time for end up on my plate on a Sunday afternoon.

    2. (cont)
      I mention all of this beacuse, lately , i've noticed recent posts on your blog have referred to twitter and such.In particular, online spats. Twitter wars.I find them ridiculous. The internet, unfortunately, provides a mask. Behind said mask people feel brave. It's a bit like dancing.Getting up on a stage and dancing for a crowd is a frightening prospect. Slip into a big furry costume and mask without anyone knowing it's you and you'll dance all over the place. Same mind, different deal. Unfortuantely, the one thing the internet can't mask is ignorance, with stupidity a close second. I have a rule for dealing with people like that out in the real world.I don't.Simple as that.I walk around them or through them. As for people wanting to get 'tuf' and threatening, they're sadly wasting their time as well. If anyone wants to get in my face so be it.But my real face in real time in the real world only.Anything else is like juveniles passing rude messages to each other underneath the desk on scrap paper. If anyone gets sucked in they'll pay a price.It erodes your time and energy.You can't get back time that you throw away.And if you throw it to halfwits, you need to rethink. This is only my opinion and, hopefully, a bit of advice you may find useful. You can fight a cause without being drawn into the desperate soap operas of the lost and the bitter.

    3. Ziggy at 17:45

      On Hussein, well said and thanks for the links.

      On Gadaffi:

    4. @ziggy - what has what you say about saddam got to do with what Ros says she did: " I guess I am one of the few people who wept when Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death."

      Her description of what happened to him is just wrong.

    5. Hi Ziggy, I wrote a very long, and though I say so myself lol, quite eloquent reply to part 1 of your post then lost it!

      Not sure I agree with you on Mark Zuckerberg. I actually thank al the Gods there may be that these new 'Masters of the Universe', the owners of the social networks, are genuine philanthropists, movers and shakers. Mark Z appears in front of cheering crowds in T-shirts, jeans and sneakers, he doesn't flaunt his wealth.

      These are curious times. We have the rise of the 'alt' right (not sure how to use 'alt' yet), whilst the REAL power, the social networks, are quite firmly in the hands of the liberal Left.

      Trump is having a real struggle to find a 'star' to appear at his inauguration, I think it may be the first time we see a new President booed!

      Information and education is travelling like wildfire, faster than it ever has in history. There are few, if any, means in which to distort the news, most of the world carry mobile phones with cameras. Atrocities can be filmed and sent viral on twitter, youtube, Instagram etc, within moments. Cover ups are becoming virtually impossible. News is no longer contained by borders or the whim of a newspaper proprietor, the amateurs are getting there before the professionals.

      But I digress, this is part II of the post I lost, but will return to. At the moment, Episode 7 of Lemony Snickett calls!


      The only effective way to bring the injustice of this case to public attention is through a question being asked in the House of Commons. Therein lies the problem. It is doubtful there is ONE single MP willing to put their neck on the line.

      The only MPs I know who have questioned the Madeleine case are George Galloway and Jacob Rees Mogg, both of whom, very quickly shut up.

      It is unlikely any MP would 'attack' the grieving family of a missing child. No matter how much evidence is out there, nothing has been proved. It would be career suicide. Much the same in the writing world.

      As much as that may grate, that is our democratic system, innocent until proven guilty. There are ways around this of course, ie, by raising questions about the cost, maybe, comparing the huge amount of funding ploughed into the case of one child, when so many others are in need of help. The McCanns have been phenomenally successful in convincing the headline skimmers (most MPs)that they are the victims. Any MP standing up in PMQs asking a question about the Madeleine case, would probably be met with a chorus of boos.

      And therein is the dilemma, the checkmate. The distorted image of the McCann sceptics still looms large. They are a joke, and a nasty one at that, strange people who gather each day to pat each other on the backs and see off the subversives.

    6. Anonymous 15 January 2017 at 16:55

      “Saddam Hussein wasn't beaten to death. He was hanged live on camera. It was Gaddafi that was dragged,raped and beaten to death live on camera.”

      I posted a similar observation minutes ago before reading your post. Sorry.

      There are doubts as to the veracity of the official account of what happened to both “Saddam Hussein” and “Gaddafi” (and to Usama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden I might add).


    7. ZiggySawdust 15 January 2017 at 17:45

      “…because the western media, owned and run by his enemies told us so.”

      On the money.

      Love your alias.


    8. Rosalinda @02:56

      "the McCann sceptics...are a joke, and a nasty one at that..."

      From which we may take it you are not a 'McCann sceptic'.

      What are you then?

    9. Anonymous 15 January 2017 at 19:47

      “@ziggy - what has what you say about saddam got to do with what Ros says she did: " I guess I am one of the few people who wept when Saddam Hussein was dragged out of his bunker, stripped and beaten to death."

      Her description of what happened to him is just wrong.”

      Perhaps ZiggySawdust was attuned to Rosalinda’s apparent feeling of compassion towards the man whose identity she confused with that of another. This Rosalinda’s feeling outweighed the confusion, and it was honourable therefore to comment as ZiggySawdust did.

      Just a thought.


    10. Hi Ziggy, I can't remember what I said in part I, other than your post brought on a huge smile! It reminded me of the words of my dear old (mad Irish) mother. 'There are some people in this life who only understand feck off, give them that and no more'. However, she was twice as hotheaded as myself and loved nothing more than a good old stand up row, so I was getting very mixed signals.

      Unfortunately, on occasion, I cannot hold back my inner 'fishwife', or the mischievous 'paddy' sense of humour, but those on the receiving end cannot see that I am laughing. Either that or they are just a miserable shower of b'stards!

  10. ‘’……………The interim report of Tavares de Almeida concludes Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents did not want to give up the body. ……………….’’

    I don’t think that there are many people left who are of a different opinion these days but it’s the implications in that sentence that sets this case apart. Had Goncarlo had more time on the case he may well have changed his mind about actually when it all happened. As it was his efforts were curtailed before they bore fruit.
    The case just cannot be as uncomplicated as you try and make out. An accidental death does not require the body to be hidden. That to me is so fundamental to understanding what went on. Government cover up ( and even you surely can see an element of that here ? ) does not surround your normal tragedy unless there are vested interests involved.
    I feel more sorry for Saddam Hussein than I do for the McCanns . He was a victim of the American and British establishment who had no qualms about selling him arms for cash and who were quite willing to turn a blind eye to his cruelty. He was played like a violin. Oh yes he was a tyrant but he was Iraq’s tyrant to sort out, not anybody else’s. Can anyone really believe that Iraq is better off now that he’s gone? The McCanns on the other hand have never been and never will be anybody’s victims.

    1. To Anonymous 15 Jan 18.11

      When Gerry is asked by a journalist on Australian TV in 2011 if he killed his daughter, he does not even try to hide is duping smile. I really hate to speculate, but I don’t think, that it’s so farfetched to imagine, that
      Madeleine may have fallen and hurt herself so seriously, that she has died, either due to Gerry or Kate slapping her or due to her being given an overdose of sleeping pills.

      In either case, they must have had a good reason to cover it up, as they must have known, that they would face serious charges. Normal parents would of course have called for medical assistance and for the police immediately, and would have faced the consequences without hesitating. Psychopaths, however, always make an attempt to escape justice, if they believe that they have got a chance to get away with a crime, no matter what crime it is about. The McCanns believed they could, so they tried. Things don’t have to be more complicated than that.

      Politicians, journalists, police detectives and others in the U K, who 9 years ago firmly believed in the McCanns’ innocence, are certainly today too ashamed to admit, that they were wrong. They are therefore keeping a low profile nowadays, or they just keep quiet. Outside social media, as I see it, there is a deafening silence over the whole case, probably for the said reason, but not because of any political conspiracy, although it’s of course a comic tragedy with too many people involved.

  11. Nutters. Life's too short - I'm out.


  12. DAYS of you pouring out bile against doubters and now you're simpering to Blacksmith who pointed out what everyone else had been saying.

    You hadn't thought about it like that.

    No, you ignored everyone saying it like it is.

    You didn't think and therein lies the problem.

    You blogged mindlessly then got aggressive and abusive with everyone who disagreed with your poorly reasoned words.

    Consider this for future ref: it's best to think BEFORE writing - or, at least, PUBLISHING your invective prose.

    Apologies from you are in order.

    Bet this won't see the light of day though.

    1. Goodness me that was quite a reprimand Mark! Are you a headmaster or a religious leader?

      Odd that you find my acceptance of making an error 'simpering', Why? I am a human being, I'm not perfect, or even pretending to be. JB was right, I was wrong, but he didn't feel the need to insult or humiliate me.

      Your words however mean nothing. Sometimes I will get things right, sometimes I won't, but doesn't that apply to everyone?

      As for apologies, who should I apologise to? An anonymous group of vitriolic obsessives, who spend their days abusing strangers on twitter? These are people who are not happy unless they are being offended, lol, I think I'll pass.

      Yes it saw the light of day, mostly because it gives such a good contrast between how to give constructive guidance, and how not to. Did I learn anything from your scolding? Nope. Did I learn anything from JB's advice? Yes, it opened another door to perception.

  13. I concur with 16.05, in my opinion if you wont answer police questions let alone go out and search for your own missing daughter (never mind everything else!!!!)then in all honesty you are not really deserving of any sympathy from the public. And please dont mention any of this "we all react differently", I dont believe there is a decent parent alive who would not spend the whole night at least searching !! Come on Ros, get back on track, that last sympathy blog for KM is right up there with adding the donate button ( I did warn you about that!). I have been a long time follower of yours and even did a bit of sparring with you back in the day on CMOMM. I enjoy your blogs and you make a lot of excellent points but you must see how people will be getting the wrong idea about you lately no? Save your sympathy for those who truly need and deserve it. When writing I think there is only one person who you need to have in the forefront of your mind, someone, who it seems never had a chance, MBM. I sincerely wish you the best Ros.
    A fan

    1. Many thanks 'A fan', and many thanks for sticking with me. I think I got caught up in a bit of a quagmire there. It was kind of you to comment, and I take on board your comment. Take care.

    2. As I know you like a saying Ros, "To err is human" and only 2 errs since you started this blog page is pretty good going in my book.Well done and keep up the good work!!
      a fan

  14. Ros on 13/01/17 "One final word. My pen is my sword, I can take down any one of you anytime I choose."

    Pride cometh before a fall.

    1. Tell me about it! As it has been my biggest sin, well, always, I have had more than my fair share of falls. I get knocked down, but I get back up again.

    2. Correction : Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

      That scripture is always misquoted.

  15. Ros, sorry, you are missing the point. Amaral was chucked off the case in Oct 07. By that time he was not able to assess all the contradictions about that supposed high tea on 3 May. HideHo has exposed those brilliantly - and remember, only one crèche nanny had to lie - the Lobsters nanny, Cat Baker. Nor did Amaral know that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday, not on Thursday as stated in Kate's pile of fiction. Surely you do not presume to disagree with PeterMac's conclusions on the Last Photo?

    1. Apologies for the date error. Regardless, it makes no difference, he was there, the armchair detectives were not.

      HideHo hasn't exposed anything if 'only one crèche nanny had to lie'. There is no sane reason for a crèche nanny to lie. Why would a young girl, a relative stranger to the parents, pervert the course of justice in such a heinous crime? HDH is delusional if she thinks her investigation is more convincing than the investigation of Goncalo Amaral, ditto Petermac.

    2. Peter Mac's conclusions on the last photo have as much value as his lies on the PDL weather data and his support of Peter Hyatt and R D Hall.
      That is a big fat zero.

      5 minutes research by OG would tell them he is barking mad and extremely mendacious.

      Anyone doubting this can you inform the world where the weather data recording station in PDL is?

      GPS co-ordinates would be good.

      Peter Mac's support of Hyatt in his E-Book, Chapter 19, is priceless drivel. If he had sent it to OG, Nicola Wall would arrest him for wasting Police time.

      So before you all get your knickers in a twist, read chapter 19 and you will know Peter Mac is a liar with an agenda.

      Why don't his disciples ask him to explain the lies, oh dear, of course they can't, he's too important to address the plebs direct.

    3. @ JJ16 January 2017 at 10:13

      Good God - you actually read MurkyMac's ebook!

      You do realise it is written by bennett.

      Just to remind people that PeterMac stopped posting at the time the amaral Gofundme started having donations from "serving UK Police men". GoFigure!

    4. Anonymous 16 January 2017 at 15:03

      “You do realise it is written by bennett.”

      Please substantiate your claim.


  16. No, I did not point out what "everyone else has been saying". I saw very few people on twitter McCann "saying it like it is". What I saw was the usual junk filth attacking the person, not the post - "she has gone over to the dark side"; "how much is she being paid?; how much has she had to drink?"

    I took up, politely, a single point.

    I will only add this about twitter. The little tree hugger calling itself Walker there, a thoroughly repulsive troll, has made a name for itself in the simplest possible way: waiting for thickos to quote the tabloid-derived junk rumours day after day after day and then quoting, accurately, from the files and other primary sources to correct them. All it does is carefully select its targets - those who are incapable of distinguishing between fact and fiction - in order to make mincemeat of their "facts". The victims never learn, never change and never realise that they are being deliberately targeted because they are simple.

    It's not the revolting way in which people slag off others like Ros that makes me advise her not to go there, except to announce a blog. It's the fact that the place is a virtually fact-free zone,an embarrassment to the McCann sceptic camp and something of a support to Kate and Gerry McCann themselves – “these are the people we are faced with. Just look at them”.

    1. Yes, but what a point it is. Linda failed to engage her brain in blindly supporting Kate McCann, after all that has happened in this past ten years and portraying her as a victim. So you encourage her launching into her clickbait-friendly swingeing offensives against everyone who did not agree with her faulty logic. Well, that has implications and it's revealing that you can encourage this behaviour by not decrying it.

      You really think Walker is "quoting, accurately, from the files"? Don't make me laugh. His or her frequent claims that Amaral is the head of a child sex ring are where, in these files? And death chemicals fade after 28 days, straight from Kate's book, not the police files. He regularly regurgitates the tabloids to suit, Portugal being a haven for paedophiles being a favourite.

      You've nailed your colours to the wrong mast, fella.

    2. well said Mark, the big question is, WHY is JB now telling us that walker is correct when its obvious to everyone walker is a multisocked/paid shill who is on twitter 24/7/365 doing the mccans bidding.And if hes not a paid shill, then hes clearly INSANE!!!

    3. I'm afraid that if you can't see that, in order to make the whole anti-McCann camp look vengeful and ignorant, the troll has very carefully provoked fights with those who quote fake facts on a daily basis, then you need to raise your game.

      Walker avoids the few people posting on twitter who know the case well like the plague.

      You're being used, chum, and you can't even see it.

    4. Wrong. He or she has long discussions with tweeters such as J B Littlemore, who has a thorough knowledge of the case combined with the patience to rebut all the misinformation being churned out.

      That police files link for Amaral being in charge of a child sex ring, when you have it.

    5. well in my opinion he does not seem to be doing a very good job then.99.9999% of the time he just looks like an idiot copying and pasting from a set script. he appears to scare off more of the pros rather than the antis as well (even loverandomleigh thinks hes bad news)) and alaskanbrawl is now on his case all the time too, which is hilarious. So im guessing the ones he avoids, like lindalee, are giving us solid undeniable facts. Ok understood (I am NOT being sarcastic there).Not sure how im being used though, im not on twitter or any site, im anonymous, and I can make up my own mind through my own research, all this is just entertainment...which is why you guys blog no?
      signed chum

  17. Respect to Blacksmith for having the balls to point out what a set of horrors the Twitter #mccann mob are. They will probably turn on him next. It is uncomfortable to watch the antics of Thompson, Rico, McCartney, McFadden et al. Secondly Ros you don't have to apologize to anyone for your opinions. As a fellow #mccann sceptic I happen to agree that the sexed up theories & accusations from the armchair detectives are a disgrace. Stick to your guns and keep up the good work.
    Another fan who appreciates your intelligent contributions to the McCann debate.
    (Cue Thompson claiming I'm Ros) <>

    1. Hello. They turned on me years ago so it's just more of the same.

    2. I have posted every blog you have written on the McCann case on various Facebook pages and in groups, with only positive comments, ever, John. If that is turning on you, I'm unable to see how that works!

  18. I have no sympathy for the McCanns whatsoever, but in my view the point of the story is opposing or supporting ‘capital punishment’. I oppose it, but I understand ‘support’ that wouldn’t arise if the authorities had done their job.

    Social media is still in its infancy with the usual teething troubles. It will work itself out eventually (I hope).

    Fortunately, there’s a lol every now and then, e.g. ZiggySawdust @18:05 “The only sheep i have time for end up on my plate on a Sunday afternoon.” - ROFL


  19. "The case wasn't complicated!" (Rosalinda@02:39). Unlike some of the comments above.

    The very first asks: "if you've read Dr Martin Roberts' 'Nightwear Job'?"

    To which Rosalinda replies: "I read Dr. Martin Roberts years ago."

    But the article in question is less than a year old. Wouldn't a simple 'yes' or 'no' have sufficed?

    The same over-long response terminates in a simple contrast:

    "It really is a straight forward choice, who do you believe?

    "1. The armchair detectives who only have access to 10 year old evidence or,

    "2. The lead detective who actually worked the case and who's word the McCanns have spent the entire Madeleine Fund trying to suppress?"

    The McCanns have not invested 'the entire Madeleine fund' in trying to suppress the word of Goncalo Amaral, unless that should be a very loose interpretation of their purpose in throwing money at the likes of Kevin Halligen and Baron Bell. However it is option 1 here that is more seriously misleading.

    Provided the evidence in question is not bio-degradable it doesn't matter how old it is! (The team that discovered Richard III's last resting place were not acting on a 'tip off').

    But let's focus on simplicity.

    "No matter how many fecking layers you peel back (and just how big is that onion?), the mother still opened the window to make it look like an abduction." (Rosalinda @02:39).

    So, if the crime was made to look like an abduction, then it obviously wasn't one, and the woman who took those steps is, according to Blacksmith, "genuinely insane or has been guilty of calculated wickedness on a gigantic scale" (15.1 @14:56).

    Personally I favour the latter explanation. And since there neither is nor was any evidence of abduction whatsoever, then, quite apart from the true fate of their child, the McCanns are guilty of fraud on an international scale; something I think GA alludes to in his book, when describing a meeting at which the Leicester police were present (and aghast).

    "It was never a difficult case to solve, but it seems to have been near impossible to prove!" (Rosalinda @02:39)

    I think that depends on what one is trying to prove exactly. The McCanns have clung to the impossibility of proving a negative, to paraphrase GM, as if the lack of evidence of any abduction is not sufficient in itself.

    But proving Madeleine McCann was not abducted does not require her body to be discovered.

    Returning to the unanswered question posed at the very top of this thread, if someone should demonstrate that the clothes Madeleine was supposedly wearing at the time of her disappearance did not actually go anywhere, then it's 'job done' as far as I'm concerned.

  20. "Posted by Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton at 05:52"

    Ros - a genuine suggestion to you - don't publish new blogs in the middle of the night.

    Prepare it by all means - but review it in the light of a new day before publishing.

    1. Excellent advice 15:06, but not sure I will be able to take it. I write when I am inspired, and that can be any time of the day, or indeed night. Actually, the night is favourite time to write, because it is so peaceful. No doors, no phones, no hustle and bustle.

      While your advice makes sense, if I don't publish a blog whilst 'in the zone', the chances are I won't publish it all. I have hundreds that I have not published, they become overtaken by events or I have moved onto something else.

      I am not infallible 15:06, which is why I welcome correction and/or challenges to my opinions. For me nothing is set in stone, I am often swayed by alternate views and better arguments. Life for me is a constant learning process, and the only way to learn is to keep an open mind.

      I probably should be far more ruthless in editing myself, and I do on occasion 'aim for perfection'. Aiming for perfection however, is a double edged sword, for an artist, it unleashes the 'maniacal' because nothing is EVER good enough. I once spent a night with a friend looking after a batshit crazy Russian icon painter in an art gallery in Sloane Street. His work was being exhibited the next day. However as taking care of said loon involved drinking a lot of vodka, he escaped our care and painted out the face on his exhibit's centrepiece!

      Although he was as mad as a box of frogs, he managed to repair the damage before the Exhibition opened, and as the copious vodka drinking continued, I'm not sure anyone noticed!

      Sometimes I just go with the passion and 'publish and be damned'. I think with writing, we are all our own biggest critics. We overthink and talk ourselves out of 'pressing send', and often that is a shame.

  21. Hi Rosalinda
    I can see, as well as you do Rosalinda, that Kate is so inflicted with guilt, and that she also suffers enormously. Her increasingly pained facial expressions reveal so much about her feelings of guilt, just as Gerry’s smirking and duping smile used to do “in the early days”, when British MSM still questioned the McCanns’ innocence.

    I must say, that I cannot understand why we should not pity the McCanns, or at least feel a little bit sorry for a couple, who definitely suffer from severe narcissism and a lot more, making them unable to feel empathy, remorse or compassion, which isn’t the same thing as sympathizing with them.

    This is not about evil, but about a mental decease. The McCanns’ inconsistent statements are just as bizarre as are their behaviour and actions. There isn’t really any point in accusing them of anything, but of not telling the whole truth. In the past they refused to co-operate with the Portuguese P J. In doing so, they managed to sabotage the whole Portuguese investigation. At present they are not being investigated at all, by any Police authority, and that isn’t entirely their fault. As for their need of suing and accusing innocent people, I can only say; “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

  22. Ros is a perfect example of how freedom of speech on the internet does not work.

    Ros wants to dish the crap out, but does not accept the crap she receives back.

    1. (part1)

      It's all gone a bit Twitter i see...

      Ten years is a long time.What's the usual span allowed before a missing person is declared dead ? Then, having asked this, i remind myself this is not a 'usual' case, is it ?

      Ten years is a long time to get frustrated too.More often than not, that kind of frustration, if not dealt with, will turn to anger- even if the source of the frustration has no effect on your own life come what may. I see that anger turned to the targets McCann. There's an pretty large movement against them and it grows daily thanks to #gimmeabreak

      So, what have we got( said like a hard -bitten , cynical seen it all detective). Madeleine was abducted, possibly on behalf of elite paedophile or paedophile gang. Madeleine was killed, either accidentally or on purpose by her Mum or Dad, or both.

      The case for(and against) Abuction Vs Killer McCanns : The McCanns were at dinner with friends and left their children unattended.Later they discovered her gone.Much has been made(even by people who aren't stupid) of the 'they've taken her' scream of Kate McCann.I imagine the 'they' hints at a plural of he or she(hence 'gang').The first time i was burgled( yes, the first-I live in Liverpool) i recall Mr Plod asking 'where did they get in' Later, I offered 'they went in here too'.Neither of us had any idea if it was one or more burglars.It's how we speak. There were no fingerprints on the window, not even mine.It's as though they had gloves on or wiped the surface so as to leave no trace.Had only mine been there, gloves would be the likely explanation / conclusion /.They 'abducted' a few things i'd rather have kept. Bastards. No DNA, nothing. Funny thing is that DNA. When it was announced to the world as the ultimate foolproof fingerprint, we all felt safer-well apart from my abductor of personal property and his(her, their) ilk.But what of the over-discussed DNA at the crime scene in discussion ? It was dismissed. Further to this, none other than Sir Alec Jeffreys, who pioneered this new miracle science ( but notably doesn't have a twitter account) offered to be a witness for the McCanns should it be offered up by the prosecution.And then there's the dogs.On top of found blood( DNA ?) they smelt death. Let's not forget, DNA tells you who it used to live in.It doesn't reveal who ended their life.Only the killers DNA can do that.The dogs can tell you someone died there, but, again, not who did the killing.So, even if the DNA and dog's evidence were permitted as a case for the prosecution, and then believed by a jury, where's the evidence identifying the perps ? If a defence accepted the game was against them they'd suggest the same thing. ; proof of a body isn't proof of the killer.

    2. (part2)

      Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed 'Cracker'. I enjoyed some episodes of CSI too.But I've also had my head buried in more psychology books than you could shake a phallic symbol at.They're dramas. They may include a bold strain of didactacism, but that's only to strengthen the drama's realism, not to recruit a million coppers with magical 'gifts'.It's so easy to influence via the tube isn't it. If you don't believe me, go see the comment section of any youtube vid discussing the case and you'll see people quoting things like 'embedded confessions' thanks to Hyatt et al. Suddenly we have a third all seeing eye and third ear.It reminds of the 'backmasking' phenomenon that swept the net. You know the one, Led Zeppelin talking about Satan in his shed with his tool box if you play Stairway To Heaven backwards , and then there's the famous Judas Priest one that went to court because of 'hidden messages' in songs telling fans to kill themselves( of course they would, that's a great business plan).The list grows.It works like this.You see it, you get curious( try it on youtube) and it plays.The 'message' comes up a millisecond before the subtitles appear.You read it and you 'find ' it . When you became curious your brain was primed.If i played Bohemian Rhapsody and held up the words ''Beelzebub has a devil for a sideboard meeee' just before the great Mr mercury sang it, you'd hear it. It isn't rocket salad is it . The same kind of thing works if you get 'curious'( starving?) when the likes of Hyatt pipe up.Those who are desperate enough to find a fresh lead on a stale trail will buy it.Then sell it-or try to. They'll have a huge customer base of fellow pseudo detectives who've been as hungry as they are. The same ones who look at a picture of Kate McCann and see 'evil' instead of strain . The same ones who see her smiling or laughing and use that as 'evil and uncaring'( even though sitting in a puddle of tears tearing her hair out would be tantamount to child -neglect of her twins).And then they turn to the Lolita set of pictures.Suddenly the insinuations turn to suggesting that it must have been the norm for her to be dressed as a little adult.There was blood.there was a body.So, there was a murdering paedophile or two 'in house'.All clever stuff.It tells you a lot more, in terms of evidence, about the social network detective agency than it does about anyone involved or not involved in the missing Madeleine mystery.( the defence rests for a bit m'lud)

    3. @18:26
      Your comment is a perfect example of how Rosalinda publishes the crap she receives back.

  23. @ 15.11..'' must say, that I cannot understand why we should not pity the McCanns, or at least feel a little bit sorry for a couple, who definitely suffer from severe narcissism and a lot more, making them unable to feel empathy, remorse or compassion, which isn’t the same thing as sympathizing with them.............''

    An inability to feel remorse, empathy or compassion makes a person a PSYCOPATH and all this constant talk of the McCanns being narcissists is too generous and forgiving by half. The ability to keep up the abduction scenario with a straight face ( although admittedly they do fail on occasion ) is an Oscar winning performance in itself . We know it, the PJ know it , the McCanns know it and OG know it so why are they still walking free?

    1. To Anonymous 15 Jan 18.53
      You're absolutely right. I just left the word "psychopath" out, but it was implicit in my text. However, I've used it explicitly in a recent comment to Anonymous 15 Jan 18.11.

    2. I don't think life as a psychopath is all it's cracked up to be. Do they ever laugh for example? I recently read an article that pointed out Donald Trump never laughs. It stuck in my head, so naturally I had to look it up, and it's true, he cannot laugh. How freaky, and indeed sad, is that?

      I don't think psychopaths are without any emotions, they are very quick to anger for example, and are ripped apart by anything that affects them directly. However, they are so paranoid about hanging on to everything they have, they don't have the freedom to enjoy it. They think everyone around them is plotting and scheming as much as they are. They can't relax because they are being eaten alive by paranoia and neurosis.

  24. Can anyone else see what reliance on an "interim" report leads to?

    Does no-one else know what "interim" means?

  25. Sharon Lawrence posted a complete lie on the cesspit (the fund accounts being late).

    1. she was allowed to get away with it.
    2. she was not banned for it.
    2, she is stilled allowed to post.

    welcome to bennet cesspit where you can say and do what you want.

    1. @19:32
      Who cares who does what on Bennet's blog ? This is a different blog.

    2. @ Ziggy 20.39

      Are you so insular and self centred that you have no interest in anywhere else?

  26. @18:53

    '' An inability to feel remorse, empathy or compassion makes a person a PSYCOPATH and all this constant talk of the McCanns being narcissists is too generous and forgiving by half. The ability to keep up the abduction scenario with a straight face ''

    1- Remorseful about what ? If they're innocent, they wouldn't feel remorse, they'd feel anger. I've seen them break and display anger more than once- but then they're psychopaths.

    2- What are they supposed to be feeling empathy with or for who ? They've lost a child , been let down by several policemen and politicians and have to have permission to say what they want cleared by Clarence Mitchell.

    3- Compassion for who ? They've lost their child. Shouldn't others show compassion ?

    4- Abduction scenario. If the child was abducted by paedophiles or a nutter we( and they) can only guess . If you're suggesting they're using the story to deflect attention from a murder they committed, you need to provide evidence that would stand up in court.

    '' We know it, the PJ know it , the McCanns know it and OG know it so why are they still walking free?''

    Because of point 4.

    1. Hi Ziggy, having stepped back from the brink of insanity lol, there a two incidents that demonstrate psychopathy, or actually, I would prefer to say pure evil.

      1. Kate stating she wanted Goncalo Amaral to feel misery and fear, and
      2. Gerry wanted an example made of an alleged troll

      I know there are plenty more, but those two premeditated actions loaded with malice aforethought, chill me to the bone.

    2. I have never thought ( or stated for that matter ) that the McCanns are guilty of murdering their own child. That is a step too far for me but I certainly don't go along with any abduction scenario. Too many contradictions for that to be true. Who abducts a dead child? A child that lay dead in situ long enough for the cadaver dogs to detect 'the odour of death.' In answer to your bullet points ( thought you didn't like using them ):

      1.Remorseful for the way they treat anyone who suspects them of not being entirely truthful. Remorseful for putting Amaral through the courts for doing the job he was supposed to be doing. ( unlike O.G. ) Remorseful for setting up a fund to try and find a child that they know is already dead . I could go on.
      2 Empathy is a quality that non psychopaths naturally possess.
      3. Compassion is again a quality that non psychopaths normally possess. It's hardly demonstrating compassion to allow yourself to become an ambassador of Missing People , as a representative for genuinely bereft parents.
      4.Who abducts a dead child? The windows weren't jemmied. Only Kate's fingerprints on the open window. They can't even get their stories straight.
      They are still walking free because it suits certain elements that that should be the case.

    3. @09:33

      I agree with you on the reason why they are still walking free.

      As for ‘psychopathic traits’, it might just be a case of survival instinct?

    4. ZiggySawdust 16 January 2017 at 22:08

      “1- Remorseful about what ?”

      Having neglected Madeleine.

      “If they're innocent, they wouldn't feel remorse, they'd feel anger”

      It is reasonable to expect the McCanns to feel remorse for having neglected Madeleine.

      2- What are they supposed to be feeling empathy with or for who ?

      With or for Madeleine, above but not excluding anyone else (two sincere Catholics, The Golden Rule and more)

      “…They've … been let down by several policemen and politicians and have to have permission to say what they want cleared by Clarence Mitchell..”

      Reads like your so far unsubstantiated conjectures.

      3- Compassion for who ?

      For Madeleine, above but not excluding anyone else

      “They've lost their child.”

      Due to their negligence on their own admission.

      “Shouldn't others show compassion ?”

      Countless “others” have been showing compassion.

      “If you're suggesting they're using the story to deflect attention from a murder they committed, you need to provide evidence that would stand up in court.”

      “…a murder they committed…”

      Where has “a murder they committed” come from? ‘Projection’ perhaps?

      “…stand up in court”?

      Please clarify, bearing in mind that so far there is no evidence whatsoever of abduction and there is a great deal of converging evidence (which, I should humbly propose, would be capable of withstanding hostile cross-examination in a court of law) that there either was or could have been no abduction.

      “'' We know it, the PJ know it , the McCanns know it and OG know it so why are they still walking free?''

      Because of point 4.”

      I quote the relevant paragraph of Anonymous 16 January 2017 at 18:53 :

      “An inability to feel remorse, empathy or compassion makes a person a PSYCOPATH and all this constant talk of the McCanns being narcissists is too generous and forgiving by half. The ability to keep up the abduction scenario with a straight face ( although admittedly they do fail on occasion ) is an Oscar winning performance in itself . We know it, the PJ know it , the McCanns know it and OG know it so why are they still walking free?”

      The ‘it’, in the ultimate sentence, unambiguously refers to something said and/or implied in the penultimate sentence. The only plausible interpretation of the two sentences taken together seems to be: the McCanns’ “…ability to keep up the abduction scenario with a straight face ( although admittedly they do fail on occasion ) is an Oscar winning performance in itself” gives rise to the question “…why are they still walking free?”. I accept that it might be difficult to guess what the writer had intended to say and/or imply, but I am certain the writer had not had “a murder they committed” in mind.

    5. Anonymous 17 January 2017 at 09:33

      “A child that lay dead in situ long enough for the cadaver dogs to detect 'the odour of death.'”

      Cadaverine odour was indeed indicated by one of the dogs, Eddie. This, by itself, would not necessarily entail the conclusion that “A child that lay dead in situ long enough for the cadaver dogs to detect 'the odour of death.'”. Other possibilities exist, secondary transfer for instance.

      You are looking in the right direction however, as far as I’m concerned.

      Many thanks.


  27. @ 20:39

    I have many interests far and wide. I have no interest in bullshit or bullshitters.I'm not sure what you mean about me being self -centred even if i didn't have so many interests.Next time you browse a child's guide to psychology, look up 'projection'. In the meantime - off you pop 'anonymous' .

    1. Ho Ros

      I get what you mean about the two remarks cited. it's worth some thought. Katie decided Amaral was the enemy. Amaral was naming her and hubby as suspects, as possible killers of their baby.What do we make of it ? If Kate did it or knew about it then the remark would fit that of a psychopath.If she didn't do it, and the abduction really had taken place, Amaral's remarks would make her blood boil and she'd lash out. Evidence would answer either way.The endless innuendo about her being a bit temperamental as a parent in the few years Madeleine was about tend to colour peoples views.Show me a mum of two or more toddlers who hasn't wanted to scream the street down at some point. Kids can wind you up at that stage of their life.It's their job.

      Gerry remarking about making an example of a troll was a bit more broad I think. Didn't he point to online bloggers and social media trolls in general with their creative, but destructive ideas and accusations ?Again, if he didn't do anything or know who did, wouldn't he also lash out ? If he is guilty then we can say he too is a psychopath. It went against him when Brenda Leyland was found dead shortly after being doorstepped by one of Rupert Murdoch's army of dead heads.

      I have two points. First, to Kate and Gerry I'd remind them that Madeleine's plight has become a public injury as well as a private one.Everyone who sees her face and remembers her story feels angry . It's the McCanns who want her in the publics face day after day so they have to realise it.Also, I know certain journalists, in an attempt to appear anti-establishment( bollocks to that) talk about tax payers spending millions on the case.Tax payers haven't spent a penny. The Government did that without asking.The tax payer had no say.So, a public who has been forcibly brought into it all is entitled to voice an opinion.I'd suggest If Kate and Gerry are as innocent as they claim they should turn their demands to the diplomats who are terrified of the truth coming out.No body of people go to such lengths to control what comes out and what's 'lost' and which avenues are deliberately not explored.Not unless they are part of the crime. The McCanns take flak for them either knowingly or not.It wasn't the parents asking for funds or handouts, it was once the Mitchell crew got involved.It wasn't their evasiveness we saw in interviews, it was scripted for them by the hijackers of the case.It wasn't Kate's decision to 'no comment' her way through a police interview,, it was her lawyers.

      My other point is for Amaral. When he got there all he found was hysteria and panic and no Madeleine.Here's what a so-called 'top' copper would have or should have noted : If an abduction, as claimed, had taken place, the abductors would have to have known it was safe to strike, ergo, they'd had a vantage point to see whoever had checked on the kids had just left.The apartment was the closest to the road.If it was an abduction it was meticulously planned.Would meticulous planners then hit the road at speed and risk several CCTV sightings on their journey ? No, is the simple answer. So alerting various borders to stop vehicles was always a loser.The road next to the apartment was a short walk to the sea.That's where boats or yachts would be.There should have been swarms of police on water not the road. There are no speed cameras out there.

    2. Ziggy Sawdust 10.01

      Its always the same implied slur against Detective Amaral.

      You write: here is what a so-called 'top' cop would have or should have noticed. When he got there all he found was hysteria and panic.

      Total and absolute crap.

      Mr Amaral, did not go to PDL until Friday afternoon, as anyone following this case would know.

      But then why bother with the truth when slur and innuendo will do.

    3. It's possibly why GA wanted to do a reconstruction with all the key players in attendance, as I suspect he knew the statements given were inconsistent with an abduction. Looking at the whole picture, none of us know what really happened that night, all we can do is put forward possible theories from reading the official files from the PJ and reading GA's book as he would have more insight being the detective in charge. I myself don't believe the abduction theory, but I believe Madeline died as result of an accident which the parents for whatever reason didn't want the authorities involved straight away. There actions prior to and afterwards to me raised concerns. The intervention by key VIP's has blown this all out of proportion and possible knee jerk and jumping on the bandwagon reactions at time has resulted in a face saving PR stunt now.

    4. Hi Ziggy, I have been kinda 'absent' for a while, the morose side of me has had charge and it brings the rest of us down :(

      For someone so enlightened on human behaviour and psychology, I am perplexed as to way in which you have so sweepingly absolved the parents of guilt. I know I was heading that way myself for a while, but I'm a self confessed loon.

      The Fund for example. Clarence may have been the ideas man, but Gerry and Kate went along with them, very enthusiastically too, I might add. They took fundraising to a new level, never before has so much money been raised for one child.

      Gerry and Kate are adults, ergo they are responsible for their own actions. They are not vulnerable, in that they are well educated, articulate and fully able to understand the consequences of their actions.

      For example, with Goncalo Amaral. Their vendetta against Goncalo, is not logical. First and foremost, it was their own actions that led to Madeleine's loss. THEY are to blame. Innocent parents don't blame the police, they blame themselves.

      The McCanns have spent more time and money denying they put their children at risk than anything else. Defending their own actions has been their top priority throughout.

      But kudos to them, they were able to direct their guilt, anger, hatred towards GA rather than inwards, and they managed to drag many others into their delusion. They made GA the bad guy and themselves the victims.

      Even if this were a genuine abduction and Gerry and Kate were the victims of an incompetent police force, their behaviour has been narcissistic and psychopathic. Kate not only wished Goncalo misery and fear, she has used much of Madeleine's Fund to destroy Goncalo's life. Many of us say things in anger or the heat of the moment, but we don't carry on with it for 10 years!

      Believe me Ziggy, I have looked for non evil reasons for the actions of those involved, but I just can't get past their willingness to hurt others. Innocent men like Robert Murat, dragged from their homes with a hood over their heads, or middle aged ladies afraid to use their real names because they don't believe the official abduction story.

      Their huge loss of public support Ziggy, has been as a result of their own actions and behaviour. When people constantly whine about how hard done by they are, the crowds will walk away.

      They kept all the millions that were donated, not a penny has been used to help any other child. It hasn't even helped Madeleine. Nothing good has been done in her name. No memorial, no legacy.

      The real faces of the real missing kids remain in the 'no-one gives a shit' pile, while the face of the non missing Madeleine fronts.

      So Ziggy, how do you explain the 10 year vendetta against GA? It is not reasoned, it is not rational, it is not logical and ultimately it is self destructive. I can explain, lol, but I'm interested to hear your explanation. :)

  28. Anonymous 16.1 @13:34

    “...if someone should demonstrate that the clothes Madeleine was supposedly wearing at the time of her disappearance did not actually go anywhere, then it's 'job done' as far as I'm concerned.”

    I concur.

    The clothes Madeleine was supposedly wearing, are not the clothes ‘Tannerman child’ and ‘Smithsman child’ was/were wearing. The McCanns should know that, shouldn’t they?

    1. Quite so.

      Except that the clothing discrepancies only serve to invalidate the sighting(s) in question. They do not necessarily negate the possibility of (unwitnessed) abduction.

      Any evidence that Madeleine's abducted pyjamas actually remained behind would seriously undermine the parents' claim.

    2. Volumes have been written about Madeleine's pyjamas as if they are the key to the mystery.

      Here's a thing. I sometimes wonder if all those so devoted to the pyjamas, have considered that the McCanns may not have been telling the truth as to what Madeleine was wearing when she disappeared?

      Hmm. Is it possible that these two parents who have lied throughout, may have been telling porkies when holding up those pyjamas to the cameras?

      What about the clothes Madeleine was wearing that day? Clothes that should have been in the washing basket and loaded with Madeleine's scent and DNA?

  29. @09:33
    I take your points, and some good ones too. As no arrests have been made, evidence has been dismissed and eye witness testimony has served to confuse matters, i was suggesting that as things stand both McCanns are innocent( until etc ). Many have decided they are guilty, therefore evil, and when they see pictures or interviews they find 'evidence' in how they speak, their overall demeanour,and what they omit from their respsonses.I'm trying to level the see-saw by imagining the opposite and that they are( according to the current official verdict) innocent. So, I can read pained expressions as pain rather than evil-that fits.I can read angry responses as anger because they're being put on trial publicly online and under the spotlights on television with severe limits on what they might be able to say if allowed( key word, allowed).If they're innocent as we're told by officials, then all of this is on top of the tragedy of losing their baby and the guilt of leaving them alone. If this was /is the case, would they need to show remorse for attacking back at attackers who had less information than the police forces and MI 6 ? And isn't allowing yourself to become an ambassador for missing people demonstrating empathy for the plight of their loved ones and compassion ? Compassion where it's due and which has been in short supply for the McCanns ?

    I know the difference between psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists . I can understand, to a degree, how people 'read' Gerry's remarks and demeanour as the last - identified, as he appears( appears) arrogant and dismissive ( superior).But never mistake emotional numbness for emotional disconnection ; one is temporary one is permanent .

    For me, their big no, no was their choice of words when asked about Stephen Birch. The 'who is he ' suggesting that he was a nobody or wannabe sleuth didn't do them a lot of good when you consider the 'no stone unturned' approach they had announced. A golden opportunity was presented to them that day. Had they agreed to allow the stones of Murat's drive to be turned and had team McCann done so and put pressure on the police to do it, it would have gone one of two ways. Madeleine would have been found, or someone or something else would be found and the worldwide response would have been 'when are cranks, trolls, wannabes and people gonna give these two people a break, haven't they been through enough ?' They would have had mass public sympathy and support and the detective agency online would have needed to calm down and wake up. Birch and his like would have been shut down for good reason then and now. But the reason all police dismissed the idea as 'unreliable' doesn't make sense( especially when you consider how many wild goose chases they sanctioned all around the globe). I put it in the same file as the then home secretaries decision to conceal two eye witness testimonies who spoke of the location. Dark forces were at play that night in May.A plan was executed.

    1. Hi Ziggy, I agree with your comment about people already being judge, jury & executioner. They are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. However their actions have created a lot of criticism and until this matter is resolved by finding a body or confession by someone, all we have is complete guesswork.

    2. I really enjoy your psychological insights Ziggy, they raise interesting issues, many thanks.

      As for Birch, I found Kate's haughty 'who is he?' comment quite amusing, though as you say, it didn't do her any favours on the likeability front. She was however right. As we have seen this high profile case has attracted all sorts of screwballs, chancers and interfering busybodies, Birch belongs in the same 'nutcases' box as Bennett and Hall. Imagine Bennett demanding someone's drive be digged up and it puts it into perspective.

    3. Eddie and Keela had been all over Murat's property back in August 2007 and didn't alert to anything - including the driveway pinpointed by Birch.

      If you believe the dogs were 100% accurate with all their other alerts, then you cannot turn around and believe that Madeleine McCann (or any other body) is buried under that driveway.

    4. I believe the dogs were 100% accurate. How strange, though, that Kate McCann holds Stephen Birch in contempt (“Who is this person at the end of the day”), but she gets along with Danie Krugel who “sounded like a nice person (family man, ‘fellow Christian’)".

    5. Anonymous 20 January 2017 at 12:06
      Anonymous 20 January 2017 at 15:17

      These dogs had been 100% accurate when they alerted.

      An argument from common sense:

      It might’ve have been the case however that the quantities of the compound/s to which the dogs would alert were below the alert threshold and/or masked so as to decrease the dogs’ sense of smell in general and/or with regard to certain compound/s in particular.

      In other words, when the dogs alerted, that which they had been trained to alert to was present. When they didn’t alert, there would remain a possibility, however small, that the dogs were ‘mistaken’.


  30. ZiggySawdust 16 January 2017 at 20:39

    “Who cares who does what on Bennet's blog ?”

    Judging by the numerous references on this blog to “the cesspit” and such, it would appear some do care. Shouldn’t they? And why shouldn’t they?

    “This is a different blog.”

    Thank you for such a glorious revelation.


  31. @10.01
    At no point did Amaral insinuate that the McCanns killed Madeleine. He was of the opinion that an accidental death had occurred and for whatever reason the McCanns weren't coming clean. He actually handed them a 'get out clause' on a plate but the BIG question is, why didn't they just go with it ? Accidents happen everyone. Bad decisions are everyone. WHAT was so awful that they couldn't just admit there'd been a terrible accident and accept the consequences ? For me, finding THAT is the lost piece of the jigsaw puzzle.

    1. I like your post 13:39, but I think the lost piece of the jigsaw is right in front of us.

      Six doctors felt safe enough to leave babies and toddlers alone in their holiday apartments without fear those toddlers would get up, wander around the strange apartment, climb the furniture, drink cleaning fluids, or crack their heads on sharp corners.

      Think of every danger faced by tots in the home and then multiply them by 100, because they are in the dark and in unfamiliar surroundings. Turn your back for 30 seconds and a toddler can have an accident, imagine what they can do 30 minutes plus?

      How could 6 doctors, including 2 anaesthetists, ensure those toddlers would stay asleep and stay in their beds? We mere mortals can't, even the most delightful cherub will use everything in their power to stop you from going and having fun without them. When you say 'nite nite, sleep tight', their little heads say 'let the games begin'.

      How could these families know the kids would not wake up and create mayhem? Why did the twins sleep peacefully throughout the alarm being raised and all the hysterical screaming and shouting of their parents and others?

      All of these doctors had everything to lose if they were charged with neglect/child endangerment and possibly drugging their own children. All faced being struck off. That I feel was the 'disaster', the missing piece of the jigsaw, the reason behind the 'pact'.

      It doesn't need embellishment, if your life is planned out in coffee cups and career goals, being struck off your professional register, is the WORST than could happen.

  32. Anonymous 17 January 2017 at 12:48


    Many thanks.


  33. @jj

    '' Its always the same implied slur against Detective Amaral ''

    I wasn't implying anything, i was pretty explicit. He's painted as the martyr by all the McCann haters. I can see their point as he lost his job and was screwed in court. The McCann's took him to court, but they didn't fire him did they ? There's a chorus of approval for him now . He still made misjudgements and i pointed one out. I stand by it. I only referred to what happened on the night of May 3rd. I think Kate screaming and panicking and Gerry on his knees as everyone was scattered aimlessly around constitutes panic and hysteria . I would have read it that way anyway.I wouldn't have waited a few years to re-read all of that as 'lies' because the McCanns are 'psychopaths' and label it 'total crap' as you have.

    '' Thank you for such a glorious revelation''
    You're welcome, T. It's always nice to help.

    As for Amaral not insinuating the McCanns killed their child, i think naming them as suspects and declaring his opinion of them as being liars is pretty close to insinuating they were guilty of killing her, accidentally or not.

    1. Ziggy

      You may stand by Amarals misjudgements on the night of May 3 in PDL but he never saw Kates screaming or Gerry on his knees because he was not there.
      Why do you feel the need to lie over this?

      Another spouting smear and innuendo but never a shred of proof.
      Surprise us all and show Amaral was in 5A on May 3 or the conclusion is you are another member of the make it up club!

    2. ZiggySawdust 17 January 2017 at 16:05

      '' Thank you for such a glorious revelation''
      You're welcome, T. It's always nice to help.”

      I appreciate the courtesy of your reply. Indeed, it’s always nice to help.

      “As for Amaral not insinuating the McCanns killed their child, i think naming them as suspects and declaring his opinion of them as being liars is pretty close to insinuating they were guilty of killing her, accidentally or not.”

      If you intended the preceding paragraph to be for my attention, I would assure you that I had said nothing about Dr Amaral on this blog. Since you’ve mentioned him, I might as well tell you that I know not of Dr Amatal’s ‘insinuating’ anything about the McCanns. Perhaps you could help me with this as well.

      It so happens that there is evidence in the public domain that leaves many in no reasonable doubt that the McCanns have been untruthful on many occasions. I am one of the many. Is it your view then that I am “nsinuating the McCanns killed their child”?

      Many thanks.


  34. @T

    No, if i was addressing you with a remark.i'd have addressed you. I saw a comment about the subject above the post and replied to it.With regards to 'evidence' in the public domain being concrete enough to charge, they would have been charged.If it was concrete, of course. But it isn't is it ?As you say yourself, 'leaves many in no reasonable doubt' that the parents lied.If there's concrete proof of this, it's game over.So, why is the game still on ? If memory loss ( changing statements, confusing timeline etc) is their main thrust, it's pretty subjective. When your worlds been turned upside down by a trauma it can be pretty confusing to tell if it's New York or New Year. That would be the defence.That would be hard for a jury to argue with if they have humanity.Again, i wasn't insinuating you were insinuating anything about the McCanns . I think the reply I made was more concerned with JJ's defence of top cop, Amaral and my assertion that he A, made a mistake, and B, went further than merely insinuate the McCanns were guilty. By saying they covered up the 'death' by 'faking' her disappearing is pretty much saying he thought they'd killed her( who else would they cover up for-it's their child).However, before JJ bursts a hormone and has another 'make it up club' moment, let me leave you with this( you can copy and paste it into Goggle if you want):

    '' The ex-police chief who claimed “the McCanns covered up Maddie’s death by
    faking her disappearance” has announced he is planning to sue the
    couple for compensation in a new blow for the couple.''

    1. ZiggySawdust 17 January 2017 at 18:49

      “No, if i was addressing you with a remark.i'd have addressed you. I saw a comment about the subject above the post and replied to it.”

      You did address me. I think I now understand what happened. Somewhat unconventional perhaps but we can leave it at that.

      “With regards to 'evidence' in the public domain being concrete enough to charge, they would have been charged…”

      My paragraph you refer to comprises two premises and a question as to your view on a deductive inference therefrom (if such an inference can be made that is). I quote:

      “It so happens that there is evidence in the public domain that leaves many in no reasonable doubt that the McCanns have been untruthful on many occasions. I am one of the many. Is it your view then that I am “nsinuating the McCanns killed their child”?”

      (I erred in ‘cutting and pasting’ “insinuating” with the first ’i’ missing).

      I note that instead of answering the question, you seem to have attempted to impute to me the notion of “'…evidence' in the public domain being concrete enough to charge.”

      Would you care to explain? Please…

      On receipt of your explanation, I’ll have a go at commenting on your post further.



  35. Ziggy they were made suspects due to the findings of the dogs

  36. @ 19:00
    Yep,I know.And the blood. But I'm merely supporting, with evidence, my assertion that Amaral insinuated the McCanns had lied and covered up her death and fabricated an abduction scenario, therefore were guilty of her death or played a major part in it. As I've said before, the dogs smelt death.Naturally we can assume if there was a death it would be Madeleine, unless some other suspicious goings on had happened in 5A prior to the McCanns arriving( highly unlikely).But, as i also stated, proof of a body isn't proof of the killer. An abductor could, in theory, have killed her and made off with her and his incriminating DNA. Nobody saw an abductor, nobody saw McCann kill.

    What I don't know, and would like to know, is this . Who was the last of the tapas gang to look in on Madeleine. He'd be my suspect if I thought there wasn't a kidnap-to-order .Which I do .

    1. Hi Ziggy

      The last person, except of Kate and Gerry, who saw Madeleine was Dave Payne, while paying a short visit to Kate late in the afternoon, if we are to believe him. Matthew Oldfield checked on Madeleine later in the evening around 21H30, but did not see her. So he says anyway. Payne’s and Oldfield’s statements are highly suspicious. Those two persons have not been sufficiently investigated. We still don’t really know the reasons as to why Payne visited Kate, nor do we know why Oldfield didn’t look at Madeleine or at her bed, when that was what he was supposed to do, when he offered his help to watch on the McCanns’ children.

  37. Hi Ziggy, with reference to other deaths in apartment 5a this was already looked at with no results. Also Gerry's off cuff remark on Spanish TV about asking the dogs their findings and commenting that sniffer dogs are unreliable. A TV drama, sorry can't remember the name springs to mind when answering questions never venture outside your field of expertise, so now Gerry is an expert on sniffer dogs. This and other concerns really need to be tested in a court of law, so smug remarks can be ripped to pieces.

    1. The same cadaver dog's behaviour and false findings at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey pretty much discredit them.

    2. Anonymous 18 January 2017 at 13:11

      “The same cadaver dog's behaviour and false findings at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey pretty much discredit them.”

      You are wrong.

      The burden of justification is on you, so please don't ask me why.


    3. "The burden of justification is on you, so please don't ask me why."

      Rubbish! The burden of justification is to find undeniable truth. The same dogs had already erred. You are prepared to put your trust in something that has already been proved wrong just because it suits your agenda's very sad.

    4. @20:11

      "Rubbish! The burden of justification is to find undeniable truth"

      Is English really your first language, or did you just miss out on reading Philosophy somewhere?

      Anonymous (T) 13:36 is correct. You made a statement. He asked you to back it up. As he said,"The burden of justification is on you".

      Returning with (and I paraphrase here) 'the dogs were wrong because they were wrong' is simply childish.

      I suggest you take the time to learn about dogs in general, sniffer dogs in particular, then offer 'T' a more thoughtful reply than merely spitting out your cornflakes.

      Dogs are not scientists or investigators. They don't do 'false findings'. They are dogs. They sniff things, bark, and shit in the street. What we humans have discovered is that they do the first of these things to an unimaginable degree of precision.

  38. ZiggySawdust17 January 2017 at 19:43

    "What I don't know, and would like to know, is this . Who was the last of the tapas gang to look in on Madeleine. He'd be my suspect if I thought there wasn't a kidnap-to-order .Which I do ."

    Maybe you should try reading the basic facts of the case!

  39. JJ
    Your post is ridiculous.

    Just two words for you - the dogs.

    MM is dead.

    So why don't you and your ilk stop deluding yourselves.

    1. Anon 01:01

      Are you barking mad?
      Where have I mentioned dogs?
      All I request is people like Bennett, Peter Mac, RD Hall and now Ziggy Sawdust to provide proof of their ramblings.
      It is never forthcoming as Ziggy has proven today with his Amaral nonsense.
      Opinion is fine deliberate deception is not
      You can expect Ziggy to inform us next there was a weather data recording station in PDL
      Different names, same old bullshit!

    2. @JJ at 09:01

      I think 01:01 confused you with someone else. Maybe he/she overlooked quotation marks in previous comments.

  40. Clarence Mitchell said: “I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine’s death.”

    Perhaps M died a natural death that could have been prevented?


    1. Anonymous 18 January 2017 at 08:16

      Hi, NL

      Let’s leave Clarry to dream on in his beauty sleep for the time being.

      “Perhaps M died a natural death that could have been prevented?”


      In her parents’ (1) presence or (2) absence?

      (1) Would you or would you not think it is reasonable to expect the parents to know what happened thereafter?

      (2) Would you or would you not think it is reasonable to expect a corpse to be ‘abducted’?

      Which of the following are you thinking of?

      A death by natural causes, as recorded by coroners and on death certificates and associated documents, is one that is primarily attributed to an illness or an internal malfunction of the body not directly influenced by external forces. For example, a person dying from complications from influenza (an infection) or a heart attack (an internal body malfunction) or sudden heart failure would be listed as having died from natural causes. Health departments discourage listing old age as the cause of death since there is always a more direct cause, although it may be unknown in certain cases and could be one of a number of aging-associated diseases.

      By contrast, death caused by active intervention is called unnatural death. The "unnatural" causes are usually given as accident (implying no unreasonable voluntary risk), misadventure (accident following a willful and dangerous risk), suicide, or homicide. In some settings, other categories may be added. For example, a prison may track the deaths of inmates caused by acute intoxication separately. Additionally, a cause of death can be recorded as "undetermined".


    2. Good questions T.

      1) In her parents’ (or one of the parents’) presence I think it is reasonable to expect the parents to know what happened thereafter.

      2) In her parents’ absence, I think it is not reasonable to expect a corpse to be abducted by a stranger.

      I was thinking of complications of an illness.

      I'd be keen to hear what you think.


  41. Anon 01:01

    I provided said support for my ramblings. Did you read it or read past it ? I'm not interested in weather data or photographs apparently contradicting weather reports.As long as photo shop or similar programmes exist i have no interest in looking at the technical bullshit spoken about them. None of them would stand up in court. The content of photographs is of more value. But even they're open to interpretation. Every picture tells a story.Unless it's taken in Portugal, where every picture tells 20 stories.A bit like art really, i look at the Mona Lisa and see an ugly misery,someone else will see a fine young maiden, pretend art detectives see a subtly disguised self portrait, and you'd probably see a dog or a psychopath. So who would have 'evidence' to say their 'reading' of it is right ? Regarding Madeleine, I've only seen one photograph that made me study, and it wasn't any of the 'Lolita' B S ones or ones with shadows . So, before you continue with your internet paranoia, i have a task for you. See if you can apologise for ignoring the evidence i provided in support of my statement and explain what my 'deception' is.

  42. PS
    my last comment should have been addressed to JJ, not anon 01:01


    1. Thought I'd share something, as i was passing...

      I realise a very high percentage of forums and blogs and social networks are gunning for the McCanns. If it ever does come out that they were responsible for the disappearance of their little girl, I'll be among the first to salute them all for their determination in their fighting for justice. But I doubt that day will come. Millions of words citing hundreds of quotes and hundreds of cited examples of 'lying' have failed to excite the attention of any of the governments, intelligence networks or police forces involved up to now.I suppose that's why those who seem to be like dogs with bones grab at any 'new' angle then do it to death in the hope something will suddenly rise out of the mess of theories. They could always demand answers from the above mentioned investigative bodies, but I think, in their heart of hearts they know it would fall on deaf ears . That should really be enough to cause them to question why the ears are deaf and the eyes blind . These people are supposed to be turning every stone.Instead,all they are really doing is writing endless cheques , scripting every narrative and vetting every 'spontaneous' question any interviewer might be ready to ask a McCann . Why ? It amounts to keeping control and containing the situation and, further , amounts to constricting, rather than broadening any investigation. I thought only a guilty party and probable suspect would prefer this kind of game ? In fact, I'm sure of it - logic supports it . What logic doesn't support, however, is that it could all have been organised by the McCanns. They have no power . They're just two middle class parents from the UK who carelessly left their child unguarded in a foreign country and paid the price . They were, and still are, in no position to call countries and their leaders to have emergency meetings, demand 'war funding ' or demand interviewers can ask questions only they want to hear. All of that was put in place by politicians and the spin we got was that it was 'for Maddie' . Can anyone really believe that if thinking objectively ? Maybe if we'd seen it a time or two before, yes. But this is a first. This is, therefore, shall we say a 'different' crime.

      I think the sleuths should look elsewhere. Look, and think objectively. Question if conclusions hold water based on logic. It's all we have without concrete evidence. Have a look..this is a good place to begin :

    2. ZiggySawdust 18 January 2017 at 13:59

      Thank you for your post, I’ve found it touching.

      “…it would fall on deaf ears”

      I think the selective deafness and blindness syndrome apparent in those whose ears and eyes ostensibly function as nature intended would fit the bill nicely.

      Without meaning to be condescending, may I suggest studying Dr Martin Roberts’ essays Therein you’ll find an educational and palatable mix of facts, conjectures, questions and answers, sarcasm, humour, irony etc., with logic and masterful use of English into the bargain.


    3. Hi Ziggy
      Taking great interest in the Maddie case, as you know, I read as much as I can. No matter who’s the author, as I rely upon my own judgement and believe, that I can figure out, what is false and what isn’t. The blog under the name of ”Abduction”, which you refer to, discusses the investigative work of an institute/organisation/agency called ”The World Report Agency Intelligence Information”, which allegedly has, or has had, a close relation to the Met. This agency is now said to be pursuing the paedophile-abduction-trafficking hypothesis.

      The “agency” in question, or what we shall call it, does not exist, as far as I can see, and the blog is nothing but a big lie. Team McCann, must have seen it, as they seem to be well aware of what people write about them on social media. If they have, and if they are truly innocent, then they should be the first ones to point out the fallacy regarding this blog and its total lack of credibility. However, they don’t, because these lies serve their own purposes so well, though they have of course nothing with it to do.

    4. Ziggy and others,

      Does that blog belong to Robert Argiz, who made a criminal complaint against the Portuguese police?

    5. Hi Bjorn, The same could be said of the hiring of the private investigators, it's possible that they or someone else got the idea to hire them knowing full well that they were either corrupt or incompetent. A professional outfit might have concluded that the abduction theory was false which the McCanns don't want. Also the original investigators hired if they stumbled upon the truth then I suppose their misdemeanours can be used to silence them. Just a thought.

    6. Hi John
      Not just a thought. In fact, very likely to be true, as I see things.

  43. @T

    Thanks, T, I'll have a look for him. If I can't find him, maybe you could post a link.


    Wherever the organisation is now is of secondary importance.If it's not online, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it's a hoax site. Did you actually review what was printed on it ? I posted it but there's more than one site with that information on and it needs to be considered. It requires an open mind.

    Christopher Story was real too - ask his widow. He was a brave man and he paid for it. It seems he was made an example of.His sudden demise fired out a warning shot to any others who dare to look in the right place.

    1. Hi Ziggy, Which Christopher Story are you referring to please?

    2. Hi again Ziggi

      I agree with you, in that we must try be broad-minded and see things in a larger context, when discussing this case. I, personally, believe, that the McCanns are guilty, but from time to time I try to assess and analyse what I read from other perspectives, in order to be more objective.

      As for the “articles/pages”on this “Abduction site”, you refer to. No, I haven’t read all of them, but I will. Nevertheless, I became very suspicious when this ”forum” quotes “World Report Agency Intelligence Information” regarding what was officially said back in 2007.

      [...] "It was confirmed on August 7, 2007 by the Metropolitan Police of London that Madeleine McCann was abducted on orders by a paedophile organisation based in Belgium”.

      Nothing of that is true. The McCanns were then about to become suspects, the Met was not yet officially involved, unless of course Clarence Mitchell represented them, and it was only the McCanns and their P R team, who talked about paedophiles in the context of Madeleine’s disappearance, as far as I know.

      Talking about Christopher Story and his courage, the bravest a journalist, a MP or a police officer could do today, as it seems, is to just insinuate that the McCanns could be lying.

  44. QUOTE from ZiggySawdust 18 January 2017 at 13:59

    ‘’ .......... I realise a very high percentage of forums and blogs and social networks are gunning for the McCanns. If it ever does come out that they WERE responsible for the disappearance of their little girl, I'll be among the first to salute them all for their determination in their fighting for justice………’’

    WHAT? REALLY? You can’t be serious

    1. Anonymous 18:16
      Interesting post. The blog url mentioned on it just loops straight back to the actual blog. I'm not sure why, I don't do the techy stuff. What became of all of it ? you know ? Or anyone else know ? The PJ are beginning to smell funny.

    2. Reading matter:

    3. Yes, I had to raise my eyebrows at that, lol. If their actions are so honourable, why don't they use their real names? What kind of danger do these anonymous creatures fear? Who are they? Who cares? lol

  45. Evening John 100

    I understand the ambiguity with the name Christopher Story as there was one who was a former Tory MP who exposed corruption in the EU ( shock horror). The Christopher Story who was covering the Madeleine case was an investigative reporter who exposed what he thought he was on to in 2008 after receiving death threats. He was poisoned in 2010. But Christopher Story was his pen name. His real name was Edward Harle. One of his last revelations concerned how Washington was riddled with corruption. Unfortunately he visited America in 2010.

    Anonymous 13:59 - I didn't stress any words in what I said, you've edited that for some reason only obvious to yourself. With or without the edit, i fail to see any point in the post. Sorry.

    1. Ziggy

      The same big barrel of bullshit, disparage the PJ and Dr. Amaral whenever you can and then write total conspiracy crap.

      There is no evidence Christopher Story was poisoned.
      He died of liver cancer in 2010 in his 70's, it is not that rare, not everyone is assassinated by the CIA, the Secret Knights of Malta or little green men.

      As Rosalinda says stick with the real crimes, not conspiracy, nutjobs, fantasy and make believe.

      You can always ask your doctor for a stronger medication.

    2. JJ
      As tempting as it is to engage in a juvenile exchange with yet another internet pseudo sleuth, I'll pass. Just as you passed on my request that you acknowledged the evidence i posted previously( at your request, incidentally), despite your baseless rant . I wish i had a penny for every time i heard or read the phrase' conspiracy crap'.Of course, you could always look up both words in a dictionary before you and others like you lay out how Madeleine vanished, who was behind it,how and when they did it, who else is covering up,why and how it happened and why the Portuguese police were really removed from the case ( don't forget to look up 'evidence' too). The case is ten years old, and you haven't reported your findings. Why not ? Not only would you be a hero, you'd no doubt make a killing on the chat show circuit, a book and maybe a reward. What's stopping you ? Everyone wants justice, deliver it ( or you could pass ) . Your recommendation Re medication is both witty, original and well received ( after all, your post-mortem on Story suggests you're also a medical legend as well as a latter day Sherlock Homes).

      I have no time for the sheep and their ad hominem rants. As soon as i receive one I know they have nothing of weight to pass on- just a bit of rage. I don't want to hear about me. I know about me. You don't.They don't. Assumptions are worth nothing . Rants say more about the ranter. Now, away with you before i reach for the mint sauce.

    3. As a huge fan of Armanda Ianucci and the amazing US House of Cards, I think 'conspiracy theories' has taken on a whole new set of connotations. Too often conspiracy theories have proved to be correct because the world's most wanted men, Assange and Snowden have exposed them.

      Sadly, the corridors of Whitehall, and indeed every government agency are riddled with nods, winks and backhanders. Ditto, the private sector but they can't be arsed to hide it. The whole Madeleine fiasco probably began with an over enthusiastic intern answering a late night phone call and deciding to give the parents full government backing because his/her boss wasn't to be interrupted. Sometimes it can be that simple.

      In this case, I suspect, many celebrities and VIPs jumped on the popular McCann bandwagon to raise their own profile and show what good eggs they were. Politicians too. Except of course, politicians have access to the Secret Services, and know much more about the case than the rest of us. Theoretically speaking of course, because the higher up they get, the less likely they are to read the facts themselves.

      However, there isn't any excuse for Ministers and Prime Ministers to be so ill informed on a case they have given their support to. At the time Madeleine's case was making news headines, Prime Minister Gordon Brown was negotiating the Lisbon Treaty. It doesn't take a tinfoil hate to imagine the Madeleine case became part of the bargaining.

  46. Hi Ros, nice to see you pop up :)

    I've never watched that. I watched the British original and it was superb.

    It's 'in' to voice the phrase'conspiracy theorists', roll the eyes and get a laugh on TV now. it isn't in to take apart said theories and counter them though.Nor is it 'in' to quote a long line of theories in the 20th century that never found a newspaper or history book but proved to be spot on, rather than insane.

    I wondered, to be honest, why Portugal was so 'important' diplomatically to us.All i see, the more i look, is a cleaner, hotter version of the seedy Thailand .But, as you say, Brown and that treaty . It was also a place favoured my Blair and Bush for their occasional dirty weekends . it's where they gazed at each other in a dimly lit cafe no doubt a la lady and the tramp as they shook on the decision to go a - plundering in the middle east. Incidentally if you youtube Edward Heaths chief whip talking about scandals, you can see where House Of cards was born.

    While the credibility of St Amaral is fresh in the blogs discussions ( or, to be fair, my questioning and doubtfulness of his credibility) I thought I'd remind us all of some of his 'previous'.

    No doubt, all the 'forumites' have brought up and debated the case of the missing Joana Cipriano from the same area previous to the disappearance of Madeleine.I apologise in advance if I'm raking over old coals. The mother of the 8 year old was eventually convicted of her murder despite no body ever being found(''the PJ deduced that her body was chopped up and hidden in the fridge before being disposed of elsewhere'') .The similarities in both cases are striking. The stars of the show were two accused demonised parents and shrewd cop Amaral. Traces of blood were found, but never proven significant in terms of extracting DNA . A 'scenario' was conjured up by Amaral that pointed to not only the mother being the culprit, but how she did it, and what she did with the body,I repeat- scenario was conjured up. No evidence.

    Both parents in the case denied killing their daughter. That's no shock, anyone would even if they had done it. But the police then proceeded to beat and torture the mother and, during questioning, knocked a confession out of her mouth. Obviously the sainted officers of the law denied such monstrous claims . Unfortunately, by some bizarre karmic twist, it was 'evidence' ( yes Mr A, evidence ) that found that she was telling the truth( I've seen one photograph of the mother, it isn't pleasant). Fortunately for Amaral, as they'd put a bag over her head, she was unable to say who punched, who kicked and so forth. In another striking parallel to the McCann cock -up, a book soon followed.

    ''Goncalo Amaral was the head of the team that dealt with Cipriano. Evidence that Cipriano had been beaten brutally by the police was accepted by the Portuguese justice system. In fact, the courts accepted that Cipriano had her confession beaten out of her. But, because she wore a bag on her head could not identify her abusers. So the court could not charge any individual identifiable as the abuser. Amaral was sentenced to 18 months, suspended 'for falsifying the evidence to cover up these beatings. ''

    Damn those conspiracy nuts eh Mr Amaral .

    It seems lessons were not learned after that.

    1. ZIGGY

      You need urgent medical help
      Every day your bullshit increases and your desire to ruin this blog is more obvious
      What is it you fear?

      You must know by now Cipriano was not tortured I advise anybody to look up the case on the internet and you will know for sure Ziggy is barking mad!
      Opinion is fine, deliberate lies is not

      (Cipriano had 7 months added to her sentence for lying about the torture) now why did Ziggy miss that bit out in his diatribe against Amaral?

    2. Hi Ziggi,

      I must disagree, though I really appreciate a lot of what you say, but not this about the Ciprianos.

      Talking about psychopaths, Leonor Cipriano, that woman is really one of a kind. It’s true, that she, just as Kate did, claimed that her daughter must have been kidnapped. Then she confessed, but there is no evidence of her being beaten during the police interrogation. Three months later, I believe it was, she gave another version, and said, that it was her brother, who had done it. He had earlier confessed to having assaulted Joana, and said he had cut her body into small pieces, placed her inside a fridge.

      For God's sake, I get the creeps, and I really hope that the Ciprianos do not share any more psychological characteristics and inclination with the McCanns, than just these sickly psychopathic traits, which have been discussed here.

    3. It’s a small world.

      Isabel Duarte represents António Aragão's family, Anabel Aragão Correia and Marcos Aragão Correia (Leonor Cipriano's lawyer).

    4. So JJ and Bjorn, are saying that Amaral was not sentenced to 18 months, suspended,by the Portuguese courts for falsifying the evidence to cover up the beatings of Joana Cipriano?

    5. Sorry I meant to say the beatings of Leonor, not Joana

    6. I have actually have a huge amount of respect for Goncalo Amaral, Ziggy. Both he and the PJ were hampered beyond belief in the original investigation. As I said in other reply, where were the clothes Madeleine wore that day? Why was the mother doing laundry within 2 days? Where was the braid that was in her hair, they never come away without taking hair follicles with them.

      So much was missed during the first '24 golden hours', because 1) the parents and their friends trampled all over the apartment and 2) they were establishing a fake abduction and treating the police as hostile.

      Goncalo Amaral has admitted both he and the PJ made a lot of mistakes, but in fairness, within hours they were having pressure put on them by the British Consul. Basically, the word was, treat the parents with kid gloves. When the kid glove treatment stopped, Goncalo was removed from the case.

      As for Joanna Cipriano, sadly, this is case that has not received enough attention. Joanna was a child 'at risk', that is already known to the authorities. Joanna's death was the culmination of years of abuse and the fact that she caught her mother having sex with her brother.

      Given the wickedness with which she treated her child, it is not surprising that she had injuries, other prisoners don't like that sort of thing.

      Portugal is not a third world country with fascist police who beat confessions out of suspects so they can clock off early. Their police are actually educated to graduate level, ie. much higher than our own. Goncalo Amaral holds two degrees, he is more of an intellectual than a hardened old thief taker, though he holds those qualities too. Read one chapter of Truth of the Lie, one chapter of Madeleine, and Gerry's excruciating blogs and it quickly becomes apparent where the higher intelligence lies.

      The non drinking, non smoking, non adulterating, McCanns are completely charmless. They are completely devoid of the one asset that exhibits genius more than any other.

      And Goncalo Amaral is charming because he has human flaws, in fact he is not so different to every dogged old lawman who won't give up until he gets his guy. He drinks too much, he worries too much, and he probably pisses off everyone around him. I like him on those grounds alone!

      I wouldn't give tuppence for the opinion of someone who has never got high or drunk or had second thoughts about the bedroom they were going to wake up in.

      Self righteous pillars of the society scare the bejesus out of me. Especially the ones who are completely immune to my 'you gotta be kidding me' face, which can usually bring the house down. I've spent many delightful evenings turning right wing, establishment indoctrinated, religious goody two shoes, into gin swigging stoners who want to start a revolution. I shouldn't really brag about it, I torture myself, that the dearest, sweetest, cleverest man I ever knew, abandoned his very successful City law firm, to go off to Indonesia to study Buddhism. Tragically, he caught a rare tropical disease which proved fatal. I blame myself, over and over, but he was my soul mate, we will meet again.

      I'm not sure I ever dated again after that. I tried once, but on explaining to my date that my last fella died, SAS (Smart Arsed Son) piped up, no he didn't, he went to Indonesia to become a Buddhist monk. Along with a clip round the ear, he got a 'not making me sound any better'. I jest, or I would cry, but John knew I loved him.

      to be continued .....

    7. Ros
      Goody two shoes types have never been my thing either. I've mixed in various circles so I can't 'dis' them but it's just never been the drum beat i danced to. Quite the opposite in my past to be sure. Sometimes i look back and wonder how I'm here now. But it takes all sorts to make the world go mad I suppose . keeping context though, amongst the 'McCanns are demonic' type of forums and the like , I've read that apart from them being child killers, they are or were also swingers , possibly along with the tapas other 7 . That explains why they wanted to be free of the kids. It must be true, because it's on forums. Like everything else McCann flavoured, you have to suspend disbelief and the need for evidence in order to join the hate train and type until you have no steam left.So, they're dull and boring middle class doctors, ergo-not nice or attractive and lacking spirit. Or they're law -breaking swingers, which makes them demonic. And then there's Amaral. The flawed genius. if we believe what we read about him what do we think ? He likes to loosen his tie and tie one on with the lads. He has a Latino eye for the ladies. That dangerous passion and temperament the ladies are too scared to dance too close to but do anyway.Or, he's a drunk. A bit of spousal abuse thrown in by all accounts. And then there's the drunk driving (with daughter on board) despite being a pillar of the community.And what about the rumours or stories or reports of his threatening the life of his wife and lover in his burning rage because his girlfriend had left him. No wonder he makes mistakes. They may be more cerebral in the police force there compared to ours ( ours aren't educated to 11 plus standard) but a cannon that loose wouldn't spend much time on big cases here. Maybe a Buddhist retreat could help him .To be continued....

    8. cont....

      What are we to really believe ? Everyone is aware that a lot of suspicious goings on occurred early in the case. And with the case cold in all but name, the hounds online are hungry ; any bone will do .There seems to be two camps. Those who read Amaral's dismissal as a hint that the McCanns are guilty, as he said they were and was then removed from the case and was subsequently ruined by a libel case in court. He's since been told he can ( and he has) publish the book. Why doesn't he appeal and demand reinstatement ? There's far too many loose ends. There are far too many unfounded allegations levelled at people involved too-mainly from online sniffer dogs. Can anyone really say, the McCanns were busy 'establishing an abduction story' and back it up in court ? Of course not. Even the police ( real ones, not online ones) would have to substantiate that claim and a prosecution lawyer has only got ' i put it to you..' to which the reply would be 'wrong' .

      When the sniffer dogs find a contradiction in a McCann statement or discrepancy in witness statements, they pounce. They pounce and ravage. Nobody is 'only human' then are they ? But when Amaral is spotted making a cock up or admits to one or two, he's 'flawed' . He doesn't get paid to be flawed, he gets paid to use his alleged intellect and police instinct to be calm and clear on the spot. I call that double standards. Anyone weighing anything up needs to weigh both sides of everything. As I said recently, test to see if the suspicion holds water logically as all evidence has gone.

      The biggest mystery of it all, for my money, is the determination of so many politicians to contain it all. Their stubborn determination to convince us that Madeleine may have 'been spotted' has been sounding hollower and hollower.Nobody expects these 'leads' to come to anything, and they don't, and won't. They, in tandem with their media, know the score.But we don't hear from them and we don't see them.We hear from the parents and we see them. Target identified.Easy prey. It doesn't matter that this government we have is no less depraved than the last 10 and are being 'outed' with increasing regularity recently in all things cover up and paedophillic .That's more than suspicion, people have been jailed .That's evidence.But the target's too big.

    9. You may be good with words Ziggy, but all the circumstantial evidence points towards the parents, no matter how you interpret it.

      As for GA's flaws, I would imagine they are all part and parcel of doing a job where you regularly confronted with horrific crime scenes and horrific people. Many years ago I had a good friend who was a nurse in the ITU, quite often she would call on me with a bottle of gin when she a patient died. Quite often the relatives would have to comfort her.

      Police men and women, are human beings who deal with the darker, seedier, side of human nature, and they are dad, mums, family men and women. The entire crime genre is loaded with heroes and heroines, who hit the bottle. It is a narrative device, it shows the cop has empathy. He feels the victim's pain.

      It would be naïve to think the cops investigating Joanna Cipriano's disappearance were not emotionally affected by the horror. As much as Team McCann have tried to clean up this brutal mother's crimes, they have not been successful. And that is despite them providing Leonora with a lawyer!

      Why would they go to so much trouble to link the case of Joanna Cipriano with that of Madeleine McCann. The mother and brother confessed! And evidence was found to support their stories. That is blood in the kitchen where she was murdered and dismembered and in the freezer where they hid her remains.

      As for the parents being easy to target, I must take issue. Gerry and Kate have always had it within their power to return to obscurity. Ask any Z lister who was once an A lister. Or a struggling writer, such as moi! lol

      I remember back in the summer of 2007 thinking, this couple are becoming addicted to the media attention, and it did cross my mind, it will end in tears.

      Most of us only get the 15 minutes of fame allotted by the Good Lord, or Andy Warhol, then it's back to the conveyer belt, whatever that conveyer belt might be.

      You will probably argue that Gerry and Kate, in their desperation to find Madeleine, have had no option but to stay in the public eye. OK. But accepting that, the McCanns must accept that when they make a public statement, the public will make statements back. It's a two street, for everyone.

      I have little patience for those who whine about being attacked on social media, and I say this as someone who has been attacked more than most. The idea that Gerry and Kate should have some sort of immunity is absurd.

      I agree on governments, they are all shady b'stards. The Chilcott report I suspect is but the tip of the iceberg where New Labour were concerned. Blair et al, had all sorts of devious schemes to get us all onto a government data base, giving him and his child protection agencies full access to every citizen's private and confidential information.

      How big is the Madeleine cover up in comparison to every other crime against the British people committed by their governments?

      Maybe big enough for a tory Prime Minister to give the go ahead to Scotland Yard to investigate a crime that was committed on foreign soil. Five years is an awful long time to investigate the disappearance of one small girl.

  47. Firstly, i wasn't aware of the verdict of the courts being overturned regarding the tortured woman. On this i stand corrected.Also, in agreement with Bjorn, there's some evil there. That said, I'm finding your personal breakdown ( JJ) a bit of a car crash ; not pleasant, but hard not to look at. I wish you'd realise exclamation marks don't add strength to a statement.On the contrary it makes the author look weak.Calm down( or at least try to appear to).Peppering your rants with 'bullshit' doesn't help you much either. Grow up (or try to appear to be grown up). I don't fully understand why you keep hinting at 'deception' and my 'fear' . You don't know me. Your suspicious mind is an infection now and it's spreading into all areas of your thinking. It's hard to find a balance when that's the case, let alone maintain it. To be honest, I don't know how your posts, when written like they are lately, are allowed through. You share your view about what you consider my standpoint is 'every day'. I'm glad you're reading what I write so closely. But you seem to read right past any simple requests I make. I can only put this down to the psycho - sclerosis you, and many online who share your views, suffer from. Open your mind before your mouth.A narrow mind shouldn't voice broad statements . Free yourself. You'll be glad you did.

    Robert Burns said 'suspicion is a heavy armour and with it's weight it impedes more than it protects'

    Clever lad was Rab.

  48. Christ Ziggy and Ros - can you get a private room somewhere?

    1. Anonymous 20 January 2017 at 00:05

      “Christ Ziggy and Ros - can you get a private room somewhere?”

      If Ziggy is Christ, then you must be God speaking.

      Dear God, no need for privacy whatsoever: like love, intellectual cross-pollination is most nearly itself when here and now cease to matter… If You know what I mean… :)


    2. Anonymous 20 January 2017 at 00:05

      “Christ Ziggy and Ros - can you get a private room somewhere?”

      If Ziggy is Christ, then you must be God speaking.

      Dear God, no need for privacy whatsoever: like love, intellectual cross-pollination is most nearly itself when here and now cease to matter… If You know what I mean… :)


  49. Oh Ziggy dishing out orders on what people can and cannot post and what should be allowed on here now.

    How about setting up your own blog Ziggy to say what you want and edit/censure replies?

    Please provide a link when you do so.

    1. Anonymous 20 January 2017 at 00:10

      No need to rock you pram, sweetie. Mammy Ros is here to sort the rights from wrongs. Speak and let speak, my little one., that’s what the grown-ups do.

      Sorry, stranger, you know what babies are like.


    2. Lol T. John can, and I'm sure will, throw a good few right hooks himself! lol

  50. Regardless of our personal views, interesting blog and comments.

    @Rosalinda 19.1 at 20:26
    As for forensic examination of clothes, I wonder if Madeleine’s peach-coloured smock top from Gap and white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon were being 'put to the test’.


    1. Who knows what became of them NL. Kate did however do laundry on the Saturday (yes, within that 48 hours of not functioning), which has always struck me as odd. I mean your child is missing and you are doing the washing?

    2. Perhaps this is what became of them:

      Who knows?


  51. "Children's homes run by church and charities in Northern Ireland were the scene of widespread abuse and mistreatment of young residents, a report has found.

    The Historical Institutional Abuse Inquiry (HIA) studied allegations of abuse in 22 homes and other residential institutions between 1922 to 1995.

    The largest number of complaints related to four Catholic-run homes.

    There was also sexual abuse carried out by priests and lay people.

    HIA report closes dark chapter in NI's past
    NI victims recall the impact of abuse
    Live coverage of abuse inquiry findings
    Homes and institutions investigated by HIA

    The chair of the inquiry, Sir Anthony Hart, recommended compensation, a memorial and a public apology to abuse survivors.

    He said a tax-free lump sum payment should be made to all survivors, including in homes and institutions that were not covered by the inquiry."

    1. Margaret McGuckin, who has been the public face of the campaign for survivors of historical institutional child sex abuse, said it was what they had "waited for for a lifetime".

      "Today we are believed. As young children we tried to complain about our abuse and no one would listen," she said.

      "In particular, the religious orders and these holy devout Christian people disbelieved us and even bullied us more for daring to complain, today we have been vindicated."

  52. Quick question I know David Payne is a doctor but does anyone one know what he specialises in. I haven't at the minute got time to research & following the conversations on this blog by all has given me a clue. I will share once I know. Promise !!!!


    2. John100 20 January 2017 at 20:00

      Perhaps urology (according to my recollection of an unreliable source).


    3. to Anonymous 20 Jan 21:13, to John and to T

      Of all the things that a doctor can be a specialist in, Payne so happens to be precisely in an area adjacent to what the Gaspars suggested could be his interest for other reasons, which was what made them suspicious about him. Not an accusation, just a thought.

  53. "Re: President Trump's Inauguration

    Post by Tony Bennett Today at 20:03

    @Get'emGonçalo wrote:
    Did anyone listen to his speech?

    I made a point of settling down and listening to every word of his 16-minute speech, broadcast live on Radio 4.

    He is a successful businessman whose business methods have been highly questionable on numerous occasions.

    His remarks and conduct towards women have been outrageous, but before we are too hasty to condemn him for that, let us swiftly recall Bill Clinton's conduct and also the ocean of immorality, illegality, corruption and murders that swan around the Clinton camp and their senior Democratic Party groupies. Not to mention 'Pizzagate'.

    I like many of his stated policies. For the sake of the U.S.A., and for the rest of the world, I wish him and his administration well and hope they succeed in most of their aims.

    One immediate step that Trump's team has taken is to remove all the Muslim prayer rooms, crescent moon symbols and prayer mats from several rooms in the White House. Obama had unconvincingly denied being a Muslim - and we now know that he WAS born in Kenya, not Hawaii. He had instituted periods of enforced 5-minutes silence in the White House during the five times a day Muslims are required to face Mecca and chant. That was 25 minutes of Islamic silence the White House, seven days a week. The Christian chapel in the White House will now be the only appointed place of worship and prayer.

    Obama, by the way, was and is a homosexual, and his wife, Michelle, is a transsexual, born Michael. Their two children were adopted.

    In his inauguration speech, Trump three times acknowledged that the U.S. needs to look to and turn to God - by which he means the Christian God of the Bible.

    We all need to do that, in this world that was created perfect, but we have ruined since the Fall."

  54. for all those who follow/support/respect bennett - just look at what he is saying here:

    Pure hated - this is an extract from his fou; mouth:

    "One immediate step that Trump's team has taken is to remove all the Muslim prayer rooms, crescent moon symbols and prayer mats from several rooms in the White House. Obama had unconvincingly denied being a Muslim - and we now know that he WAS born in Kenya, not Hawaii. He had instituted periods of enforced 5-minutes silence in the White House during the five times a day Muslims are required to face Mecca and chant. That was 25 minutes of Islamic silence the White House, seven days a week. The Christian chapel in the White House will now be the only appointed place of worship and prayer.

    Obama, by the way, was and is a homosexual, and his wife, Michelle, is a transsexual, born Michael. Their two children were adopted."

    1. Where's his proof?? Silly man.

    2. @08:22

      Here's your starter for ten:

      "Michael and I...."!?

    3. Michael Mullen

  55. The man is pure evil!

  56. Many thanks for the updates on Bennett's lunacy! I honestly don't know how anyone can take a word that man says seriously.

    Those buying the theories of Bennett, Hall and the cesspit, should read the above posts and ask themselves if that little shower of malevolent buffoons actually know anything about the Madeleine case, or indeed, life.

    1. Screw Donald 'Drumpf' right back to his brothel -keeping pox -peddling jew grandad. The six times bankrupt (and reality TV star) is the president of a country that has about 200 ,000,000 voters.It doesn't matter what he does in the privacy of the Whitehouse, somehow we'll be told.He's like a fly on shite when there's microphones, cameras or social networks at hand.Maybe his zionist handlers have briefed him to bankrupt the states now.They're the reason he's making all the anti-muslim gestures, the halfwit. He's 'gonna make america great again' ( again?- i missed that memo).

      So now the whitehouse has been taken over by wall street and israel-quite a coup. This makes the worlds most famous comb -over untouchable now. I smelled this crock coming 6 years ago . The night/day (may 1st 2011) they assassinated the invisible Bin Laden , Obama was 'putting a normal brave face on things' and cracking jokes at a podium at Donald Trumps roast. The love /hate punch and judy show was under way. The only positive on the whole game is that the seedy Clinton thing didn't get elected. What a choice though. It's like Ted Bundy or Lizzie borden-cast your votes...

      As for the Bennet creatures...sick of reading about him and his pet monkeys.I could join twatter or fakebook for that kind of garbage. I'll pop on a post tomorrow, then carry on my surfing through cyberspace...

    2. Hi Ziggy, that's the problem with democracy, people get voted in by a majority &:the minority can't accept it

    3. Ziggy the bigot 01:28

      Ziggy, you are obviously trying to get this blog shut down, with your pejorative language and I am surprised Ros you are allowing it.
      What does it matter if his grandfather was a Jew?

      Not content with lying about the Portuguese Police, and demanding anyone questioning Ziggys lies is banned,there is now naked racism about Jews.

      Opinion is fine, deliberate lies are not and vitriol and blatant race and religious hatred should not have a place on any blog.

      Ros its scary when Ziggy is beginning to make Bennett look

      Its now at the stage, Ziggy informs us, of the new epistle to come. Are we expected to prepare ourselves for this momentous event.

      Pretentious or what?

    4. There won't be any censoring here JJ. I really hate when discussions are shut down because someone says something subversive. Is this 1984?

      I found Ziggy's hmm, racist views quite alarming. My first thoughts were, someone's been on the sauce. However, if I were a Jewish person, I would rather hear the arguments behind the bigotry than not, because it gives me an opportunity to shoot the argument down.

      I don't want to offend any of my Jewish readers, but I don't think they will be reaching for the smelling salts. The idea that we need to protected
      from reading anything that might offend us is absurd. I have a personal rage against female Labour MPs at the moment for trying to bring in legislation to have words that might offend them removed the vernacular. Wtf? Now that's what I call pretentious.

      Everyone has the right to be offended JJ, but some people make it their life's work. I'm not going to publish abusive drivel JJ or anything threatening, but I would rather attempt to understand the other side's perspective, than censor it.

      I happen to love Jewish people, especially in the entertainment world. And I thank all the Gods there may for all the huge advances we have enjoyed due to their work in science and discovery. They are not all bankers!

      I'm looking forward to the next epistle JJ. I enjoy the opportunity to face bigotry head on. I think we all a little too sensitive about we read or hear. Bigots become angry and enraged because they know no-one will listen to them. Isn't it better to hear their argument, and offer them alternate ways of thinking? Isn't that the point of discussion and debate?

  57. No JJ, You're not pretentious, you're just a little neurotic and misguided. You seem scared. Stop worrying.

    For the benefit of Ros and this blog( I respect both despite a lot of the nonsense spewed out ) I don't care who thinks I'm a bigot. Or a racist. You see, I know I'm neither. That's more important to me . If anyone has read what I've said as closely as JJ has( again) I'm sure you can see I'm none of the above.

    I'll state my position for reasons of clarity. I walk past Catholics everyday and mix with them.They're my friends and acquaintances. But I despise the hypocrisy and criminality of The Vatican and Popes current and past.I have no 'beef' with Mr Average Jew neither. But the Zionist Jew that holds every high position on the globe, with particular reference to various countries banks and media I hold in contempt . Their control of the various economies and gold and their eagerness to fund wars at interest has caused the mess we're in. Trump, Obama, Cameron et al may not have 'Jewish' written on the tin, but their acts which contradict their promises and what should be their loyalties, render them crypto -Jews. They may anglicise their names but that means little, it's packaging.They answer to Israel and align themselves too eagerly to their politics and philosophy. When are the 'heroes' going to liberate the Palestinians ? I thought we were the great liberators ? They, and the Muslims, are the historical enemy of the jew. The blacks of America are still shooting practice for their own police. But you can be arrested for being anti-Semitic.The ADL was put in place for that a long time ago. Find me an economy that's recovering, or a western country that isn't in dire recession. Then find me one that has a central bank that isn't owned by the elite Jew.Then, when you've done that, count how many of this elite who isn't occupying a high position in our ( and soon to be American )government .

    I've read about the ADL, the holocaust and The Tavistock Insitute at length. I know what I'm talking about.I don't use the mainstream's fairy tales about any of them . I recommend you, and all of us, read the content of things of importance and not merely the surface.

    If Ros censors me, which I doubt, as she has a broad mind and intelligence, so be it. I'm only two posts away from moving on any way. But i suggest, JJ old chap , before you start hurling accusations of hate speech about so desperately, you take a look at your own speech. Calling people evil or killers or bullshitters is fine as long as they're not jewish ? I tend to disagree.

    Old red Indian proverb tells of the man who constantly points the finger ; hidden are three more pointing back at himself. A fine analogy of the mind of certain 'types' don't you think ?

    Give yourself a hug. You seem to need one :)

    1. Ziggy the Bigot 19.08

      It is so good of you to tell us you don't mind walking past Catholics.

      Most of us walking down the street do not care and do not give any persons religion a thought.
      You can spot what religion a person has,it obviously matters.

      Why, it matters only to racists and bigots.

      You state you have only two posts to go before moving on. Is that the end of your contract or does Fiona and Rachael's handlers want their money back?
      More lies Ziggy I have not called anyone killers
      but YOU are a bullshitter of some magnitude.

    2. I may publish your posts Ziggy, but it doesn't mean I agree with them. I find it chilling to categorise people as a colour, or a religion or a race. A Muslim mother will weep for her lost child, just a Jewish or British mother. We are all human beings, we all live, love, breathe and die.

      Just as individuals it is pointless to blame our problems on the people around us, or those ruling us, the same works with nations. That the Jewish people have taken their traditional monetary skills global should be a good thing, yes? Isn't that what capitalism is built on?

      But here's a thing. Whilst the Jews may be the bankers, tis the Muslims who hold the world's wealth. Oil. You may like to take a look at the relationship between the Bush family and the Bin Ladens.

      I actually like and admire Jewish people, whilst wandering the earth, they have brought culture, art, science, enlightenment and a rib tickling sense of humour to the rest of us. Jerry Seinfeld is a God!

  58. ZiggySawdust = nutter and has lost what little credibility he or she previously had.

    1. Encouraging to see I'm not the only one who sees these people as nutters!


    2. 15 January 2017 at 18:24
      "Life's too short - I'm out.

      The irony

  59. '' ZiggySawdust = nutter and has lost what little credibility he or she previously had.''

    ad hominem

    case rested

  60. Back to Madeleine McCann, Ros, have you read Dr Martin Roberts' 'A Nightwear Job' yet? Once you do, you will realise that Amaral's theory that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday simply cannot be right. PeterMac has now demolished Kate's claim to have taken the Tennis Balls Photo - and the Last Photo was almost certainly taken on Sunday. That means that after Sunday we have no independent proof that Madeleine was alive. That makes the conspiracy much bigger than we all thought!

    1. @23:32

      "after Sunday we have no independent proof that Madeleine was alive. That makes the conspiracy much bigger than we all thought!"

      One advantage to wearing a tin-foil hat is that we don't have to stick our heads in the sand when it rains.

      Gerry McCann had a working relationship with the Foreign Office.

      So unless we believe in the tail wagging the dog, the FCO served to relay information/instructions to him, not take instruction from him.

      The FCO were also responsible for diplomatic initiatives being taken before Gerry made his first 'phone calls to the UK.

      The UK government are not noted for conspicuous interest in the well-being of holiday-making infants (Ask Kerry Needham).

      So what was their interest in Madeleine McCann? Or were they primarily interested in someone/something else?

    2. anon 18.07 says:
      "o what was their interest in Madeleine McCann? Or were they primarily interested in someone/something else?"

      yep why not build an even bigger conspiracy. Another nutter.

    3. @21:20

      Another deep thinker

    4. @18:07 (23.1)

      "[...] the FCO served to relay information/instructions to him, not take instruction from him."


    5. In particular on 19th June '07, the day McCann lost his wallet at Waterloo (or was that Whitehall?).

      With CEOP at Belgravia and the fund lawyers in the City of London (Cannon Street), what was he doing at Waterloo?

      Answer: A meeting at the FCO (confirmed subsequently by Clarence Mitchell).

      That very day (19 June) he 'blogs': "The role for Kate and I in the campaign will not be nearly be so public".

      A decision arrived at by whom exactly?

      The following day (20th June) he 'blogs': "It was agreed in principle to appoint a family spokesperson who will act, not just for Kate and I, but also on behalf of the extended family who have been liaising with the media".

      But FCO appointee Clarence Mitchell had been on board a month already, described in the Sun (24 May) as 'The McCann's Spokesman'!

      A year later he brags (to Nicky Campbell, Radio Five Live Breakfast, 1.5.08): "We have contact with the Foreign Office, errm... from predominantly a consular basis."


  61. Anonymous 22 January 2017 at 23:32

    “Amaral's theory that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday simply cannot be right.”

    Provided several of Dr Martin Roberts’ assumptions are correct. For instance:

    “PeterMac has now demolished Kate's claim to have taken the Tennis Balls Photo…”

    “demolished”? Could you please post a link.

    “…the Last Photo was almost certainly taken on Sunday.”

    So it seems.


    1. @17:22

      If you read your 'for instance' link carefully you'll find it is both self-aggrandizing and self-contradictory.

      Furthermore, according to this blogger, "It's not really important who created the photo which was released to the press."

      A statement which ranks alongside that of the BBC regional news reader, who pompously announced:

      'Facts can be changed.'


    2. "During the day of her disappearance they had all gone for a walk, played tennis, and taken some more snapshots for the family album before relaxing by the pool."

      Some more snapshots?

    3. Anonymous 23 January 2017 at 22:40

      I am very grateful for your comments.

      You are clearly not Anon 22 January 2017 at 23:32 for whom the link was intended as a reminder that there exists a critique of some of Dr Roberts’ conjectures.

      “If you read your 'for instance' link carefully you'll find it is both self-aggrandizing and self-contradictory.”

      I wouldn’t mind “self-aggrandizing” but I would mind “self –contradictory”. I did read the link carefully, I’ll do so again and get back to you regarding the latter.

      Could you be so kind as to confirm that you find the link self-contradictory, as opposed to inconsistent, and perhaps provide a relevant citation?

      “Furthermore, according to this blogger, "It's not really important who created the photo which was released to the press."

      Would you not agree that it is WHEN the photograph was taken which is crucial, not WHO took it?

      “A statement which ranks alongside that of the BBC regional news reader, who pompously announced:

      'Facts can be changed.'”

      I shouldn’t really comment on something taken out of context. However, the news reader might have been referring to ‘facts’ in their everyday meaning, which has no exact definition, without giving a thought to what they were was reading – many a news reader’s malady. Historically, many ‘facts’ have been ‘changed’: the Earth is no longer flat nor is it the centre of our star system.


      Well, I wouldn’t expect philosophers and/or logicians to read us ‘the news’, would you?

      BTW, I favour Dr Roberts’ conjecture that the pjs had been photographed before the ‘abduction’.


    4. @12:24

      "Could you be so kind as to confirm that you find the link self-contradictory, as opposed to inconsistent, and perhaps provide a relevant citation?"

      Here you are:

      "there is no actual evidence that the PJ didn't take the photo, is there?"

      Followed, eventually, by:

      "They had already provided the picture to the police"

      Which, if correct, rules out the PJ's having taken it.

      "Would you not agree that it is WHEN the photograph was taken which is crucial, not WHO took it?"

      Yes I would, but I believe 'author identity' helps determine the timing in this case.

      "However, the news reader might have been referring to ‘facts’ in their everyday meaning"

      I take your point regarding facts being relative, historically speaking. Perhaps I should have clarified that the regional news reader was in fact discussing an aspect of the McCann case. The broadcast was also quite a few years ago.

      "BTW, I favour Dr Roberts’ conjecture that the pjs had been photographed before the ‘abduction’."

      So do I.

  62. @ Anonymous22 January 2017 at 23:32

    No the real conspiracy is led by bennett and others saying that everyone who said they saw Madeleine during the week are in a massive cover-up conspiracy. bennett even wrote to another holiday guest there at the time and was told he has photos with Madeleine in the background.

    MurkyMac has proven nothing at all - not a single thing - oh apart from proving on video that the shutters can be lifted easily from outside.

    1. @23:32

      "No the real conspiracy is led by Bennett..."

      Another authority on the subject, I see.

  63. Ros to clarify things - can you please confirm that the antisemite has been blocked from posting on your blog.

    1. No, I haven't. I've never blocked anyone on here. If their arguments are put across fairly reasonably, I will publish. I don't fear racist and misogynist words 21:00, I challenge them.

  64. "Hate speech, violent, or crude content

    Blogger doesn’t remove blogs that contain insults or negative commentary.

    We do remove content that:

    promotes hatred or violence against individuals or groups based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, nationality, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity
    is shocking or graphic, without more context or commentary
    threatens others"

    1. thanks for the enlightenment 'anonymous'( whoever you are, mysterious one )

      I can't believe I'm having to explain myself again. But I suppose I should....

      First, with the 'on the sauce' issue.I don't drink. I like a clear head.
      With that bombshell out of the way, i'll continue..

      Did anyone who isn't wearing a rubber bracelet spot the 'i have no problem with Mr Average Jew' ? It doesn't seem like it. I have often defended critics of Jews ( apart from comedians because its only comedy).I've pointed out to people that they 'stick together' ( as most critics seem to point out) because that's what people are supposed to do.They have a community on a micro and macro level.They seem to experience their religion too and are passive wherever they are.They work from when the sparrows wake up until the moon wakes up later.What they have they earn.The same can be said of the Muslim.We're a Christian set of islands here.Christian.can we honestly say the same ? I don't care which branch of the christian tree you sit on, it's the same book and same tenets. But of the three religions mentioned only two is free of the begging isn't the Christians despite valiant efforts by the salvation army and the like. When our society is free of the begging bowl, we can use the word 'community' again.

      I don't like oppression of any kind. In the 21st century you'd think we'd have evolved a bit further.I don't care if it's an adult over a child, a man over a woman, a nation over a nation. I'm no trippy hippie and i'm far from politically correct. I'm happy to get into somebody elses fight if they're on the wrong end of it. There should be peace in the world by now.But, alas, peace is bad for business. Ask Kennedy and John Lennon. Ask Martin Luther King. Gandhi even. You can't can you. Incidentally, oil ceased to be the unholy grail a few years ago. If it hadn't, we'd be liberating them in Iraq again.

      All men are equal on the planet. that's not hate speech, incidentally, I'm hoping you read 'men' as generic 'man' . Some may posture and assert themselves by force. Some may be too weak to stand up. That's psychology .
      I note the ridiculous pleas to Ros to 'ban the anti-semite' ; the quoting of the rules regarding hate speech. I find that immature and shallow and, in my defence, incorrect. If I'm wrong I'll apologise when somebody quotes my hatred. The same goes for racism or any other 'ism'. I've been turned over a good few times here in dear old Blighty but i can't recall any of them being any other colour than white, straight and British. No Jew, no Muslim, no Hindu no black people and no women.Why would i hate any of them ? A good person is a good person and a bad person is a bad person. Give them time to reveal which they are before judging. I may have voiced something unpleasant about Trump and his roots. I'm hardly a lone voice in the wilderness there am i ? I actually found it funny that i was pounced on for pointing out his grandfather's making tax free illegal earnings from brothel-keeping was fine but don't criticise his religion.

      The bottom line is this. There are Jews and there are Zionists. I'm anti-Zionist. That doesn't mean anti-capitalist . it means anti-usury and anti-war . It means anti-enslavement and it means lover of freedom and a genuine democratic world . Incidentally, you know who dislikes the Zionists as much as I do ? I'll give you two clues : Not a western leader ; not from a christian or Muslim country.

  65. Anonymous 23 January 2017 at 18:07, 22:23, 22:26

    Good posts, well put. Concise and sweet.