Tuesday, 24 January 2017

MCCANN CONSPIRACIES - THE LAST PHOTO



Of the many conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, one of the most enduring seems to be the suggestion that Madeleine died much earlier in the week, there is no proof that she was alive after Sunday, the theorists claim.   

Goncalo Amaral and indeed his entire team of detectives who were there on the ground interviewing the actual witnesses, got it wrong apparently.  From the comfort of their armchairs, these deluded 'researchers'  believe they have solved this case because they have read the files.  Even putting aside that the PJ files were incomplete (much was held back), the files are nigh on 10 years old!  No-one can prove anything from these files, let alone a small group of group of deluded sleuths who think they have the genius to spot signs all the hundreds of REAL detectives who have worked on this case may have missed. 

Each works from the perspective of 'I'm a right, dead right', especially when flogging their delusional theories to the gullible.  They don't have the guts, humility, honesty and integrity to admit that the conclusions they reached 9+ years ago might be wrong.  They cannot accept that their square pegs just will not fit in round holes.  Two year olds learn this immediately and move on until they find a hole that fits.  Ten years on, this lot are still hammering away. 

I'm not sure if the Madeleine died on the Sunday idea sprung from Petermac and his interminable drivel about the last photo?  I actually stopped reading him many years ago, I have no time for the blinkered.  I know some, spend hours, days, weeks, etc pouring over photographs and the pyjamas, but to be honest, in a case littered with thousands of far more interesting 'tells', why focus on the trivia?  The Nightwear Job does a little too much surmising for my liking. Martin Roberts is filling the gaps on pyjama buying with what is going on in his own head.  He is projecting - a no no, in a scientific study, not something you would expect from someone with a doctorate.  Some 'experts' play fast and lose with 6 degrees of separation in this case, eg. Bennett:  Martin Smith is Irish and Catholic, so must be part of the McCann plot. 

Those pushing the theory that Madeleine died on the Sunday, or earlier in the week, expect us to believe that the child's body lay in the wardrobe for 5 days, while the parents and the rest of the group continued their holiday as if nothing had happened?  This is where reality leaves the building.  I apologise for being insensitive, but leaving a body in a wardrobe in a warm, humid climate, in an apartment where maids have access is beyond absurd.  Clearly, no specialist cadaver dogs would have been needed.  What kind of people would do that? And what kind of people would continue their holiday if a child from their party had died?  And for what reason?  They wanted their money's worth?  The very idea takes us to areas of macabre that would make even horror writers flinch. I know some will say they put on quite a performance on the Thursday, but that was a 'one night' only.  It wasn't every night and matinees. 

But let's indulge them for one moment.  If Madeleine died on the Sunday, the entire holiday party, including the kids and Fiona Payne's mother, must have been complicit.  This would have involved continuing with the tennis lessons, riding, days on the beach and high tea for 5 days after experiencing the worst tragedy of any of their lives.  Effectively, they would continue leaving the children alone each night, allegedly drugged, while they dined at the tapas bar? That is the very behaviour that led to the tragedy.  Many people, including the parents, suspected the McCann twins were drugged on the night Madeleine disappeared.  Now this is where I am asking the Sunday claimers to use a bit of logic and common sense.  Why on earth would the parents drug the twins (again)? And why on earth would they lay themselves open to charges of neglect (their biggest fear) for 5 nights in a row following a disaster?  

I agree they all put on a performance that night.  But it was like a hastily written Whitehall Farce, with more than a sniff of a 'make it up as you along' narrative.  Complete with clumsy memory recalls to fill in the gaps.  Gerry: 'Oh, that's right, I forgot, I didn't use my keys at all.  I went in the back doors which we always left open'.  It's a bit cringey to be honest and full of holes in the plotline.  How come 6 doctors and 3 administrators (constant notetakers) did not think to buy a notepad for their hastily prepared alibis on the night for example?

According to the Sunday claimers, the tapas group had 5 days lazing round the pool, eating tapas each night with apartments next to each other.  Why then did they make such a pigs ear of the Thursday night debacle?  They were all contradicting each other, Tannerman didn't appear until after the rush, and the mother didn't know about til the next morning!  How come Jane Tanner didn't say to the crowds of searchers 'a man carrying a child went that way'?

This was a group of educated, 'elite' people who only appeared to mix with their own kind.  Whilst they may appear to have drawn up a master plan to take over the Missing People industry, almost everything that happened to them, was the fickle finger of fate taking over.  They could not possibly have known for example, that their plight would cause such a global sensation. That's the thing with a hot news story, just as you are assured of front page coverage, an earthquate or a tsunami will strike on the other side of the world.  It really is down to the roll of the dice.

I truly believe the God complex took over this little group of elites.  They believed as British doctors, their word be taken immediately, and they would be above suspicion.  Instead of physically searching for their child, they were stirring up hostility against the local police and the PJ.  'No-one is helping us' they cried in phone calls back to the UK. They were I believe pleading for diplomatic immunity of some sort, who knows why, but Gerry's megalomania probably played a big part. 

In 10 years it appears as though nothing has happened in the Madeleine McCann case.  Some of us have been driven insane trying to work out the complexities, as if we were playing a particularly intense game of Cluedo. In the early days I studied the evidence just as much as every enthusiastic newbie, it was a case of well, I've started a 10,000 piece puzzle, now I will have to finish it, doh!  I once spent 3 weeks of my very busy (at the time) life, finishing an oil painting by numbers copy of Van Gogh's Sunflowers.  I cannot begin to tell you how many hours I spent on it each day, it got to the point where I hated the bleddy thing!  These kits should have warning signs :(  Abandoning it was never an option, it would have been failure.  I have to admit, finally completing it was a night of much celebration, but I have never attempted such a feat again!  Oops, that was a bit 'Freudian', here I am still commenting on McCann!  Doh! 

Those who claim Madeleine died earlier in the week, are discarding the evidence of Goncalo Amaral, the lead detective, and Madeleine's Avenger, who has spent the last 10 years defending his findings and those of the original investigation. At no time has he thanked Bennett, Petermac , Hall, HideHo or Textusa for enlightening him.  Nor indeed, have they received any thanks from Operation Grange, Government departments or anyone sane.  They are distorting the evidence to the extent that they making up diabolical back stories for the independent witnesses who's statements contradict their theories. As the divine Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park '......never  questioning whether they should'. 

There is nothing wrong with anyone reconsidering their original stance, I consider it an admirable trait.  Each of us learn new facts and new perspectives every day. Considering other options opens the doors to enlightenment.  Intellectuals take the time to listen to and ponder new ideas, it is how they acquire more knowledge!  Those who insist they are right, dead right, are wearing blinkers, they have put up barriers to new information.  I don't mean on whether the parents were involved, I think 95% of the public now think that, but I mean on the more outlandish claims of swinging, child abuse and the ridiculous idea that Madeleine died on the Sunday.
Mostly through pride, they can't admit when they are wrong, or maybe because they are so bloody minded, if they are wrong the whole world makes no sense.  I must admit over the years, I have watched with amusement as these diehards nailed their masts to the flagpoles.  Their downfall is inevitable.  It may take years, or even decades, but it's inevitable.  

Those studying the last photograph with a microscope and a computer might like to consider for one moment the reasons why the parents may have released that particular photograph.  Could it be that at the time they were hard selling their image of a happy family on their hols?  If they want to dig deeper, why has Gerry got a face like a smacked arse?  Whilst those putting molecules under the microscope may be studying minutia that is only of interest to themselves and their niche audience, they are missing the bigger picture entirely. It's the equivalent of someone on Chilcott's team producing a report on the misuse of office stationary.  And besides, if someone produces video evidence of Madeleine being abducted by aliens, all their theories are tomorrow's recycled toilet paper.  Figuratively speaking, of course.  

    




227 comments:

  1. "I truly believe the God complex took over this little group of elites. They believed as British doctors, their word be taken immediately, and they would be above suspicion. Instead of physically searching for their child, they were stirring up hostility against the local police and the PJ. 'No-one is helping us' they cried in phone calls back to the UK. They were I believe pleading for diplomatic immunity of some sort, who knows why, but Gerry's megalomania probably played a big part. "

    Crikey. Can't believe you would write such complete bollocks.

    ...Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You still here? I thought you'd gone already. I don't disagree though.

      On second thought I do. I can believe it.

      Delete
    2. Just read that paragraph again, slowly. You were right the first time!

      ...Chez

      Delete
  2. Despite the signature in depth crituque of '...Chez' i think that's an excellent post.I particularly liked the 'intense game of Clueoe'. Brilliant .

    I'll put my '2 cents' in later once I've had it proof read by the thought police , suffragettes and press association.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I have watched with amusement as these diehards nailed their masts to the flagpoles" Huh?? A mast IS a flagpole.

    Hutton, why don't you admit it? CMMM Forum is a fantastic forum, as it deals with REAL research. Why are you going on about "swingers"? The research into the Last Photograph is about weather, shadows etc, and BASED on these factors, the "Last Photograph" could NOT have been taken when the McCanns claimed it was taken. Now why is that such a problem for you? All you have is opinion, and nothing else, because you haven't got a clue how to do analytical research. Now, "author, "play write" (snigger) stick to your blog, and keep "my readers" amused, because that's all you are is a source of amusement. Keep pressing the donate button, "readers", because if this block is nothing else, it's amusing. Well, it makes ME laugh!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Hutton, why don't you admit it? CMMM Forum is a fantastic forum, as it deals with REAL research."

      Tony Bennett, 20 January 2017: "Obama, by the way, was and is a homosexual, and his wife, Michelle, is a transsexual, born Michael. Their two children were adopted. It's been an open secret for years.

      Joan Rivers wasn't meant to blurt out this secret, though - she paid for this 'mistake' with her life a few months later when she was murdered."

      The book is now closed on this complete madman. As for you, chum...

      Delete
    2. Hi John, yes that was a bit of a revelation wasn't it, lol. How anyone can take Bennett seriously after that, I don't know.

      Delete
    3. 14:49 I haven't got a clue how to do analytical research? Lol, I have a degree! I don't bore my readers with details of everything I read and study, I pick out the key points and spare them the tedium. Clever people can see the knowledge behind the words, they don't need it spelt out and annotated as you do. Bennett presents his work like an overenthusiastic fourth former, 'look miss, I did this, and this, and this'. When he submitted all those files to Carter Ruck, he wanted them back with ticks, gold stars and well dones. Try taking your reading material up a few notches and you'll see what I mean.

      Delete
    4. That nonsense about the Obamas is surely the death knell for CMoMM. Can there be anyone (apart from Tony and a handful of devoted fans) who gives the forum any credibility at all now?

      Delete
    5. They do seem to be struggling Susan, probably because they bullied and banned all their interesting posters and they haven't permitted a new idea or opinion in over 5 years! Although I suppose technically, Bennett's batshit crazy ideas about the Obamas are new, or have been kept well hidden.

      Delete
  4. You're doing it again, Rosalinda.

    Post title: MCCANN CONSPIRACIES - THE LAST PHOTO

    Mentioned (not discussed), only the once in paragraph four and once again in your final paragraph (of fourteen).

    You appear to have difficulty sticking to the topic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The last photo and the conspiraloon claim that Maddie died earlier in the week are intertwined 14:49. They claim the photograph was faked because Madeleine was already dead.

      I don't know if the last photo was faked or not, but the case clearly doesn't hang on this point because it is almost ten years old. At the time the picture was released the McCanns were hard selling their happy, normal family image, and for that the poolside picture was perfect.

      Delete
  5. @anon 14:49
    '' if this block is nothing else, it's amusing. '' eh ?

    '' Hutton, why don't you admit it? CMMM Forum is a fantastic forum, as it deals with REAL research '' -are you strengthening Rosalind's argument on purpose or unintentionally ?

    @ 14:40(Mk2)

    '' You appear to have difficulty sticking to the topic.''

    It seems to me that the final paragraph is what the headline promised, and the preceding paragraphs were all leading to it and providing the flesh for the bones.It's a question of the individual's comprehension skills.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I really don't know where you get your information from but I have never seen it said by ANY researcher that Madeleine lay dead in a wardrobe for days on end. I think that's a bit of poetic licence to further your cause of deriding anyone who doesn't share your particular theories. Madeleine obviously lay dead for at least 90 minutes in 5A to alert the dogs to cadaver odour . Personally I don't think it's beyond the realms of probability that she died early in that week ...................the distinct lack of family photographs lend credibility to that scenario for a start. Although you may mock the weather reports for that week they are important evidence I would have thought. I think you're a bit over impressed with the professional status of the McCanns and their friends and overestimate their intelligence.
    Unlike yours other fora have a search for the truth as their aim . No invested interests. No deliberate provocation . Just a search for the truth and justice for a beautiful little girl who went on holiday and never came back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If Maddie died earlier in the week her body would have to be stored somewhere, so if not the wardrobe, where?

      The lack of photographs aren't proof of anything. How many of us go on holiday and end up taking all our photos on one day? These theorists (armchair detectives)make an awful lot of the tiny bit of information they have.

      I'm not impressed by the professional status of the McCanns and their friends and actually find their lack of intelligence and indeed common sense, quite alarming. They may be educated in their own particular field of expertise, but from their writings, Gerry's blog and Kate's book, it is apparent that they are not very well read. Their works lack the charm, culture and easy flowing vocabulary of their nemesis Goncalo Amaral,they are worlds apart.

      I don't see how other fora are searching for the truth, when they censor and ban anyone who doesn't agree with them!

      Delete
    2. "I'm not impressed by the professional status of the McCanns and their friends and actually find their lack of intelligence and indeed common sense, quite alarming. They may be educated in their own particular field of expertise, but from their writings, Gerry's blog and Kate's book, it is apparent that they are not very well read. Their works lack the charm, culture and easy flowing vocabulary of their nemesis Goncalo Amaral,they are worlds apart."

      ROFL. If I didn't know otherwise, I would have guessed the American troll McFadden had written the above, though of course she can barely string a meaningful sentence together.

      It's much more fun highlighting your blinkered idiocies than those of the Twitter goons.

      You're welcome.
      ...Chez

      Delete
    3. Much obliged Chez, I always appreciate an eloquent insult ;)

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 January 2017 at 20:45

      “Madeleine obviously lay dead for at least 90 minutes in 5A to alert the dogs to cadaver odour.”

      Madeleine obviously DID NOT HAVE TO lay dead for at least 90 minutes in 5A. All that was necessarily present for Eddie to alert was the scent of a certain chemical compound.

      “…I don't think it's beyond the realms of probability that she died early in that week ...................”

      On the basis of the information available, it is reasonable to presume that Madeleine most likely died at least hours before 10pm or thereabouts on 3 May.

      “…the distinct lack of family photographs lend credibility to that scenario for a start.”

      Not at all. There is a puzzling lack of family photographs in the public domain, that’s all.

      “Although you may mock the weather reports for that week they are important evidence I would have thought.”

      Reliable weather reports are indeed important when relevant.

      “Unlike yours other fora have a search for the truth as their aim . No invested interests. No deliberate provocation . Just a search for the truth and justice for a beautiful little girl who went on holiday and never came back.”

      Would you be kind enough to post links to such “other fora”?

      Delete
  7. Hi Ros,

    On the subject of the last photo, as previously mentioned I find it strange that no other photo from that holiday has been published. I agree with you & GA that whatever happened, it happened on Thursday, but I can also understand why some are questioning it because all they have to work on is the one photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the holiday was more about the sports activities and the opportunity for the adults to get together John. The kids were almost an afterthought, in the crèche during the day, and asleep in the apartments during the evening. Given that the parents were really into each other (not in a textusa way), I'm not really surprised there are so few pictures.

      Delete
  8. @ John10024 January 2017 at 21:17

    playground photo and tennis ball photo.

    Just because not many photos have been published does not mean that other photos were not taken.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The photo is clearly taken after the 'disappearance - it's bloody hot in it. I agree with PM, date is changed... but from the future, not the Sunday which was as cool as the Thursday. Maddie thus shopped in, hence return to UK days before the photo's release. Simples.

    Why bother? Because of mounting pressure after the disappearance to evidence she was there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 22:17 What mounting pressure? In 10 years, no police force, detective agency, or indeed anyone sane, has suggested Maddie was missing before Thursday 3rd May 2007. The only people putting forward this lunatic theory, are those who have not only lost the plot, but have made up one of their own.

      When police are called out to a case of a missing child, or indeed adult, the first thing they do is establish the last time the child was seen. The idea that Goncalo Amaral and his team of detectives overlooked Madeleine being missing for 5 days is ridiculous and indeed insulting. How would they like if he went in and told them how to do their jobs?

      There is NOTHING, absolutely ZILTCH in the police files to suggest Madeleine was missing before Thursday. Hundreds of people were interviewed and not one of them said, they only saw the McCanns with two children.

      The PJ investigation went on for over a year, that is long after Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case. Ergo, those armchair detectives who claim GA didn't have the time or information they have, are ignoring the fact that the rest of the PJ did. Note, there is no reference whatsoever in their final report to Madeleine being missing before Thursday.

      The only people suggesting Madeleine died earlier in the week, are people who have no access to anything other than 10 year old files. That they have deluded themselves is amusing, but that they have deluded others is scary.

      Delete
  10. Rosalinda says “They were I believe pleading for diplomatic immunity of some sort”. I believe they did and that is what they eventually got as well.

    Two years after the case was shelved Kate wrote a letter to David Cameron, asking him and the British Government to make an independent, comprehensible and transparent review of the whole case. It is understood, that by independent Kate did not refer to the Portuguese P J, by comprehensible she did not refer to her trying to explain all the inconsistencies in her and Gerry’s witness statements and by transparent she certainly didn’t mean, that the general public should have any access to British Government’s official files, just she and Gerry.

    David Cameron’s answer to Kate’s letter confirms, that the stranger abduction had then been officially established as a fact, by the British Government. There is nothing in that letter to suggest that Cameron wanted the Portuguese Prosecutors to reopen the case, but just a suggestion about the Met helping in “the search for Madeleine” and about his (the Prime Minister’s) support, which in practice was and still is a kind of immunity from being further investigated, granted the McCanns.
    (I hope this last sentence is comprehensible English)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They do seem to have had immunity of some sort Bjorn, which caused much evidence to be lost. The clothes they were wearing for example, should have been taken by the police, if not the first night, almost certainly the next day before Kate washed them. Again, where were the clothes Madeleine wore that day. Why were they not produced for the dogs that night?

      I remember reading about the British consulate John (I believe) Buck, who put pressure on the PJ to treat the parents sensitively. I can't remember where I read it, and hope someone does. It may have been WikiLeaks, but I haven't checked yet.

      Good point on Cameron going with the stranger abduction. It never occurred to me that the hands of the Portuguese police may be tied by the ongoing British investigation. But you are right. That does appear to be the case. Are Operation Grange preventing any arrests? It's a fair point.

      Delete
    2. "Alípio Ribeiro, national director of PJ, received a call from John Buck, the british ambassador in Portugal, on the night Madeleine disapeared from the Ocean Club, on May 3."

      http://www.cmjornal.pt/exclusivos/imprimir/pj-forcada-a-investigar-pista-de-rapto

      Alípio Ribeiro, director nacional da Polícia Judiciária, recebeu uma chamada telefónica de John Buck, embaixador britânico em Portugal, na noite em que Madeleine desapareceu do Ocean Club, a 3 de Maio.

      Delete
    3. "He [GNR Officer Jose Maria Batista Roque] also refers to a situation when he was searching outside, near the pool, that someone from the OC whom he cannot identify, passed him a mobile phone, as a British Consulate employee who spoke in Portuguese, wanted to talk to the authorities. Upon speaking to him, he told him that the investigation and subsequent actions were under the responsibility of the PJ."

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOSE_ROQUE.htm

      "He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father."

      Delete
    4. 07:46. How bizarre! So while this police officer was actively searching, he's a handed a mobile phone to speak with a British consulate employee. What was the urgent message? Don't search TOO hard!

      So not only were the McCanns and their friends trampling all over the crime scene, but the British government were already telling the Portuguese police to back off! No wonder so much evidence was lost.

      Delete
    5. "So not only were the McCanns and their friends trampling all over the crime scene, but the British government were already telling the Portuguese police to back off! No wonder so much evidence was lost"

      LOL!

      ...Chez

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @07:38

      Other reports (CdM) place the call in question at around 11.00 p.m., while Ribeiro was having dinner.

      GM did not 'phone anyone in the UK until getting on for midnight.

      So how did Buck know to steer Ribeiro toward investigating an abduction within the hour?

      (suggestions from 'non-conspiraloons' are welcome Rosalinda)

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda @08:17

      "So not only were the McCanns and their friends trampling all over the crime scene, but the British government were already telling the Portuguese police to back off!"

      That's right. Well done!

      In time you might be less disparaging with regard to '10 yr. old evidence', since it doesn't matter how old it is.

      You might even come to realize one or two more harsh realities surrounding this case in due course, although personally I won't hold my breath.

      Delete
    8. 13:12. Establishing there had been an abduction was the McCanns' and their friends first priority that night - they were frantically calling the UK establishing that fact rather than searching for the missing child.

      And it would appear one or more British VIPs responded immediately. I would imagine their phone calls to their Portuguese counterparts went along the lines of 'the parents are decent people, doctors, British citizens with no criminal record, there is no way they are involved in their daughter's disappearance, please treat them kindly'.

      And thus they perverted the course of justice to the extent that 10 years on the McCanns and the Tapas Group remain above the law. Never mind the last photo, or the pyjamas, here in plain sight is the second biggest crime of that night and it was carried out by the British government and their employees.

      As long as they continue to cover up who gave that order, and who carried it out, this case will never be solved.

      But returning to establishing an abduction. Gerry and Kate, on that same night, while not functioning, were adamant that Madeleine had been TAKEN. Everything else was immediately ruled out and as far as I recall, kidnapping for money never even got a mention.

      Their behaviour reminds me of a documentary I saw about Jeremy Bamber. He too made a point of telling the first police to arrive on the scene, exactly what had happened, who was responsible for the murders (his sister), and how she did it.

      Gerry and Kate did the same. They, the victims, had solved the crime even before the police arrived. The shutters were jemmied, the window was open and the child was missing, that should have been enough for the police, in their opinion. And did they mention they were doctors and very well respected. Jeremy Bamber pulled the Lord of the Manor card when dealing with the uniformed officers, Kate called them Tweededum and Tweedledee.

      Delete
    9. There are over 500 blogs on this site 13:20, the trampling of the crime scene is not new to me, lol. But thanks for the patronising 'well done' anyway.

      The 10 year old evidence is as it is 13:20, and much is undisputed. The McCanns and their friends did contaminate the crime scene, whether intentionally or not, is open to debate. In my opinion it is clear cut. As doctors and with supposedly above average intelligence, they should have been aware of how important a single fingerprint could be. Instead, we have Kate's fingerprints on the window and Gerry interfering with the shutters.

      Delete
    10. Rosalinda 24.1 @22:59

      "I have a degree!"

      In what? Hypocrisy?

      You say above:

      "here in plain sight is the second biggest crime of that night and it was carried out by the British government and their employees."

      That's 'conspiraloon' talk is it not?

      You cannot both run with the hare and hold with the hounds, although you seem to be making a serious attempt at doing so.

      Your vacuous opinions are beyond amusing, and there are rather too many of them for comfort.

      "...they were frantically calling the UK establishing that fact rather than searching for the missing child.

      And it would appear one or more British VIPs responded immediately."

      If you knew as much about this affair as you claim, you would know that the 'one or more British VIP's' did not respond immediately to the McCann family overtures, but beforehand.

      "I would imagine their phone calls to their Portuguese counterparts went along the lines of 'the parents are decent people, doctors, British citizens with no criminal record, there is no way they are involved in their daughter's disappearance, please treat them kindly'."

      YOU would IMAGINE?

      Well forgive me for suggesting that others might choose to imagine the UK government's taking an altogether different approach, whether or not it meets with your approval.

      "Never mind the last photo" (which was not 'faked' btw. Its date was altered), "or the pyjamas" (photographed prior to the 'abduction').

      No, what matters is the sanction to think 'outside the box', without which 'armchair detectives working with 10 yr. old evidence' are prime candidates for nothing but ridicule and personal abuse on your part.

      He who laughs last laughs loudest madam.



      Delete
    11. Not all conspiracies are of the looney variety 16:06, some turn out to be chillingly true, eg. sexed up war document, Hillsborough and of course McCann.
      There are several sources that support the McCanns being assisted by the UK Government. WikiLeaks, the words of John Buck, the words of the McCanns themselves - they were taking calls directly from Gordon Brown!

      At first I took your post as rather ominous and threatening 16:06, but as I read further down, I saw your claims that the VIPs acted BEFORE Madeleine went missing, and you went in the loon pile.

      Delete
    12. Rosalinda @21:00

      Typically condescending, careless, and quite wrong.

      "I saw your claims that the VIPs acted BEFORE Madeleine went missing, and you went in the loon pile."

      I don't know where you saw that claim, but it certainly isn't in my previous comment (any more than Donald Trump repeated the words of JFK, as you erroneously imagine elsewhere, although you seem unprepared to admit that also).

      I wrote: "British VIP's' did not respond immediately to the McCann family overtures, but beforehand", i.e., before the flurry of McCann 'phone calls which you mistakenly took to be their signal for action.

      Nowhere did I comment as to the time of Madeleine's disappearance, abduction or whatever you might choose to call it.

      I really don't know where you of all people get off accusing others of jumping to conclusions and making things up. You are a hypocrite of the first water.

      Delete
  11. And talking of conspiracy theories I see that Hall guy has found another:

    "Primark Psy Op

    Post by Richard D. Hall Yesterday at 22:15
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5667c315-a69c-4e5d-a683-e4e7771eb04d


    If you don't think this is linked to the McCann case. Do some thinking. Mother not named, child not named, abductors not named, no cctv released. Nothing is check-able. If only Madeleine had been abducted in the UK, the police would have caught the perpetrators.

    My favourite bit : The 101 non-emergency call, taken by handler KATE MCCAfferty, seemed routine.

    I am not aware of any evidence which shows this was anything other than an exercise or a hoax."
    ---------------------------------------------

    It seems as though the name of the call handler is similar (but not the same) as Kate Mccann.

    Nothing is checkable because those involved were minors. Sentence has been passed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't read or watch the guy tbh 09:47, he takes dull to the point where it should be a criminal offence! I don't think I've forgiven him for the 4 hours I wasted watching his Madeleine videos.

      Nothing irks me more than having my time wasted, I'm only now allowing Mark Wahlberg to worm his way back into my affections after 'The Happening' in which nothing happened! And don't get me started on the 'anti' who kept me on the phone for 90 minutes before announcing Madeleine was a clone! Grr.

      Delete
    2. On John Buck's protection of the family, the wonderful Craig Murray gave invaluable insight into this: https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/04/the-strange-case-of-gordon-brown-and-the-mccanns/amp/?client=safari

      "I am going to come straight out with this. British diplomatic staff were under direct instruction to support the McCanns far beyond the usual and to put pressure on the Portuguese authorities over the case. I have direct information that more than one of those diplomatic staff found the McCanns less than convincing and their stories inconsistent. Embassy staff were perturbed to be ordered that British authorities were to be present at every contact between the McCanns and Portuguese police.

      This again is absolutely not the norm. On a daily basis more British citizens have contact with foreign authorities than the total staff of the FCO. It would be simply impossible to give that level of support to everybody. Plus, against jingoistic presumption, a great many Brits who have contact with foreign police are actually criminals.

      The British Ambassador in Portugal, John Buck, had been my direct boss in the FCO. he was Deputy Head of Southern European Department when I was Head of Cyprus Section. He and his staff were concerned by contradictions in the McCann’s story. The Embassy warned, in writing, that being perceived as too close to the McCanns might not prove wise. They demanded the instruction from London be reconfirmed. It was.

      I know of people’s misgivings because I was told directly. But material was also leaked to a Belgian newspaper confirming what I have said. It was published by the Express, but like so much other material which is not supportive of the McCanns, it got taken down. Fortunately that last link preserved it. It also shows that the FCO continues to refuse Freedom of Information requests for the material on the interesting grounds that it might damage relations with Portugal"


      Delete
    3. Many thanks Georgie, this is probably the article I couldn't recall, and of course the source, Craig Murray, is reliable.

      Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie' corresponds with everything Craig Murray is saying, ie. they were to treat the parents gently. How else do you account for Gerry being present when Kate was interviewed?

      Delete
  12. Rosalinda @14:47

    "I would imagine their phone calls to their Portuguese counterparts went along the lines of 'the parents are decent people, doctors, British citizens with no criminal record, there is no way they are involved in their daughter's disappearance, please treat them kindly'."

    But how to explain the following situation?

    Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’), Friday 4 May:

    “We were grateful for the support of the British consul for the Algarve, Bill Henderson, and the proconsul, Angela Morado, who met us at the police station. [...] At one point, the British ambassador, John Buck, came down from Lisbon to see us. He was pleasant and obviously concerned.

    I recall Bill Henderson telling me there had been several recent cases of men getting into bed with children, but no known abductions.”

    Some words of comfort? What a strange thing to say to the mother of an ‘abducted’ child before she was taken off for questioning, all the more so considering Kate’s self-proclaimed psychological state.

    “I was taken into a large room containing several desks. Gerry had asked João Carlos if he could be allowed to stay with me while I was questioned because he was extremely worried about my psychological state. I was grateful to João Carlos for agreeing, with the proviso that Gerry remained seated behind me.”

    It just doesn’t add up.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Words of comfort in the sense of 'it's OK we believe you' I think NL. Gerry and Kate didn't want to hear anything other than abduction, suggestions of her wandering off seemed to anger them.

      I think it does add up NL, in fact, as Ace Ventura might say, 'like a glove!' There is a huge amount of information in the public domain that points to support from the British government - not least the removal of Goncalo Amaral from the investigation.

      As for Gerry going into Kate's interview with her, wtf? Apparently, he sat behind her squeezing her shoulder to give her reassurance. Why would the PJ allow this if they had not been leant on?

      Delete
  13. On the subject as a whole, I don't know if the last photo was tampered with or taken somewhere else without anything to back it up ie other photos, then anything said is pure conjecture. However I believe someone within that group is pulling the strings, my guess it's David Payne. Someone has a good knowledge of forensics, recognised official UK documents hence the Yvonne Martin statement, Operation Grange all connected to the Home Office. Also Diane Webster who I believe remained quite calm and hardly gets a mention. This is just my thoughts, I could be wrong and open to any suggestions or corrections.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How many more conspiracies are people going to come up with on this blog? From trying to guess what phone conversations were actually like without any evidence whatsoever, to Payne being dodgy in some way.

    Why not stick to exactly what is in the files and stop trying to create myths that have been blown out of the water years ago.

    Of course just to join in - the FCO could have said - oh we just got a phone call and some British kid has gone missing from a holiday apartment - we'll contact the PJ in a few days and hope it has been solved - we don't want to bother them now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous @23:54

      Hi I never said David Payne was dodgy, just perhaps well connected. As for sticking to the files, did you get as far as Yvonne Martin's statement. I have never mentioned any deleted phone calls or conspiracy theories. As I pointed out this is my own view of the case. Perhaps you can share on your thoughts on what happened.

      Delete
    2. Well said.

      By the way, anyone who wants to know what was said by the British to Ribeiro on the phone at what time and where, has only to check the sources, and his bona fides, carefully: he's made it perfectly clear that the conversation was irreproachable.

      But that's not what some people want to hear, is it? So they won't look it up. If someone looks it up and spoon feeds it to them then they'll say "well he's got to say that, hasn't he? He's scared, he's lying."

      It's just how some people are. By restricting themselves in this way they can, of course, never learn.

      That's all right with me: you can't deny people the freedom to stay uneducated, can you? Less competition for the rest of us.

      Delete
    3. For me the involvement of the British establishment in those crucial days after Madeleine disappeared scuppered the PJ investigation. The conversation Ribeiro had with the British probably was irreproachable, and of the scenario I presented could loosely fall within that irreproachable boundary. Ie. The PM asks could you please be nice to them. No law breaking there.

      I suppose it all depends how nice they were. From the McCann perspective, it was very nice of them to allow the parents to be interviewed the next morning, and it was very nice of them to allow Gerry to sit in on Kate's interview.

      Then of course there was all the evidence that was lost in not troubling the parents and their friends for the clothes they were wearing that night and not sealing off the apartment immediately.

      I don't think there can be any doubt that the McCanns had assistance from the British Authorities. Not only were UK police agencies sent out to assist them, they were given their own government spokesman! Not forgetting of course that they were escorted home by British secret services when they were made arguidos.

      The involvement of the British government and the British establishment is not a conspiracy, it is right in front of us! To this day, none of the MSM news agencies will publish anything critical of the McCanns. Admittedly, these days is more likely to be because they are so litigious, but prior to that it was probably down to their powerful friends.

      The Portuguese police did make mistakes and Goncalo Amaral has admitted that, but given the all singing, all dancing, circus the parents brought to PDL, it was hardly surprising. All the global appeals for sightings would ensure the police switchboard would be jammed with callers, most of them loons, and away from investigating the key players. I don't know how any police force could operate effectively in such circumstances.

      Those still doubting the involvement of the UK government, should perhaps ask themselves, how do you get the lead detective removed from an investigation that is closing in?










      When they were made arguidos, they were escorted all the way home by the Secret Services.

      Delete
    4. @ John10026 January 2017 at 00:36

      "Perhaps you can share on your thoughts on what happened."


      Certainly my thoughts are that Madeleine was abducted by person or persons unknown and the Mccanns are not involved apart from leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

      Delete
    5. [quote]
      Chief Inspector Goncalo Amaral was removed from the inquiry after he claimed that British detectives had been duped by Kate and Gerry McCann and only investigated leads which were "convenient" for the couple.
      His outburst led to a reprimand from Portugal's justice minister, lberto Costa, who said: "We need to concentrate on the job and not on the commentary." Within hours Alipio Ribeiro, the head of the Policia Judiciaria, ordered Mr Amaral off the case, demoted him to inspector and stripped him of his role as a regional head of the force. Mr Amaral made his "angry and explosive" remarks to the Portuguese newspaper Diario de Noticias.
      Mr Amaral, 47, has attracted criticism from the early days of the inquiry and news of his departure was met with relief by those close to the investigation.
      He is also facing a criminal hearing over another missing girl, Joana Cipriano, accused of concealing evidence that the girl's mother, Leonor, was beaten into confessing to her murder. Mr Amaral came under pressure to step down from the McCann investigation after it emerged he could face trial over the accusations, but he refused to resign.
      While the McCanns have been warned they be jailed for speaking about the case, Mr Amaral, who was 48 yesterday, has frequently been heard holding court and accusing them of killing Madeleine. He has said: "We are sure the parents killed Madeleine. They are both doctors and know about drugs. We are confident in our case."
      British police will hope that his successor will bring fresh impetus to the investigation, which appeared to be stalling as Portuguese detectives refused to consider any evidence which did not fit theories implicating the McCanns.
      [unquote]

      Delete
    6. Thank you for your input 23:54, but the scenario you present bears no resemblance to the facts. The British Ambassador arrived the next day, along with plane loads of McCann relatives, lawyers and representatives of UK police agencies. Not only did the British not keep out of it, they became actively involved.

      Delete
    7. "Certainly my thoughts are that Madeleine was abducted by person or persons unknown and the Mccanns are not involved apart from leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

      Exactly. It really is as simple as that.

      Delete
    8. "Of course...the FCO could have said...we'll contact the PJ in a few days and hope it has been solved - we don't want to bother them now." (Anonymous @23:54)

      But they didn't, did they.

      "Not only did the British not keep out of it, they became actively involved." (Rosalinda @10:31)

      "For me the involvement of the British establishment in those crucial days after Madeleine disappeared scuppered the PJ investigation" (Rosalinda 01:17)

      Hence the investigation went south simply because the UK agencies, falling over themselves to be helpful, just got in the way (the Gamble theory).

      Well if you believe that....

      Reassuringly "Not all conspiracies are of the looney variety" (Rosalinda, 25.1, 21:00)

      However, "The involvement of the British government and the British establishment is not a conspiracy" (Rosalinda 01:17)

      Just another unfortunate coincidence then.

      Nevertheless "Those still doubting the involvement of the UK government, should perhaps ask themselves, how do you get the lead detective removed from an investigation" (Rosalinda 01:17)

      Well they might ask themselves that question, and many more besides, pertaining to deliberately obstructive involvement in an investigation conducted on sovereign territory outside of the UK's jurisdiction, and since.

      Of course they only meant well didn't they?

      Delete
    9. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 January 2017 at 10:31

      And why is that a problem - you do realise that a British child had gone missing from holiday from an apartment run by a large British tour operator? Do you think that they didn't have an action plan ready to swing into action?

      Whereas you scenario of a British Consulate staff member phones the GNR and tells them " Don't search TOO hard! " is realistic!

      Delete
    10. Gamble has the sense to keep some element of truth in what he says 11:05, British police agencies were falling over themselves to help the McCanns, his own, CEOP, included. What did the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency have to do with a 3 year old stolen from her bed?

      And of course, the agencies didn't agree with each other. Whilst Jim Gamble and CEOP were all about the abduction, British national search expert Mark Harrison was advising the PJ to look at the parents. There is of course a strong possibility that the rifts between the British police agencies fighting for the Madeleine gig will become public. Methinks Mr. Gamble was just getting in an early shot.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous @11:08

      "Whereas you scenario of a British Consulate staff member phones the GNR and tells them " Don't search TOO hard! " is realistic!"

      Indeed. That was Harrison (and Grime's) unwitting mistake. Where are they now? And from which direction (above or beneath) are we to suppose the impetus for their (self-imposed?) exile came from?

      Delete
    12. Ros "the Madeleine gig"

      you are really offensive.

      Delete
    13. Rosalinda @12:15

      "What did the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency have to do with a 3 year old stolen from her bed?"

      The agency per se - little or nothing. Gamble on the other hand....

      "There is of course a strong possibility that the rifts between the British police agencies fighting for the Madeleine gig will become public. Methinks Mr. Gamble was just getting in an early shot."

      Gamble knows all about taking pre-emptive measures. In this case, however, I suspect there is more to any differences over rules of engagement (if indeed there were any) than mere professional rivalry.

      The Gold group (chaired by one Matt Baggot) that co-ordinated the UK's response to the abduction 'crisis' is the very body that went on to place a straight-jacket around the Met's later 'Review' of the case.

      Funny that, don't you think?


      Delete
    14. Well actually 11:08, they clearly didn't have an action plan to swing into action should a British child go missing from a foreign holiday resort. And in fact, that has been the McCanns, and indeed Jim Gamble's main complaint and the thrust of most of their campaigns and of course, Amber Alert, Missing People etc.

      Nothing was set in place to deal with such an event, because it almost never happens. The last time a British toddler disappeared abroad in mysterious circumstances was Ben Needham over two decades ago.

      No such action plan or specialised police agency exists to deal with the abduction of a British child abroad, because the chances of it happening are around 1 in a zillion. Having a team on standby and ready to swing into action for such rare tragedies is unrealistic. Especially in missing child cases where statistically it is more likely that the parents or someone known to the child was responsible.

      If you take my imagined scenario and compare it to the extract from Craig Murray's article, (kindly supplied by Georgie Porgie) and you will see they are not too dissimilar.

      Those in power know exactly which minion to choose when they utter the words 'be nice to', that is the minion who will interpret 'nice' exactly as they want them to without them having to say anything incriminating. Semantics have kept lawyers in business for centuries, and despots out of jail. By the time the McCann case is unravelled and all the levels of hierarchy have passed the buck, someone in the post room will get a very harsh telling off.

      Delete
    15. LOL, 10:10, I would say that extract came directly from Clarence Mitchell, but it is too well written. It has Team McCann's mucky hands all over it including the spite and the hexes, lol.

      No-one other than the McCanns and their more deranged supporters have taken the side of Leonora Cipriano. The woman is pure evil. Its' British equivalent would be a group protesting the cops who arrested Ian Huntley didn't handle him gently.

      Any sane person, particularly in the McCanns situation, would distance themselves as far as possible from the Cipriano creature, not align themselves to her plight!

      At no time whatsoever were Gerry, Kate or their friends treated with brutality by the Portuguese police. In her book 'Madeleine' the worst Kate could say was that the police were scruffy, smoking and didn't offer them sympathy and light refreshments.

      Delete
    16. The quote wasn't taking the side of Leonora Cipriano, merely stating what was alleged / known at the time. Maybe you prefer this update - Amaral was convicted in 2009 of perjury related to the investigation into the disappearance of Joana Cipriano and received an 18-month suspended sentence.

      Delete
  15. Anonymous 08.48 "Certainly my thoughts are that Madeleine was abducted by person or persons unknown and the Mccanns are not involved apart from leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

    And the evidence you have seen to support that is ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 26 January 2017 at 11:36

      “Anonymous 08.48 "Certainly my thoughts are that Madeleine was abducted by person or persons unknown and the Mccanns are not involved apart from leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

      And the evidence you have seen to support that is ?”

      Your pertinent question is most likely to remain unanswered in the positive.

      As you may be aware, one Isabel Hudson (Carter-Ruck Solicitors) alleged abduction in a sworn affidavit. Consequently, she was forced to withdraw said allegation having admitted in court that she had been wrong to allege as she had.

      From where I stand, the chances of Anonymous 08:48 or anybody else being privy to any information corroborative of abduction Isabel Hudson was/is not privy to are non-existent.

      It seems therefore that the only conclusion capable of being drawn from the aforesaid is that there is no known evidence of abduction. In contradistinction, there is in the public domain a body of converging circumstantial evidence of non-abduction capable of withstanding hostile cross-examination.

      Furthermore:

      “…the Mccanns are not involved apart from leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

      On the one hand - the parents, getting pissed whilst their three wee mites are left on their own in a strange house in a foreign country. On the other – one of the little ones is ‘abducted’ in the parent’s absence.

      A ‘stupid error of judgement’? Criminal negligence?

      T

      Delete
  16. Hi Rosalinda and to whom it may concern.

    The British Government, without hesitating, sent their shrewd and eloquent media monitoring guru to Portugal to take control over MSM. The purpose of it must have been to defend the McCanns against accusations of a crime they hadn’t yet been suspected of. What else could it be?

    The McCanns’dear child goes missing, and what they immediately and most of all need and ask for is a spokesman, a priest and an audience with the Pope. Why would a family, whose child goes missing need such people right away, if they are truly innocent? I just don’t get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL Bjorn, I would describe Clarence more as a pitbull, than a shrewd and eloquent guru! I imagine the Madeleine gig was the highlight of his career - for a while there he held all the power and it went straight to his head. Pompous and arrogant, he made it quite clear nothing was to be published without his express approval. This of course was at the time when everything the McCanns touched turned to gold, but they are just a distant memory now.

      The media has moved on. If they won't accept the first day dictatorial style of the Whitehouse spokesman, they definitely won't accept it now from an ex spin doctor who's USP was his authoritarian tone, especially one who is no longer in the loop.

      Delete
    2. Bjorn @11:47

      "I just don’t get it."

      I think you do really, judging by your first paragraph.

      Delete
  17. @Anonymous 26 January 2017 at 08:48/10:55

    "leaving the children alone in the apartment - a stupid error of judgement that will haunt them for the rest of their lives."

    So, nine people made a stupid error of judgement. Has that been confirmed by the other seven? If only as a simple gesture of support.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 January 2017 at 12:48

    are you saying that Mark Warner did not have any plan for a missing child occurrence in one of their foreign holiday complexes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said, quite clearly, specialist British police agencies, where did you get Mark Warner from?

      Naturally Mark Warners would have an action plan in place, it was a family holiday resort! I am saying it is not feasible, or indeed necessary, to keep a British police force on standby for stranger abductions of British children holidaying abroad.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 13.32

      you originally said "The British Ambassador arrived the next day, along with plane loads of McCann relatives, lawyers and representatives of UK police agencies. Not only did the British not keep out of it, they became actively involved."

      How do you know how many of the above "plane loads" of various people were not swung into action because of Mark Warner initiatives? Even flying relatives out straight away may have been a Mark Warner intitiative.

      Mark Warner is a large British tour company - can you not see how damaging it was to them and how they would take action to minimise it?

      But personally I can't see any problem with British authorities becoming involved in the outset - whoever instigated it.

      You see it all as suspicious and some kind of cover-up or conspiracy to interfere in a negative way (for PJ) - I don't.

      Delete
    3. Because Gerry, Kate and their friends spent the night of 3rd/4th May 2007 phoning home 13:52.

      Mark Warners initiatives would not include phoning the victims relatives etc, or doing anything to alert the press, which would have gone against police orders. Warners' responded to the McCanns' requests, they did not initiate them!

      Delete
    4. Hi Ros, It's bad enough trying to get the police when you need them, never mind having them on standby for something that probably won't happen.

      Delete
    5. The first phone call, or one of the first,was from a either a McCann friend or a holiday maker at PDL to either Breakfast Time or Sky news in the morning to report what had only just happened.That was weird in itself how facts hadn't been checked by the editor( or had been?)

      Clarence Mitchell lacks the balls to be a Rottweiler or the brains to carry the 'shrewd' label.He's a yes man hand picked and , no doubt, on a promise of favour later down the line from his connections in parliament. He'll never go hungry, put it that way. Mark Williams Thomas is of similar talent. Dubious and questionable ( even if we forget his ridiculous thoughts on the Jill Dando execution).He etched his face into our mind's eye via the Savile exposure and so-called investigation that followed in a huge effort to save face for hundreds of cover ups by British Governments and police forces. The cast for the McCann tragedy was chosen well by the handlers who hijacked it.

      I want to insert a 'nutshell' account of mainstream media here as I think it's relevant as they seem out only access to the story. I have a long annoying take on the conspiracy of the threads title but I'm not sure if there's enough space on the blog(sorry Ros)

      As for the mainstream dream factory, I'll follow this with a part 2 as i believe it relevant to everything else in the case as a whole .

      Delete
    6. @Anonymous 13:52

      Who else would get this special treatment? To me that raises questions on its own.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @13:52

      "But personally I can't see any problem with British authorities becoming involved in the outset - whoever instigated it."

      Perhaps you're not looking hard enough.

      Gun-boat diplomacy went out with the opium wars. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, perfectly capable of mounting a police investigation within its own borders. The fact that an apparent victim might be a British subject is not an invitation to the FCO to send diplomats and 'liason officers' running to the scene of the crime.

      Did the UK play host to any Brazilian law enforcement representatives when the 'Met' saw fit to eliminate John Charles de Menezes, or was it simply too far for them to travel? ('Save on the air fare boys, Someone will send us a report in due course')

      As far as near European neighbours are concerned the appropriate conduit for police communication is Interpol, not the first flight out of Gatwick.

      Delete
    8. Ziggy Sawdust @15:09

      "The first phone call, or one of the first, was from a either a McCann friend or a holiday maker at PDL to either Breakfast Time or Sky news in the morning to report what had only just happened."

      Unless you can be more specific as to 'who' and 'when' this reads like complete guesswork.

      First OR one of the first
      A McCann friend OR holiday-maker
      Phone call to Breakfast Time OR Sky News
      A report 'in the morning' of what had 'only just happened' (at 10.00 p.m. the previous night).

      Either you know OR you don't. Which is it?

      Delete
  19. (cont)

    My 'nutshell' version of the media . There are significant key words and key phrases i think you'll pick up on.
    Edward Bernays

    'The father of public relations'

    He combined the ideas of Gustave Le Bon and Wilfred Trotter on crowd psychology with the psychoanalytical ideas of his uncle, Sigmund Freud.

    He felt this manipulation was necessary in society, which he regarded as irrational and dangerous as a result of the "herd instinct" that Trotter had described.

    Bernays argued that the manipulation of public opinion was a necessary part of democracy.

    The Bernays and Freuds were interlinked through marriage.Their ideologies became interlinked via the mainstream media and Tavistock Institute -a marriage we've all had to endure ever since.

    Matthew Freud

    Freud is the son of June Flewett and the late writer and politician Sir Clement Freud.

    Freud founded Freud Communications. Adam Curtis, in his documentary Century of the Self, describes Matthew Freud as a star in the "new culture of public relations and marketing in politics, business and journalism" that rose in the Clinton-Blair years.

    He is a friend of several members of the Conservative party, including George Osborne and David Cameron. Freud has also invited Cameron to many events and is part of the so-called 'Notting Hill Set' of influential Conservative-linked figures. During their marriage, Murdoch( yes, one of that clan) and Freud owned Burford Priory in Oxfordshire, and hence were also considered members of the Chipping Norton set.

    Clement Freud ( matt's daddy)

    “His response to our catalogue of horrors was merely to raise an eyebrow. Clement had this way of making everything seem a little less terrible. When he heard about the [sniffer] dogs [which had indicated the scent of death in the McCann’s hire car], he remarked laconically, ‘So what are they going to do? Put them on the stand? One bark for yes, two for no?’
    ( inspiring Gerry McCann's later 'ask the dogs' quip ?)

    ''Dear McCanns, I have a house in P da L, been ashamed of the intrusion to your lives by our media . . . and if you would care to come to lunch/dinner at any time before Wednesday next...''

    ''I have a lot of empathy with the Express though, you know,’ he went on. For a split second Gerry thought he was serious. ‘Why’s that?’ ‘Well, you see, we both suffer from poor circulation.’.... '

    ( I suggest Sir Clement would have done this whether or not the later revelations of him being a rapist surfaced.He had the ear and confidence of the McCanns, obviously.He had their trust too. He simply got himself 'inside' and remained informed from their side of things).


    Clarence Mitchell

    Worked as director of the Government’s Media Monitoring Unit, controlling the flow of information to newspapers.( yes, controlling)

    Seconded by the Foreign Office to help the McCanns

    note : How would the Government know the McCanns were going to need so much help for so long if all they were dealing with was an abduction and the child would, according to statistics, show up dead or alive within weeks or a few months.






    ReplyDelete
  20. ( note to Ros-i think i sent you the same post twice-sorry)

    ReplyDelete
  21. Before my 'war and peace' is posted to annoy everyone, I've read the updates on the thread and would like to share an observation or two.

    It's pointless and sometimes dangerous to put words into the mouth of another.To attempt the same because person A received a phone call from person B is peeing in the wind. It could have been our home office to Portugal ''Mr X has taken a British child and is holding US to ransom over it'' or ''Did you say deep crust or thin cut-and do want a pepsi with the order''.

    Photographs ( yawn). They say nothing. Or, if you have the right programme, they can say whatever you want them to say. You can't claim a photograph was not faked and say the time on it was changed. That's faking it. Besides, why employ someone to do that who didn't realise that ?It would have been easier to just keep the photographs private. Everyone knew what Madeleine looked like.

    May 3rd or before. I remember considering the 'before' thing a year or two ago as May 1st has satanic connotations.Much has been said of the verbal assault the neighbour above the McCanns suffered from Kate and one of the '7'. That was because she'd commented on Madeleine crying the night before .

    The McCann family turning up the next day mob-handed. If it was your sister/brother/daughter/son in a foreign country and they had lost their toddler-what would you do ? Maybe you could just be there to prop them up, keep them strong. maybe you might call a solicitor if the police were leaning on the family ( one of the perks of being doctors is being able to afford the best).

    Far too little is spoken concerning our interference from politicians and the home office. They had one aim and it was to shut the case down. They succeeded . It might look like it's open, but it isn't. The great Scotland Yard who criticised the PJ have added nothing . They've taken plenty away and lost it though. That was their remit seemingly. And that doesn't happen because an abduction or murder abroad has taken place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @19:02

      Thank you for sharing your observations, the final paragraph, indeed the final sentence, in particular.

      The rest you can keep.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggi and others

      Just a few thoughts about whether the Madeleine case is reopened in Portugal or not.

      The case was shelved by the Portuguese P J in 2008, because there was not sufficient evidence to prosecute the McCanns and there was no evidence at all of a stranger abduction. Provided that new witness statements or facts surrounding the case, not previously known, the case could be reopened, according to the prosecutors’ office.

      If the case was reopened in Portugal, due to some new facts, such facts, whatever they were, have obviously not led anywhere and may not have had any bearing at all on the case. Anyway, in terms of investigative achievement, the investigation seems to have reached an impasse. Didn’t Sir Bernard himself give a hint about that two years ago. “We cannot go on chasing a shadow-man forever”, or something like that. If he spoke on behalf of the P J or the S Y, wasn’t quite clear.

      So if the case could be closed in 2008, why do not the Portuguese Prosecutors close it now, for exactly the same reasons. What has changed since then? Could it be, as you suggest Ziggi, that the case has never been duly opened, and therefore I cannot be duly closed?


      Delete
    3. Bjorn @21:14

      Unfortunately I cannot recall the source, but I recall a statement made not too long ago on behalf of the PJ, to the effect that the McCann case was re-opened simply in order for the Portuguese to facilitate accommodating the Met on their soil and responding to their various written requests. That was the sole purpose of the small 'specialist team', apparently.

      Delete
  22. Was Amaral removed from the case after criticizing the British police decision to investigate an anonymous tip-off emailed to Prince Charles' website claiming Madeleine was abducted by a former employee of the Ocean Club?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @20:49

      No, he was not.

      Delete
  23. Back to the Last Photo, the subject of the article. In the Last Photo, Gerry is wearing sunglasses. As you would expect on a hot sunny day, which Sunday was, unlike Thursday which was cloudy all day until very late afternoon. You would expect a couple to pack a pair of sunglasses each before they jetted off to the Med. In her 'Book of Facts', Kate tells us that on Tuesday, they took the kids down to the beach, when it started raining. Then Gerry decided to buy a pair of sunglasses (sez Kate). Kinda unlikely, isn't it? Did Kate put in that write-up about buying the sunglasses to help along the 'I took the Last Photo on Thursday' lie?? I think she did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the Mail (25 May 2007) reveals that Kate is behind the camera with Sean. How do they know that?

      Delete
  24. @yet another 'anon'19:02

    I posted my observations as i wanted to share - not keep. I enjoy debate and discussion (that's when more than one person has a say).The little barbed one -liners get tedious it has to be said.But I view the claws behind the keyboards as a sort of online yeast infection. Not life -threatening, but annoying. Hopefully, one day, someone will design a firewall that works like Canesten. Then, blogs will be free of irritants.

    peace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @21:10

      Likewise I find 'debating' naïve misconceptions tedious.

      You'd have done well to place your final paragraph first. I almost didn't bother to read past the nonsense that preceded it but, as I said, that one comment was worth the wait.

      Delete
  25. Quick question did the McCanns ask for two British Police Family Liaison Officers to be removed for some reason? I seem to remember reading it somewhere but not sure if it was true or not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm

      "However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

      One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.

      They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction."


      http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm

      "I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine's disappearance.

      Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction."

      Delete
  26. John100 @00:45

    You may well be correct. This from KM's 'madeleine' (abridged):

    "That Monday evening, completely exasperated, we lost it with the liaison officers....It transpired that they’d had to spend the whole day without an interpreter....We were raging. ‘Why did you have to spend the whole day without an interpreter? If you haven’t got one, then get one!"

    btw., as I have just noticed while looking for this, there appears to have been a quite extraordinary amount of 'liaison' going on, to judge from the number of individuals KM identifies as 'liaison' personnel:

    "three family liaison officers (FLOs) from the Leicestershire force"

    "Alex (Woolfall)...our de facto media liaison officer."

    "...he (Clarence Mitchell) was seconded to the Foreign Office to come out to Portugal to handle our media liaison as part of their consular support for us."

    "Ricardo Paiva....was drafted in as the police liaison officer for Gerry and me"

    "Hannah Gardiner of the Association of Chief Police Officers...a kind of police media liaison officer."

    "We were met at Madrid airport by several British Embassy staff, a liaison officer and two press officers..."

    "We had meetings with the ambassador, the UK police liaison officer for the KLPD (the Dutch national police), the consul general and a government policy adviser."

    "...at a meeting with the consular staff, we heard from a British Metropolitan Police attaché, a counter-terrorism liaison and cooperation officer" (Chapter 12 - Morocco)*

    "At the villa we had more privacy...Justine...had ended up doing a different job from the one she’d signed up for – media liaison..."

    "As our main liaison with the British police, Bob (Small) was not privy to the investigation details"

    In contrast, I suspect Kerry Needham was lucky if anyone at the Met even answered the 'phone. (The eye-opener for me is the one I've marked with an asterisk (*) above)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that very informative 10:49, unfortunately for Kate her book is littered with details that raise more questions.

      It must be said however, that Gerry and Kate are extraordinarily adept at getting people to do as they want to do. Gerry's sisters for example were used to rushing to Kate's aid to assist with the kids.

      Gerry and Kate know their rights and entitlements and are used to get their own way. Kerry Needham was probably unaware of any of her rights as a British Citizen, but in any event, when Ben went missing her priority was trying to find him!

      But I agree, even allowing for the assertiveness of the parents, the help they received was over and above. As for the counter-terrorism liaison and cooperation officer, I wouldn't give that too much credence. Both Gerry in his blog and Kate in her book, have a tendency to brag about the people who fell at their feet or were put at their disposal. Its' their way of saying look at how important we are.

      The Vanity Fair interview is especially enlightening in this regard. For much of it Gerry thought he was speaking 'off the record', and his inner megalomaniac was unleashed. It gave us several memorable lines including the chilling '.....we knew the risks to Madeleine (her distinctive eye), but in terms of marketing it was a good ploy'.

      That same interview reveals that the relationship between the McCann and the UK government was cooling off. Clarence complained that they were trying to get a meeting with a Minister, but all they were offered was some mid level consul.

      I think any official help ended around June/July 10:49 - around the time they moved out of Warners and into a rented villa, though it should be said, the help from CEOP continued.

      Kate has a tendency to refer to people around her as minions, there for her convenience. It also reinforces her victim status, all these professionals have been assigned to her, she must be telling the truth.

      Delete
  27. Ziggy Sawdust 26.1 @19:02

    For the sake of continuity, your final, more perceptive observations follow (Georgie Porgie's @10:08 are also pertinent):

    "Far too little is spoken concerning our interference from politicians and the home office. They had one aim and it was to shut the case down. They succeeded . It might look like it's open, but it isn't. The great Scotland Yard who criticised the PJ have added nothing . They've taken plenty away and lost it though. That was their remit seemingly. And that doesn't happen because an abduction or murder abroad has taken place."

    It may appear no more than a distant light in the fog, but this brief passage (appropriately redacted) from chapter 23 of KM's book, may point towards the reason UK ltd. did not wait for an invitation before sending in the cavalry:

    "...a more joined-up approach, drawing on the best expertise available, is...taken in crimes involving drugs, money-laundering and terrorism, where the primacy of the country in which the crime has been committed seems to be less of an issue.”

    And who was 'our man in Morocco'? Why, none other than "a British Metropolitan Police attaché, a counter-terrorism liaison and cooperation officer".

    Well Gerry did say he wasn't in Portugal to enjoy himself, while Jim Gamble (formerly Head of Special Branch Intelligence in Belfast, Northern Ireland) thought it a good idea to appeal for Irish holiday makers' photographs, taken a week before the McCanns had even arrived there!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the idea that this crime was preplanned with the assistance of the government/establishment or whatever, is frankly ludicrous. The entire abduction story was full of holes, and what would be the point?

      It is Kate who introduces drugs, money laundering and terrorism, she is taking her readers for a ride, via the scenic route. Don't bite, she's laughing at you.

      Jim Gamble was drawn to this high profile missing child case, because he, like all chiefs of police departments, was pitching the case for CEOP. Highlighting the perceived threat to children from the internet. Of course that wasn't an issue with 3 year old Madeleine, but it was a back door way in which to prioritise his agency over the others.

      Much can be made of Gerry's careless 'I'm not here to enjoy myself' but the simplest explanation can be interpreted from his body language on that bus. He sat apart from his wife and children, clearly not a hands on father. Either he and Kate were arguing or he really wasn't looking forward to all that family time.

      Delete
  28. Hi Anonymous@10:49

    Thanks for the info, it is an eye-opener. Why the need for a counter terrorist liaison officer with connections to Morocco?

    ReplyDelete
  29. The most recent posts are shedding light in a little-explored area finally..away from the 'obvious' -ie-the parents are evil.That's only fair whatever happened. Talk about overkill on the 'help' front. It's up there with the overkill of media coverage and police and intelligence front. I can't recall an event involving a single person as big as it. The nearest in living memory was the Diana event. But she was the mother of the future King , not the daughter of two doctors on holiday.I mention this for perspective.

    The stand-out in the post above me is :


    ''British Metropolitan Police attaché, a counter-terrorism liaison and cooperation officer"

    You can't tell me that the McCanns asked for that. I doubt they even knew what it was.So who did and why ? Counter -terrorism ? That fits in with the kidnap to order theory and also the ordered by somebody big theory. Jose Bloggs doesn't command such a high level response if he's out stealing children, and nor do parents who are suspects.

    This particular potato got hotter with time . We didn't hear that reported but I think it's reasonable to suggest that it has by the actions of those involved who wanted to put distance between themselves and it.

    ''John Buck - British Ambassador in Portugal in May 2006 - resigns his post on 10/09/07 - shortly after the McCanns are made suspects. John is replaced by Alexander Ellis. Leaves the Diplomatic Services entirely.It was Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who were behind the instructions given to the UK ambassador, John Buck.''

    Esther McVey is a long-time friend( from 6th form onwards) of Kate McCann and was spokesperson for Madeleine's Fund from its launch in May 2007-resignation, announced in January 2008. Ms McVey has remained resolutely tight-lipped as to the reason, or reasons, behind her resignation. Her own website now contains no mention of Madeleine McCann at all.

    The Belgian report says it is highly significant that almost all of the diplomats involved at the outset have now been taken off the case. Special envoy Sheree Dodd has since resigned from the Foreign Office, the British consul in the Algarve Bill Henderson has retired and the British ambassador to Portugal John Buck is no longer in Portugal. The Foreign Office refused to comment on the report.''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust 13:51

      I lodged a lengthy reply earlier on, with more info. but it seems to have disappeared down the cyber hole.

      If it doesn't appear later I'll resubmit it tomorrow (if I can remember all the details)

      Delete
    2. Hi 19:19, I checked my spam immediately I saw your post, and have published. I do apologise, this happens now an again and I don't check my spam as often as I should.

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't take Kate's mention of a counter terrorist liaison officer Ziggy. Kate and Gerry have made a number of grandiose claims, all intended to back up their abduction claim. This case has got nothing to do with terrorism on any level.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda @20:59

      "Kate and Gerry have made a number of grandiose claims, all intended to back up their abduction claim."

      Except reference to counter-terrorism liaison does not do that.

      "This case has got nothing to do with terrorism on any level."

      How can you be so sure? Even after 10 years no one other than the participants knows quite what it's got to do with. Except that it has nothing to do with abduction on any level.

      Delete
  30. FGS has this blog become a competition to create as many unfounded conspiracy theories as possible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @16:27

      No, unlike 99% of blogs claiming to be 'seeking justice' , it's including critical thinking and attempting to entertain more than one single theory.

      With no official physical evidence or forensics to support a prosecution of any suspects the case is wide open. Interpretation of how a phrase is spoken, how a hand or eye is moving during a spoken sentence, theorising about photographs that may or may not have been altered, interpreting pictures of a little girl in mum's make up as concealing a sinister secret and blindly following pseudo psychological profilers as they make voodoo out of language -THAT'S were blind attacks should be directed.Before you attack conspiracy theories or theorists, consider how you can actually counter the theories with a better one. Anyone can shout 'conspiracy theory!' hysterically. It has no weight.

      ''Seek balance or fall over'' - ( a good mate of Confucious)

      Delete
    2. 16:27, nevertheless, you seem to be pretty interested in this blog.

      Delete
    3. And what theories might they be? I see lots of quotes, information and statements of fact, but no theories as such.

      Of course if you're afraid of the light you can always stick your head back where the sun doesn't shine.

      Delete
  31. Ziggy Sawdust @13:51

    "That fits in with the kidnap to order theory and also the ordered by somebody big theory."

    In principle, perhaps, but who would kidnap a corpse? (unless of course it was for spare parts).

    If I may add to your extensive list of those who failed to escape the 'purge', Mark Harrison and Martin Grime are both now working overseas, MH in Australia, Grime in the USA, safely out of reach of tabloid journos who probably wouldn't be allowed the air fare in any case.

    "Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who were behind the instructions given to the UK ambassador, John Buck."

    Not quite sure who the quote should be attributed to but they are right. Buck and Blair were 'thick as thieves' since the Iraq war.

    What exactly is the 'Belgian Report'? Any chance of a link or source reference?

    In the meantime, and drawing the circle toward home once more, the McCanns' explanation for the involvement of extradition specialist Michael Caplan (of solicitors Kingsley Napley) is that ex-corporate tax lawyer Rachael Oldfield got lucky when she stuck a pin in Yellow Pages (yes, really).

    A more convincing scenario is that Caplan was introduced as a result of his prior association with Matrix Chambers (founded by Cherie Booth QC). Caplan and Clare Montgomery QC (Matrix) had previously worked the Pinochet case together.

    And who should be giving Kate McCann personal advice and encouragement within days of the 'abduction', directly via her mobile 'phone? Cherie Blair. (WTF!)

    Finally, for now, an intriguing response from the 'Information Commissioner' during November 2007, (reiterated two years later within a 3 March Decision Notice, under Reference FS50188322).

    Notice particularly caveat no. 26 and its reference to 'future investigations in Portugal and elsewhere'.

    Investigations into what? And by whom? The abduction of Madeleine McCann (as if) fell uniquely under Portuguese Jurisdiction.

    "FCO told the Commissioner that a family member had made clear to FCO staff that all comments made by that individual to FCO had been made in strict confidence and were not intended for disclosure to third parties. FCO did not approach the family member again during the Commissioner's investigation but told the Commissioner that they were confident the individual would not appreciate being contacted regarding disclosure of the relevant personal information, a position the Commissioner accepted."

    (26. Concern that 'disclosure of confidences or of other sensitive material would have damaging implications for any possible further developments on this matter and relevant future investigations in Portugal or elsewhere. This would not be in the best interests of the McCann family, including Madeleine.')

    ReplyDelete
  32. Maybe people who have posted on this blog should look back at their posts and decide how many of their posts are based on FACT and how many are based on opinion.

    For example let me start:

    Ros said "25 January 2017 at 08:17

    07:46. How bizarre! So while this police officer was actively searching, he's a handed a mobile phone to speak with a British consulate employee. What was the urgent message? Don't search TOO hard!"

    Is that a FACT? Is it even an intelligent guess.

    It is neither of those.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:13 That's only your opinion of course.

      Delete
    2. WUM. Services not required.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda @21:29

      "It was sarcasm"

      Was that sarcasm intended to denigrate the testimony of the GNR officer who made a witness statement to the effect that he took a call from a British official speaking in Portuguese? If so then it fails in that attempt.

      Delete
  33. @anon 12:27

    Thanks for that info. I haven't read Kate McCann's book to be honest. I won't read Amaral's either. I'm not taking that position as any kind of slight on either of them, I just think they're both likely to be stating their own case so they no doubt cancel each other out. Also, I can't make any guesses about Amaral, but I seriously doubt that Kate McCann wrote hers.I'm not suggesting anything underhand when i state that but Kate McCann is no more an author than Kate Price is.I believe her book would have been put together according to her account and was no doubt proof read by her too before it went to print. But the style of writing, from extracts I've seen, is that of a professional author.As such, much padding would have been included and possibly some poetic /creative license. The quote you cite for instance :

    "...a more joined-up approach, drawing on the best expertise available, is...taken in crimes involving drugs, money-laundering and terrorism, where the primacy of the country in which the crime has been committed seems to be less of an issue.”

    I don't doubt what that says.But that has the look of an official statement from it's own relevant source-not from a GP writing a book. It's more control from the media section of Team McCann. They would have proof read the book more meticulously no doubt.I wonder why. They haven't lost their child and they aren't suspects. But they act like both far more than the McCanns. The McCanns are judged by their words and recollections regarding their actions.Actions would be better to examine obviously, but we can only speculate.In terms of actions, well, we know what the officials have done.That's not theory or suspicion.Yet little is speculated as those actions in comparison to the almost fanatical, and often desperate speculation regarding the words of the parents.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really do think you should read Goncalo's book and indeed Kate's. Both give an amazing insight into what was actually going on in the summer of 2007.

      They both also give an amazing insight into the characters of the authors. Goncalo is the wise old Uncle, with an understanding of the world, Kate is the highly strung Mrs Bucket next door, who is always thinking of jobs you can do for her.

      Goncalo Amaral has 3 degrees I believe, and they show in his words. Not only is he well educated, he is self effacing and quite charming. He doesn't embellish his account of events, or the theory he defends.

      There is no hatred against the parents, or indeed anyone, he speaks his truth quietly and clearly. Despite all the provocation, he has been rational and reasonable throughout.

      Kate's book, hmm. I don't doubt that it was written by Kate, Ziggy. From a writing perspective, it is very pedestrian, mediocre even. It is a fake book because it doesn't come from the heart and it's based on lies. At no point do you feel Kate's pain because she doesn't feel it either. Kerry Needham's book by comparison, would tear us asunder.

      Kate doesn't reach the reader, because there is no empathy, nothing for the reader to relate to. Her home is perfect, her husband, her kids, her wider family - ordinary people don't have lives like that.

      Delete
  34. KM (ín ‘madeleine’):

    “Sunday 10 June. Rabat, Morocco. Shortly before leaving for the airport, I made the mistake of reading an article in a Sunday Express I’d found lying around – a double-page piece, I think, illustrated by a photograph of an overcrowded, chaotic market scene – about child trading in Morocco.”


    This article (‘lying around’)?

    “In this seething market you can buy anything for the right price and, horrifically, that includes tots like Madeleine”

    http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic15001.html

    http://www.pressreader.com/uk/sunday-express1070/20070610/textview
    (7th article)

    ReplyDelete
  35. @ 18:13

    You've plucked out an example of speculation as a conspiracy theory. Every theory you have read on any blog or social network is speculation. That's all any of them can be.It's also why nobody has been arrested.

    If cherry -picking statements is your thing, fill your boots.But don't just cherry-pick this blog , go crazy and surf around the rest, or one you prefer to contribute to . They'll be riddled with speculation, fanaticism and bullshit. I won't mention names .

    A blog that takes a more open approach and a more open minded view, and tries to avoid the standard hysterics and bizarre leanings of bored online 'legends' is to be applauded, surely. Especially this one.This one even allows lunatics through the net. You can't ask for more than that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I shouldn't waste your time with WUMs like this one but do please read @16:45 (It's only taken 5 hours to appear, and you might therefore have missed it).

      Delete
    2. Welcome ..... fellow lunatic.

      'Good in 'ere, innit?'

      Delete
  36. @ ZiggySawdust27 January 2017 at 20:02

    you can bet your life I cherry pick statements. Who can forget the following:

    "ZiggySawdust 21 January 2017 at 01:28

    Screw Donald 'Drumpf' right back to his brothel -keeping pox -peddling jew grandad."

    ReplyDelete
  37. I notice ziggy is telling other people what they can and can't post on here again. Seems like a similar theme.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only I have access to the posts received 21:30. Sometimes the spam box pinches them, as happened earlier today, but I publish 99% of what I receive.

      I feel my blog has found it's own level, most of the posters, even those with opposite opinions have raised their game.

      Delete
  38. ziggy says at 18.52

    about kate's book:

    "I don't doubt what that says.But that has the look of an official statement from it's own relevant source-not from a GP writing a book. It's more control from the media section of Team McCann. They would have proof read the book more meticulously no doubt.I wonder why. They haven't lost their child and they aren't suspects. But they act like both far more than the McCanns. The McCanns are judged by their words and recollections regarding their actions.Actions would be better to examine obviously, but we can only speculate.In terms of actions, well, we know what the officials have done.That's not theory or suspicion.Yet little is speculated as those actions in comparison to the almost fanatical, and often desperate speculation regarding the words of the parents."

    I am sure the Mccann haters can understand that.
    I am sure most non Mccann haters have not the slightest idea what the paragraph says.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @21:30

    '' I notice ziggy is telling other people what they can and can't post on here again. Seems like a similar theme.''

    where ?

    I have a feeling the pain of having blinkers yanked off is traumatising a few of the haters..

    stop worrying, haters...I spent a lot of time wondering how the McCanns were still free.I thought i was missing something. So, i went looking and opened my mind and my eyes.I compared left and right and right and wrong. I'm man enough to say i was wrong.I'm man enough to say that if a gun was at my head and i had to point the finger over Madeliene McCann, I couldn't. I stand by my contention that an establishment conspiracy and cover up is behind what we can only call a mystery now.That is until the sheer size of their 'army', intensity of their interest,and the speed in which they trod all over the initial investigation and then set up a war fund, is explained clearly and in a way that sounds plausible .

    @anon 21:24

    Change the record, bud. it's already old news and it was a different thread. If you want to derail, organise your thoughts first.

    3 wisest words in the world : 'I don't know' ( Dalai Lama's cleaning lady)

    ReplyDelete
  40. @14:45

    Just read the post- i think Ros had put it in later.I think she may have been on the sauce ( that was a typos Ros, i love you really)

    Good post. I should have guessed Tony Blair's stunningly odd wife would have her fickle finger in the pie somewhere.Tony and Cherrie are increasingly looking like the Chipping Norton Set's Fred and Rosemary ( but without the sense of dignity)

    I'll take your word on the books, Ros, as you know what writing's about and you've read them. But that's the thing with writing isn't it. You can create the mood or opinion of the reader if you know how. Amaral, sounds like he may be on a charm offensive by your review.But kudos if he isn't spitting bile.And isn't Kate trying to stick to facts - I can't say.Don't forget, Amaral has as many fans as Kate and Gerry have enemies. Readers generally bring their preconceptions to the page in cases like this.If they're looking for reasons to prop Amaral up, they will find plenty. If they scrutinise Kate's pages in the same way they scrutinise her eyes in interviews and her child in make up, they'll find more bullets.Subjective stuff, I'm sure you'd agree.

    Speaking of mood - setting. The piece written by James Murray for the express(2007) is a fine example of someone who'd rather be writing fiction.It was clearly part of the media propaganda effort. He makes Morocco sound as though they have more paedophiles than market stalls or flies. He goes from how they( abductors) escaped (car/plane) to how they probably dyed her hair and skin( to look like a Moroccan child or Portuguese child by any chance?).He shoots himself in the foot so many times I'm surprised he can get to work.

    Jim Gamble and safety online thing..a quick thought...

    Gordon Brown championed the cause regarding taxing the internet or introducing a way of everyone having an online 'ID'

    Theresa May(home sec) championed the cause for 'snooping' online.

    Brown had already been 'called out' online about alleged paedophilia claims levelled his way. Both were dragged into the McCann case. The online wars and libel threats and death of a troll were a certainty to occur.Problem, reaction and what they hoped would be their 'solution'- a removal of another slice of our diminishing liberty. They all eat from the same trough, the bastards - to misquote Shakespeare.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the sauce, lol, touche!

      It is far more than setting the mood Ziggy, an author gives away much of themselves with their words, even in fiction. Their writing will reflect their values and beliefs, the baddies will be the type of people they personally don't like, the goodies, those they find inspiring.

      Kate's book is a written reflection of Kate's character. In many ways it is belligerent and mean spirited. She holds grudges. And she wrote the book for revenge. It is a litany of everyone who done her wrong. In continually emphasizing her victim status, she comes across as whiney and ungrateful. As Blacksmith said, it is the longest suicide note in history. It is incredibly easy to deconstruct, especially as events in the book correspond with all the interviews and public appearances that are in the public domain.

      For example, McCann supporters will say, it would have been impossible for the parents and the rest of the group to ahead with their evening meal at the Tapas bar if a tragedy had occurred.

      In her book, Kate blows this argument out of the water by revealing that while they remained calm and stoical in front of the cameras, behind the scenes there was hysteria. This is actually an admittance that they were lying (faking it), along of course with the fib they told about Gerry having an upset tum when the PJ arrived with search warrants.

      If they could go on National television and say the Portuguese police were looking for a live child and they were not suspects, knowing they were about to be made suspects, takes quite a bit of front!

      As for this case being used to bring in legislation to allow government agencies access to our internet accounts - I've been saying that all along!

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust 27.1 @23:38

      You mention Shakespeare. The whole affair is Shakespearian.

      We've been invited to pay attention to the 'play within a play' for a decade - led up the garden path in other words ('Everyone is acting' - Gerry McCann).

      Earlier Ros counselled that we ignore that 'madeleine' book's reference to a counter-terrorism liaison officer.

      Borrowing from Sean Connery's character in the film, 'The Untouchables', as he says to 'Treasury Officer' Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner): "Who would claim he was that if he wasn't?"

      I too doubt KM was the author/scribe of the work in question, but why introduce a personality with absolutely no bearing on the search for a child abductor? Unless of course the man announced himself correctly.

      "I stand by my contention that an establishment conspiracy and cover up is behind what we can only call a mystery now." (@22:45)

      Another benefit conferred by a tin-foil hat - the tomatoes bounce off!

      Like yourself I have spent a decade walking down that same garden path, puzzled every now and again by the odd piece of inexplicable debris. Except of course it has to have an explanation eventually.

      Once one comes to terms with the fact that McCann was not the captain on the bridge, the whole thing takes on a different complexion.

      'Control Risks' reps arrived unannounced. These are people who offer security advice to governments FGS. The McCanns couldn't afford their mortgage payments much less meet the fees of 'Hugh' and his mates.

      McCann could not simply have requested a 19 June meeting at the FCO to suit HIS schedule. He could have been summoned to one though.

      He absolutely could not have 'phoned sympathetic lawyers on the spur of the moment from Portugal - on a Saturday, as KM claims in her book. Ten years ago Solicitors did not work on Saturdays (maybe they still don't?). Hence Caplan was 'assigned' to the case.

      And the most telling example of all? The barrage of text messages GM received on Wednesday 2 May, 24 hrs before the 'abduction'.

      He did not reply. He did not enter into any manner of dialogue. He was completely passive, i.e. on the receiving end of instructions from elsewhere.

      Someone, apart from the McCanns, anticipated the events of Thursday night, that is clear. And that, in a nutshell, adds up to a conspiracy, however unpopular a view that may be in certain quarters.



      Delete
    3. "As for this case being used to bring in legislation to allow government agencies access to our internet accounts - I've been saying that all along!"

      Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear....

      ..Chez

      Delete
    4. It will work given the calibre of pushover politicians the UK produces.

      Delete
  41. "As for this case being used to bring in legislation to allow government agencies access to our internet accounts - I've been saying that all along!"

    "Someone, apart from the McCanns, anticipated the events of Thursday night, that is clear. And that, in a nutshell, adds up to a conspiracy, however unpopular a view that may be in certain quarters."

    Is there anyone else reading this blog who also think this is totally bonkers?

    ...Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez@20:15

      People have got a right to their own opinion no matter how outrageous that opinion might seem. it wasn't that long ago that people thought the world was flat, man wouldn't fly never mind set foot on the moon. The idea of this blog is to debate, share ideas and thoughts without criticism. I will always defend your right to express your opinions even if I disagree.

      Delete
    2. Yeah. Quoting two different authors in the same breath, each completely out of context, and in order to make no substantive point whatsoever.

      That's about as bonkers as any thinking person would want to get I imagine.

      Delete
    3. @John100
      I agree. You can hold whatever nuttty opinion you like and comparing them to flat-earthers is very apt.

      @00:26
      Quoting two different authors is allowed. Quoting salient points is allowed. Quoting two bonkers points is my point.

      ..Chez

      Delete
    4. "Is there anyone else reading this blog who also think this is totally bonkers?
      ...Chez"

      "Quoting two bonkers points is my point.
      ..Chez"

      Ach so!

      Delete
    5. @11.30

      "Quoting two different authors is allowed. Quoting salient points is allowed.

      "Quoting two bonkers points is my point."

      Well you've just succeeded in making your point, which is a rather pointless one.

      Delete
    6. @15:53
      No it isn't.

      Delete
    7. @17:29
      Oh yes it is.

      Delete
  42. Hi Anonymous@12:27

    I liked your comment reference asking Irish tourists for photographs. Question why Irish, to me the appeal should refer to all tourists in the region. Considering the McCanns were travelling all over Europe to highlight their campaign. Unless the Smith family sighting was true, which I believe it was and Gerry has heard the accent and thought shit!!. Hence targeting only the Irish. Again with the possibility of using the photos as an excuse to find out who they were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Question why Irish"

      I suspect the answer to that is simple: in an attempt to identify an Irish person.

      I doubt it had anything to do with the Smiths though. The appeal asked for photographs dating from the week before the McCanns had arrived in PdL.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I am with John here 00:29. The Smith family were chattering away when they saw the 'abductor' and the Irish accent is pretty distinctive. Targeting the Irish was a bit obvious, but pretty much everything was 'in plain sight'.

      For whatever reason, Gerry and Kate were relaxed and confident enough to stay in PDL for 3 months. That their faces, and body language appeared to be stress and distress free probably sparked the whole anti movement. It was so unnatural.

      Their confidence went over and above bravado, not only were they staying right under the noses of the PJ, but they were doing photo shoots and putting out their version of the abduction to the press. And it could be said, interfering with the police investigation by 1)setting up an investigation of their own, and 2)clogging up the PJ's switchboard with bogus sightings all over the world.

      In Point 1), they behaved in a way that has never been seen before, except perhaps in the Jonbenet case. Imagine if a crime were committed in the UK, and the official police were competing with private investigators on behalf of the suspects. It should be noted, the McCanns ditched their PIs when Operation Grange began and the sightings stopped.

      But returning to their brass neck, 'asking for photos' etc - this is but one of the alarming liberties Team McCann and all their helpers, including those appointed by the incumbent government, took with the Portuguese police. They were pointing the finger at alternate suspects with complete disregard as to the effect it would have on their lives. Robert Murat being a prime example. Pointing the finger at RM appears to have been a collective decision.

      I've never really understood why the McCanns stayed on in PDL to be honest. Some would say to search for Madeleine in the vicinity she was taken from. However, that argument doesn't hold weight because neither Gerry, Kate, nor there ever expanding entourage, helped with physical searches of the area. Arguably, they could have stayed on because it kept the on the front pages, and it was more picturesque than a wet weekend in Leicester. But that was just a guess, and a tad bitchy, but if anyone has any theories, I would be interested.

      Delete
  43. @ John10028 January 2017 at 21:04

    what! try again when you are sober and can make some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  44. John100 28 January 2017 at 23:20

    "The idea of this blog is to debate, share ideas and thoughts without criticism."

    Without criticism?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  45. Ros,

    I respect your freedom of speech stance and the choice not to censor.it's refreshing. But, If i could just make a suggestion, do you think the blog benefits or suffers when short and pointless snipes are offered up that have little or nothing to do with anything in the Madeleine McCann case ? Regardless of the reasons the posters of them may think are important, who can agree that they are ? A debate,discussion or even an argument over points made need to have actual points within them . The short one-liners intended to criticise the blog or individual contributors rather than counter their points with a considered argument devalue it .There's a swathe of social networks for virtual playground nonsense or even other blogs who thrive on juvenile bullshit.

    It's only my opinion, but I notice the quarterwits pop up when a decent discussion is gathering pace.It looks like desperate attempts at derailing it. This blog shouldn't be derailed . The juveniles attempting it should be. You have the power to do that.

    Nobody would criticise you for editing your own blog.Just my advice and opinion.

    Mr Sawdust

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ziggy Sawdust29 January 2017 at 18:26

      I have made 2 suggestions to you before - set up your own blog where you can control comments yourself - and get a room with Ros where you can discuss things to your heart's content.

      There is no "decent discussion" going on here - it is a series of defamatory statements/guesswork/opinion with no substance whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. @ Ziggy Sawdust29 January 2017 at 18:26

      Oh Mummy Mummy - they are ganging up on me and saying nasty things - please stop them.

      Delete
    3. Good evening Mr. Sawdust.

      I don't think I have any more or less trite and caustic one liners than the comments sections of national newspapers or popular websites Ziggy.

      They don't bother me, if they say anything of interest I will reply, or alternately, I will give them a lash of my wit!

      There are enough intelligent contributors to this blog, to keep the discussion at the interesting level it is.

      I always hope those brave enough to write one line will dip a toe a little further and explain what their grievance is. Preferably, rationally and politely.

      I honestly don't have a clue as to the identities of those who contribute, I'm not a 'data' person, nor am I in any way technical, God forbid.

      I understand how the desire for privacy, holds back many would be writers. I think there is a threshold as to 'how much of myself do I give?'. It compares to those primitive tribes who believe if they have their picture taken it will take away their souls.

      And it does tbh, each time you write a little piece of you dies, but it is exhilarating. Like dancing semi naked in an Indian monsoon (on bucket list).

      But it is not as daunting as most think! Certainly much cheaper than a therapist. And the beauty is, anyone can write and publish, under any pseudonym!

      I was very coy when I first started out, hence the pen name Cristobell. For myself, Cristobell, Rosalinda, etc, etc, are all the same. My honesty and integrity have served me well, I don't have any dark fears of being unveiled. It also helps that I am completely shameless about my past over indulgences and indiscretion!

      But I have waffled. Anyone who stands on a stage or puts words online will be faced with hecklers, you can either make them part of the act or ignore them. On here I find my readers are usually quicker and witter, and get to them before I!

      Delete
    4. 19:07. 'Get a room'! Spare me your cheap overused clichés, I have no problem with insults, but do try to be original. This is a blog, a discussion group, 'get a room' is more appropriate to a playground. Are you trapped in adolescence?

      You may not like the discussion on here, but the only power you have to change it is by putting forward a more persuasive argument. That option is always available to you, if you can keep a civil tongue in your head.

      As for there not being any decent discussion, you are of course entitled your opinion. As for defamatory statements, we are discussing information that is freely available in the public arena. If you follow this blog, and it would appear you do, you will be aware that I go out of my way to keep the discussion rational.

      Delete
  46. I see that bennett is now implying that anyone with a link to Praia da Luz is a paedo.

    He has already had to make a payment to Smethurst for unfounded accusations. I hope he is made to make another grovelling apology and deplete his savings once again.

    read it yourself and make you own decision on the implications of the post:

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13448-the-secret-life-of-martin-brunt-robert-murat-and-the-contract#354971

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 18:45 - I rarely look in on the cesspit these days, it reminds me of Miss Haversham in her manky bridal gown watching spiders and rats crawl over the untouched wedding breakfast.

      I took a peak and my stomach churned! That creature is so desperate to make this case about paedophile gangs, he doesn't care what criminal accusations he throws out. And if they are not criminal, then they should be!

      These people, even those will millions, will never be rid of Bennett. Court appearances for him are media opportunities to spread his (sicko) message. The only way they can this leech off their backs is to ignore him, as indeed we all should.

      Neither he, nor Richard Hall, nor the weirdo language bible basher, have any interest whatsoever in finding the TRUTH. They are promoting their 'truth', one that involves outrageous paedophile accusations that can only have come from the minds of the truly deranged.

      I see the top thread at the moment is again pushing the paedophile theme. What is it with these people? Even with my background of institutional sex and violence, I have never encountered anything as freaky as Bennett and his apostles seem to be suggesting. All the children were under 4!

      I hope when Operation Grange sort out all those perverting the course of justice in this case, that Bennett's name is near the top of the list.

      Delete
  47. ''@ Ziggy Sawdust29 January 2017 at 18:26

    I have made 2 suggestions to you before - set up your own blog where you can control comments yourself - and get a room with Ros ''

    It's hard to find a room online unfortunately.besides, it would be my luck that some air -head like you would be lurking in the corridor in a mask looking for keyholes.

    There is no "decent discussion" going on here - it is a series of defamatory statements/guesswork/opinion with no substance whatsoever.''

    Have someone read it to you before you spew your drivel.

    Ziggy :
    ''There's a swathe of social networks for virtual playground nonsense or even other blogs who thrive on juvenile bullshit''

    another ''anon''@ Ziggy Sawdust29 January 2017 at 18:26

    ''Oh Mummy Mummy - they are ganging up on me and saying nasty things - please stop them.''

    ( great argument brain dead )

    I see what you're saying,Ros. It's just difficult to find adult conversation online while morons like just above ^^ have internet access. It's a bit like going to a bar that looked good from outside only to fins it was crowded inside with a mixture of 'Deliverance' extras ( hide the banjos) . You'd give it a wide berth next time.

    When you write a little bit of you doesn't die. It goes out on it's own and that's it.It might make friends-who knows.That doesn't mean you can't still dance semi naked in a monsoon.Or anywhere else . As for 'rationally and politely''... promise me you won't hold your breath here...

    The Right Hon Zig


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This way you had the pleasure of squishing him! :)

      Delete
    2. you love it @ Ros ;-)

      Delete
  48. And while we’re on the subject of photographs, in May 2007 a new dimension was added to seemingly innocent holiday pictures.

    "We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine disappearance on Thursday 3 May who have photographs that might help our work. We don't want scenery shots, or pictures that just show your family, but look at your prints and see if there are, for instance, people in the background of the picture that at first you may not have noticed.”, said Jim Gamble.

    This can’t be real, can it? What were they looking for?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think then, as now, the McCanns and their helpers were looking for a credible suspect to take the focus off themselves. And it would appear any passer by, any single man, or newly separated men, a George Harrison lookalike, an egg or a Marilyn Manson fan seen in the PDL area would do. Stoners and loners are usually the first and easiest targets.

      I think they were looking for anyone tbh 21:51, just as they have been for the past 10 years. Even the masters and mistresses of plotlines would struggle to find an ending that would absolve the parents. Too many details about this case are in the public domain, the battle for justice for Madeleine and for Goncalo has become a 'cause'.

      Delete
    2. "Even the masters and mistresses of plotlines would struggle to find an ending that would absolve the parents."

      Straightforward plotline? How about abduction by an abductor (known or unknown)? Doesn't that absolve the parents? Sadly for all you conspiracists, this is what the Met will conclude. Which for you, confirms a conspiracy, I guess!

      ..Chez

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 29.1 @21:51

      Since that appeal was directed at Irish holiday makers there's a better than even chance they were looking for an Irishman.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 29.1 @23:47

      "How about abduction by an abductor (known or unknown)? ...Sadly for all you conspiracists, this is what the Met will conclude"

      Yes, sadly - and not just for conspiracists

      Rosalinda's (21:15) hope is that Operation Grange will 'sort out all those perverting the course of justice in this case'

      Who will probably then go on to feature among the Queen's birthday honours list.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 30 January 2017 at 10:54

      Sad but true. I concur.

      T

      Delete
  49. @ Ros 21:15

    On your observations of the pit.....
    The kiddie /paedophile /Lolita thing is a bit overplayed. There are a great number of under-4's that have been subjected to certain types of 'gang'. Some high rollers and some pseudo -satanists. It's going on as we speak, like many sicknesses in the world are . That said, there's a lot of twisting and crushing and chipping away at imagined 'facts', which are no more than suspicion, to make them fit this theory. It went past the obsessive stage a long time ago. These are the same online 'sleuths' that cry out to the McCann defenders 'where's your evidence for an abduction ?!' ( please note the use of a question, as well as exclamation mark, skillfully employed to make you realise I'm right). Well, as I've said before, at least those who go for the official story can say there's an empty space where Madeleine was just minutes earlier. it's a bit paradoxical to say an empty space is evidence, I know, but it beats writing a dirty story and offering it as a documentary. So, on 'known' documented facts as we've been told them , the abduction theory is ahead in terms of rationality.

    I know you suggest these people are best ignored. But the circumstances are different in this scenario . I agree, it's always best to treat ignorance with ignorance as a rule of thumb.But this kind of thing won't go away even if ignored. it's an out of control, runaway brain( or 10). As things stand now, whatever your feelings, or mine, or anybody elses may be regarding the whole case, in the real world ( remember that place, obsessives ?) shit can happen ( to misquote Gandhi).

    The McCanns have to get on with their life. That includes going from A to B on a daily basis and it involves their other two children, who will be due to go to secondary school by now if they aren't already. If Kate and Gerry are seen looking over their shoulders constantly, and, God forbid, photographed, you know as well as I do, it will posted all over the internet accompanied with the usual ''look at the guilty looking bastards..evil '' and ''yeah no wonder they're looking over their shoulders'' garbage. If you had been subjected to ten years of thousands of online headcases 'telling' each other and anyone else that they are A, murderers, or B, Paedophiles,or C, both, wouldn't you be looking over yours ? A lot of innocent people have been beaten up, had their houses burn't down or been killed for entering a new community after release from prison for committing crimes like that. That's serious enough, but a lot were mistaken identity or had the same or similar name to the real perpetrator.

    Living your life surrounded by minders because of lunatics is wrong. It's time for these who have such total and unshakeable conviction in their theory, and the evidence they stand by, to get offline and do something about it. It could begin online with petitioning MPs or something like it, forcing questions or explanations. Until that time, all I see is dangerous rumours that threaten a family's safety, defamation, slander and malicious persecution.

    I'm surprised the McCann legal eyes haven't acted to be honest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well that was to the point Ziggy. Whilst I do sympathise with the McCanns' predicament, it is entirely as a result of their own actions, past and present. They continue to persecute Goncalo Amaral, knowing that they are so morally wrong. And their attitude towards Brenda Leyland was heartless.

      The McCanns have been fighting internet wars for years, it was part of their campaign - stifle the opposition. Bringing McCann discussion to an end won't lift that cloud of suspicion that hangs over the parents. And as the McCann team must have seen over and over, their spats with newspapers and social media, ALWAYS have the Streisand affect. That is, the hostile behaviour towards them online increases.

      I can see they are between the devil and the deep blue sea. From a campaign perspective, if they stop searching for Madeleine and interacting with the media, the Fund ends. However, if they issue statements they are bombarded with criticism. What they fail to understand however, is that they are not immune to criticism and never will be. Especially all the time they stay in the public eye.

      Their fears for their children are understandable and I truly do have sympathy for the kids. However, their first priority is to tell the kids the truth, they must protect the twins by preparing them and keeping an honest dialogue open.

      As for the McCann legal eyes, I have never said anything malicious or troll like. I am a published author (Random House), I have been through the editing process and the legal reading process word by word. I am also an ex legal secretary who once worked in the pedantic world of reinsurance, gawd 'elp me'.

      I don't wish to bring the McCanns further distress, but their distress is not my responsibility. I know that may sound callous, but our lives are dictated by what comes from within ourselves.

      Some people are driven demented by trolls, to the point where they google themselves 20 times an hour so they can find more to be offended by. It is entirely up to Gerry and Kate whether they allow adverse comments about them on the internet to affect their lives.

      Even if I bowed out, discussion on the mystery of Madeleine McCann will continue online. The batshit crazy armchair detectives will continue with their batshit crazy deviant sex theories, unchallenged.

      Gerry and Kate may not thank me for my blog, or the views expressed here, but they are keeping this case in perspective. That is, this blog is dismantling the creepy deviant sex allegations and questioning the motives of those making them.

      Effectively, I am doing Team McCanns' job for them. I am ridiculing the horrendous 'rabble rousing' allegations and regularly falling out with their daily persecutors on twitter.

      Delete
  50. Back on topic. Some may find the following an interesting read plus comments


    http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/09/metaphoric-comprehension-revisited-by.html

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/10/portugal-arrests-real-ira-suspects-arms-trafficking

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/northernireland/7864018/Real-IRA-commander-caught-in-MI5-arms-dealing-sting.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. @21:15

    I think they might be hoping a face or faces might show up in more than one place . That would suggest somebody observing, maybe planning. It sort of makes sense.Then, if they showed up during the fateful week, it could add up. It would have made sense for Amaral to ask that obvious question too when the abduction was the story ( ''had you or your friends seen anyone anywhere or around here acting suspiciously at any point?'')

    The only photograph I'll entertain is the one with the big baldy dark guy in sunglasses .

    In the foreground is Gerry bending down playing with the kids. To our left a couple is walking away. It's a picture of 'movement'. The baldy guy was obviously walking left to right( as we look at it) but has stopped.he's facing the direction in which he was walking but his foot was pointing towards the McCanns. He had stopped only to watch them.

    I read somewhere that he was staying locally at his sons apartment( one theory) and was interviewed. His only other input was to say he was 'observing'( again) from a balcony watching activity at Murat's house. There was 'activity'.he didn't say a McCann or Murat was there but seems to imply it was Birch on his secret searching mission.

    Only a thought, but if i was forking out a good few hundred quid a week to stay in the sun in a place like PDL, I wouldn't spend it watching strangers.It's a waste of money and time, as well as creepy and boring.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not nice Ziggy, the 'big baldy guy' is not now, and never has been a suspect. What's to say he stopped 'only to watch them'? His own kids or family may have been behind Gerry and Maddie and out of shot. And besides, what is wrong with taking the time to stop and stare? One of the nicest pleasures in life is seeing small kids chuckling and having fun with their parents.

      I think it is irresponsible to imply innocent strangers caught in a photograph might be child abductors! Especially in this age, where the poor chap could so easily be identified and stalked by creeps like Bennett.

      As for your final paragraph, as a 'people watcher' I can't agree with you. I have spent many happy hours, on holiday and her in the UK, sat outside a coffee shop watching the world go by. People are endlessly fascinating, and there is nothing sweeting than watching the love between a father and daughter. I always beam at young dads with their little girls, it reminds me of the loving relationship I had with my own dear dad and I've had a glimpse of all the happy moments they have to come. I lean towards most people are not malicious or sexually deviant Ziggy, even big tough guys are touched by such a delightful tableau. There could be a touch of male bonding, eg. 'I too have a little girl who ties ribbons around my bald head'.

      It was a public play area with parents no doubt nodding and emphasizing with each other as the little ones played. And for a predator/bogeyman, the big bald guy was hardly inconspicuous! He obviously made no effort to get out of the 'picture', that is a picture of himself with the child he was about to abduct? Seriously?

      Delete
    2. Oops, last paragraph should have read 'empathising'. Unfortunately, I don't have an option for editing, so please forgive grammar and spelling!

      Delete
  52. "There is no "decent discussion" going on here - it is a series of defamatory statements/guesswork/opinion with no substance whatsoever."

    I agree.

    "If you follow this blog, and it would appear you do, you will be aware that I go out of my way to keep the discussion rational."

    I laughed.

    ....Chez

    ReplyDelete
  53. ''
    I laughed.

    ....Chez''

    thus proving the correlation between intelligence and sense of humour (...)

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ziggy Sawdust @ 22:13

    I was under the impression the chap in the photo at the playground was Raj Balu. You will need to scroll down to read his details.
    http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/WITNESS.htm



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous29 January 2017 at 23:18

      Indeed it was - and has been the subject of thousands of posts of speculation.

      Delete
  55. @Ros

    I said it was the only photograph that interested me.I didn't say he abducted anybody. If i thought that and was more than 50% sure, I wouldn't put it on a blog, I'd put it to the police.

    If 'analysis' of no end of pictures of a child , dismissed physical evidence and dodgy witness accounts and 'embedded confessions' can be advanced as 'the parents are obviously guilty' why not also look for something that everyone else is, as well as the police ( allegedly) .

    I know all about people watching, we all do it to an extent. I wouldn't on Holiday, though. And yes, children can melt the heart of anyone, including 'tough' men. But when my son was a toddler and i took him to the swings, I don't recall any other mums or dads, on seeing an adult who'd stopped nearby to watch using the 'he's obviously moved' line or it's like. That didn't make him guilty of anything apart from standing out.But, if a child had disappeared from said swing park and was suspected as being either killed or abducted from there or nearby, what do you think those parents would think - or even do - knowing a huge police operation was underway looking for the suspect ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @22:13
      thanks..yes he's on that page. I hadn't seen the picture of him walking with Robert Murat though.Someone else Murat didn't know I suppose...

      Delete
    2. Fair enough, but 10 years on you are still highlighting this guy as suspicious!

      There comes a point Ziggy, where those investigating the case must pay attention to the statistics, that is, stranger abduction is much, much, less likely than the parents or those close to the victim being responsible.

      'Why not look for something that everyone else is.....'. Because the definition of stupid is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The abduction story has been exhausted, it was in the summer of 2007 because there is no more evidence of an abduction than there was 10 years ago.

      I would like to believe the parents were not involved Ziggy, it would do much to restore my faith in human nature. And believe me I have scrutinised this case every which way but loose, in that endeavour. I did not comment about the McCanns negatively until I reached that 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage. Thereafter it was impossible to turn a blind eye to their wicked actions, their vendetta against Goncalo Amaral especially.

      As Catholics they must be familiar with 'tell the truth and shame the devil' and they must also be familiar with the relief a catholic feels when they step out of the confession box with a clean slate.

      Gerry and Kate have to accept that everything that happens to them, is a result of their own choices. They have had, and still do have, ample opportunity to rebut everything Goncalo Amaral said in his book. It would have been much cheaper than legal action, and would have nipped the more outlandish allegations in the bud. Especially if Kate had answered those 48 questions.

      Delete
    3. Most people don't notice those around them Ziggy! I once dashed around Sainsburys with an annoying toddler in my shopping trolley. Unbeknown to me, our actions were being noted and in full statement format on the office notice board the next day! I was accused of threatening said annoying chid with a bunch of spring onions. I had to plead guilty on that one, as my preferred weapon of choice, the French stick, was firmly clenched in small sticky paws and he wasn't letting go! My colleague then went on to question the legality of assaulting small children with garden vegetables, (it was a law firm) and thus a day of joviality ensued, lol.

      Ps. No children were harmed in the making of this anecdote, assaulted child was laughing his head off throughout!

      Delete
    4. "There comes a point Ziggy, where those investigating the case must pay attention to the statistics, that is, stranger abduction is much, much, less likely than the parents or those close to the victim being responsible."

      You are kidding, aren't you? Ten years on and the cops should be considering the statistics? Ridiculous. And besides, you can't build a case based on statistics. The parents have been investigated and ruled out by all except the social media idiots and a convicted cop.

      ...Chez

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 January 2017 at 00:57
      "There comes a point Ziggy, where those investigating the case must pay attention to the statistics, that is, stranger abduction is much, much, less likely than the parents or those close to the victim being responsible."
      ----------------------------------

      Much less likely does not make it impossible.

      Delete
    6. @ Ros 01.20

      What are the statistics on someone receiving a formal notice in a supermarket for threatening an annoying chid with a bunch of spring onions?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 30 January 2017 at 10:26

      “…much, much, less likely…” gives rise to reasonable doubt (as in a court of law), does it not?

      I presume that’s how Rosalinda intended the quoted text to be read.

      T

      Delete
  56. Hi Ros & Ziggy,

    With reference to alleged abduction, I can't imagine for one minute any one hanging around for two or three weeks prior to the McCanns arriving looking for a child to abduct. Burglars don't break into houses with the lights on I assume that child abductors are opertunists in & out quick and not hanging around. Also if as claimed they were targeted, they were a large group 9 adults so there was safety in numbers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So there you are with a holiday snapshot from PdL dated 23 April, say, and you notice a stranger in the background. What is it about him or her that suggests they might be waiting to abduct a child - next week?

      If we cannot tell a psychopath from the colour of their eyes, then the casual photographer is not going to distinguish a child molester merely from their presence in the picture (much less Jim Gamble, who wasn't even on the holiday).

      Gamble was clearly hoping to see a 'face in the crowd' that he would recognize.

      Delete
  57. "Ashwarya wrote:
    This is a really interesting thread. Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died?"

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13082p100-what-s-the-evidence-that-madeleine-died-on-sunday-29-april#354994

    How low will havern let the cesspit sink!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed 10:51, and it becomes murkier by the day as they continue to push their unfounded paedophile gang allegations. Do they ever stop and ask themselves why they are discussing a missing child's genitals?

      The latest posts seem to come from new members, or members who don't post there often. That is they are probably as fake as their million hits a day claim.

      Delete
    2. It's as if they are trying to do the McCann's work for them.

      They cried 'paedophiles' from the first minute - Bennett and the rest of them are trying to prove the place was crawling with them!!!

      In a recent post about Uri Geller, Clement Freud and the 'Exeter Connection,' he chucks Michael Jackson into the mix, and refers to him as a 'serial paedophile.'

      Would this be the same Michael Jackson who was found not guilty in a court of law to those charges?

      Delete
  58. Rosalinda @22:40 (29.1)

    “I think then, as now, the McCanns and their helpers were looking for a credible suspect to take the focus off themselves.”

    Although it is not the only answer, it's the most likely. It is also possible they wanted to make sure that Gerry McCann (or someone related) wasn’t in the background of a picture.

    I just wonder why they asked for photographs from the week before the McCanns had arrived. Is it worth considering whether they were looking for someone in an unrelated matter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @10:57

      "Is it worth considering whether they were looking for someone in an unrelated matter?"

      Yes, it is. But then we might discover that the matter was not entirely unrelated.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 30 January 2017 at 12:13

      “But then we might discover that the matter was not entirely unrelated.”

      Indeed we might.

      T

      Delete
    3. @13:18

      In view of a certain 'resonance' between ourselves may I articulate my thought sequence since re-visiting the topic of McCann's second visit home (I was initially puzzled by the wayward geography attaching to apparent theft of his wallet - Waterloo was not the place to be if visiting either CEOP or the Fund lawyers).

      GM called in at the FCO on that Friday, 19 June. Subsequently he blogs about changes to be made to the McCann campaign strategy (basically enacting instructions recently given him).

      The FCO were in on-going contact with McCann (he admitted as much). The impression is freely given that the former is simply doing the bidding of the latter.

      I do not believe that for one moment. I would contend that in any significant interaction between McCann and officialdom, at any level, it is not McCann who is calling the shots, as he is so often portrayed (and portrays himself) as doing.

      Kate McCann (chapter 23) divulges both the legal grounds for near instantaneous intervention on foreign soil, and the presence in Morocco of a Met. Police counter-terrorism officer.

      The abduction of a minor abroad is not a feature of terrorist activity, yet we know for a fact that MI5 were active in the Algarve prior to the McCanns' arrival there.

      Suspending disbelief for just a moment, if the 'war on terror' (Leitmotiv of the Blair presidency) were the basis of the UK government's interest in Pdl that Spring, is there anything at all to indicate a connection between the 'abduction' and the on-going activity of the secret services, i.e., previous interest of any kind?

      Answer: Yes there is - the appeal for photographs from the week before. They were already looking for someone of particular interest (and that someone did not have 'wannabeabductor' tattooed on their forehead).

      Which brings us to the demise of Madeleine herself. Was it (a) an accident (b) an accident with consequences discoverable at autopsy or (c) homicide, pure and simple?

      If (a) then what's the problem. the incident is reported to the resort management and doesn't become public news for days, if at all.

      If (b) then the parents might just have taken a chance that any unusual or inappropriate trauma would go unnoticed. (Proceed as in (a)) or get help from someone, other than the police of course).

      If (c) then get third-party help at all costs!

      The problem in the event of (b) or (c) above is 'Who ya gonna call'? And it wasn't Ghostbusters.

      Which brings me to the conclusion that for the McCanns to have enlisted the help of anyone outside the T9 (and they no doubt did so) they would have to have been in THEIR loop for some reason.

      They could not simply have recruited the assistance of complete strangers in keeping their dead child from the gaze of the authorities.

      Delete
  59. Ziggy 22-23 29 Jan

    Is it just stupidity that drives you on?

    Slating Amaral and the PJ again. 'They should have asked the obvious question, had you or your friends seen anybody acting suspiciously at any point?'

    They did. Read the police statements, or is that too difficult.

    Then you implicate Raj Balu because he is big, bald and dark.

    How pathetic.

    You imply he was watching Murat and further implied Balu was watching the Birch secret driveway operation.

    Birch did this in 2012 but you smear without any foundation whatsoever Balu as being there.

    So according to you Ziggy, Balu was watching Murat's house from May 2007 to June 2012.

    You read somewhere he was staying at his son's apartment.

    Your usual bullshit.

    Balu's son was in a cot, as reading Balu's police statement would show. Can you not read?

    Seek medical help you are making Bennett look normal.

    Ros, freedom of expression also brings responsibility of ones actions.

    There is not one shred of evidence linking Balu to the 'abduction' but you are allowing the hare to run.

    When Bennett does it, its wrong. You allowing Ziggy to promote his crap totally without foundation, is also wrong.

    Somebody on this blog once said, anyone has an opinion to say what they like. Not surely when it is a clearly provable lie, which can destroy innocent lives and families.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not allowing the hare to run JJ. If you read my response, you will see that I have challenged Ziggy's allegations and pointed out the dangers of accusing innocent people of abducting Madeleine. I have never agreed with those dragging in innocent witnesses and bystanders - they are just as bad as the McCanns in that regard, because they are making these people targets.

      You say I am allowing Ziggy to promote his crap, the key word there being 'promote'. Don't we all promote our crap? That is our differing opinions. And is 'promote' the right word? If so, why has he chosen a site where his ideas will almost certainly be challenged? It's not for me to judge, but on reading the posts of Ziggy, you and myself, who would now believe Balu was involved? I prefer to confront and dismantle these arguments JJ, than to ignore them.

      Mr. Balu, like Robert Murat, Martin Smith, Mrs Fenn, the nannies etc, have been dragged into this murky business through no fault of their own, and without any way to defend themselves.

      People like you and I however, can speak on their behalf by pointing out the absurdity of the allegations, something they are probably itching to do themselves but can't. I a not promoting Ziggy's theories, so much as challenging them, and indeed ridiculing them.

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust29 January 2017 at 23:30

      ''I said it was the only photograph that interested me.I didn't say he abducted anybody.''
      I went on to say it was merely ONE theory i'd read. I also later explained why it appeared suspicious in the broader contexts of things. I know no children in make up were in the picture, nor was there any 'angry', cold' expressions from the alleged sick and twisted paedophile parents which are a dead giveaway(apparently).

      Can I remind anyone that parents in front of cameras in similar situations are putting on a front and trying to remain composed whether or not they're guilty.If there is 'hysteria' in private, that can actually be genuine hysteria, fear and panic, not proof of guilt.

      As much as my so-called arguments are so methodically dismantled and 'ridiculed'(?), I offer no evidence in support of what i say.Nobody blaming the McCanns has any either. Two police forces, God knows how many 'officials' and a team of forensics have dismantled that theory so completely that they can't build a case to go to court. But it's easier to spit bile than challenge science isn't it.Lazier too. And statistics can do any dance you want them to do. 8 out of 10 cats support me on that. Yes, often a spouse is ultimately guilty of murdering spouse despite their initial feigned hysterics.But often and always are two completely different animals.There's a lot of 'the parents are guilty' theories that have been blown out of the water following the disappearance of kids. I've visited Ashworth ( in real life, not on a site or page)and, believe me, there are horror stories you don't need to know. I've sat 3 feet in front of a 20 something who had the face of a kid and was tiny and who had landed her 'druggy' partner in prison for killing her babies.He was innocent.She'd done it, with a knife.Later evidence sorted that one out. Fundamental attribution errors run rife in all areas of life, it's a human necessity but a human flaw. Be careful.

      ( to be cont)

      Delete
    3. (cont)


      JJ 30 January 2017 at 11:09 :

      '' Ros, freedom of expression also brings responsibility of ones actions. ''

      Freedom of expression brings responsibility ? Really ? By that I assume you mean :

      Ziggy the Bigot 19.08

      '' Is that the end of your contract or does Fiona and Rachael's handlers want their money back? ''

      '' YOU are a bullshitter of some magnitude.''

      ''Ziggy, you are obviously trying to get this blog shut down''
      ,'' there is now naked racism about Jews.
      deliberate lies are not and vitriol and blatant race and religious hatred ''

      '' You need urgent medical help''
      '' Every day your bullshit increases ''

      Ziggy

      '' The same big barrel of bullshit ''
      '' You can always ask your doctor for a stronger medication.''
      ''Total and absolute crap.''

      Ziggy 22-23 29 Jan

      ''Is it just stupidity that drives you on?
      Your usual bullshit.
      Seek medical help you are making Bennett look normal
      allowing Ziggy to promote his crap ''

      That's your freedom of expression in action is it ?That's 'responsibility' ?

      From where I'm standing, that looks like rage.It looks like obsession( you should keep an eye on that).It never looks like reasoned argument or mature debate. You're typical of the keyboard warrior that gets to act brave and throw his perceived weight around in an invisible world from the safety of his keyboard.Some would perceive that as typical of the coward living out his dream of being the bully for once.I wouldn't. I'm nowhere near as polite, but i won't spit more crap onto a page you've already thrown up on.

      I'm not flattered, or worried, by your apparent obsession with me. Your angry words and desperate attempts to sound intimidating are all I need to confirm your weakness. I don't wreck the weak.You're safe.But, at least try and conduct your online persona with a little more maturity for the sake of others who enjoy visiting blogs.Nobody thinks it's clever or funny when an adult behaves like an angry child.

      Delete
  60. "People like you and I however, can speak on their behalf by pointing out the absurdity of the allegations"

    Until someone can come up with a credible scenario of how the McCanns were somehow able to hide Madeleine's body from a police search conducted by the Portuguese police immediately after her reported disappearance, and then continue to hide the body for weeks later until they were able to somehow dispose of the body, then I must conclude that the absurdity lies in the allegations that the McCanns were responsible for the death and disposal of their daughter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I must conclude that the absurdity lies in the allegations that the McCanns were responsible for the death and disposal of their daughter."

      GM: "We played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter."

      It would be a mistake to conjoin death with 'disappearance' IMO.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous30 January 2017 at 12:55

      I agree and would ask why the parents who had got away with an horrific crime against their child would actively encourage the Police in 2 countries to open the investigation again.

      Delete
    3. You, ask “how the McCanns were somehow able to hide Madeleine’s body from a police search conducted by the Portuguese Police immediately after her reported disappearance, and then continue to hide the body for weeks later until they were able to somehow dispose of the body” and I have of course no answer, but if there had been a paedophile or a gang of paedophiles it would have been just as difficult for them to do what you believe the McCanns couldn’t have done.

      Further on, it would have been just as difficult for anyone to take Madeleine alive out of Portugal under the circumstances you describe and then keep her hidden alive for almost 10 years, as the McCanns are “hoping” for. Wouldn’t it? Yet, we all know that Madeleine couldn’t have vanished into thin air. So shouldn’t we instead ask ourselves; which of these scenarios is the most likely, or better perhaps the least unlikely. The problem is that there is no real evidence of the McCanns’ being implicated, and not a shred of evidence of an abduction. Yet, it’s not neither nor, but, in fact, either or.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @14:22

      "I...would ask why the parents...would actively encourage the Police in 2 countries to open the investigation again."

      They didn't. They lobbied for a 'review' which gave rise eventually to Operation Grange; some hitherto unheard of procedure which leads to an investigation conducted by the Met overseas, where they have absolutely no jurisdiction.

      Of course they have blathered on about primacy residing with the Portuguese, who for their part were obliged to re-open the case just so as to host DCI Redwood's landing party and deal with their various written requests.

      Whatever the Portuguese are investigating it sure isn't Madeleine McCann's 'abduction'.

      Delete
    5. @ Anonymous30 January 2017 at 20:15

      nonsense.

      Delete
  61. @ Bjorn and others :

    Good point, Bjorn. But what constitutes 'evidence of an abduction' ?
    We can say blood points to a physical crime, or fingerprints and DNA points to an unidentifiable third party being at a scene. Can anybody describe a crime scene that would suggest an abduction ? Bear in mind an abductor, like a burglar, would more than likely wear gloves . I make that comparison because, if an abduction took place, it wasn't likely to be a spur of the moment guess that randomly selected an apartment that contained unprotected children.It would have been planned. maybe on the night , maybe longer. But I think a lucky guess is out of the question logically.

    ReplyDelete
  62. @ anon 15:08

    I remember the stolen wallet story . I was a bit baffled about how it was 'stolen' and no witnesses or CCTV picked it up even though it was so close to a bank in London (according to the sister of GM who thought she'd broadcast the incident). I was even more baffled by how it was supposedly returned.I just remember thinking that it was becoming like an Agatha Christie story, only 'steroided up' -nothing straightforward, and too many twists and turns. It was about that time I started wondering about the relationship between the family and the government, or, more accurately, the governments seeming determination to keep on top of the case by collectively sitting on it's lid .

    I read somewhere about the IRA or RIRA being in or around PDL prior to the family and possibly during. I thought peace existed on that front. But that's only because i haven't read that much beyond the mainstream in that area so I take it with a pillar of salt . Noting also the leitmotiv of the soon-to-be obsession with terror, and terrorists, as hammered home by Blair and Bush once they had weekended in Portugal and shook hands in agreement that another rape was due where the oil lived. Machinations etc....

    Since the 'outing' of celebrity paedophiles post -Savile, we're learning as we go about political skullduggery in the past and the way in which many trusted MPs were assisted by police forces helping to make them go away. We're also learning why many are only outed post mortem( they could take the rest down with them should they be publicly humiliated). And, of course, the old Chief Whip of Heath, Tim Fortescue, letting it be known that they had the power over said MPs as they held all their secrets-including ''small boys'' secrets . As such, children were a useful tool for political leverage. Fortescue goes on to say ''If you can get a chap out of trouble, they'll do as you want for ever more''. Nice. Tasteful that . But it would go some way to explaining how powerful people who make important decisions are held by the short hairs. As an aside, does anyone find the intense interest of the Chancellor Of The Exchequer strange ? I doubt if anyone involved in the McCann case was threatening to cause the double-dip recession if we didn't play ball .I thought maybe it was because Brown was going to be the PM after the war criminal resigned and went off to sink his millions into his property port folio. But May 2007- had he been chosen yet ? Just wondered..

    Are you saying that the McCanns were collateral damage in an international incident ? That a spy war was already underway between the Uk and whoever they were watching for a week or two ? Suspending disbelief- would you be prepared to include a 'd' - abduction ? Your a,b, and c, are based on a death. You may be right and she may have been dead. Or she may have been taken and any subsequent 'demands' not met- and then dead ( '' we don't negotiate with terrorists''-another leitmotiv of the twins of evil).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @18:44

      "We're also learning why many are only outed post mortem( they could take the rest down with them should they be publicly humiliated)."

      Which is why I suspect the McCanns will never appear in a criminal court, and why every effort so far has been made to keep them from doing so.

      "Are you saying that the McCanns were collateral damage in an international incident?"

      Not quite. I take the view that Madeleine was the collateral damage, in the midst of an on-going collaborative investigation.

      "would you be prepared to include a 'd' - abduction?"

      No. In my honest opinion it never happened.

      Show me any public acknowledgement of the dogs' behaviour by the Met. I doubt you'll find any. For the same reason that the two men responsible for their introduction into the original investigation are now literally on the other side of the world, well out of media reach.

      Mark Harrison (and Martin Grime at his invitation) went a step too far.

      Harrison was a 'search expert'. I don't imagine the mandarins in the Gold group expected him to pitch a 'curved ball', in the form of corroborating a death inside the apartment. The media have lost no opportunity to 'diss the dogs' since.

      Delete
  63. Ziggy Sawdust @17:28

    "Bear in mind an abductor, like a burglar, would more than likely wear gloves."

    In which case the character Jane Tanner claimed to have seen would not have been Madeleine's abductor. The official artist's impression of the man shows him without gloves.

    ReplyDelete
  64. : Björn 30 January 2017 at 15:03

    "The problem is that there is no real evidence of the McCanns’ being implicated, and not a shred of evidence of an abduction. Yet, it’s not neither nor, but, in fact, either or."
    ---------------------------

    Yes it is either or, The Mccanns have been investigated by the PJ and the AG in Portugal said there was no evidence to convict them of any crime.

    That leaves....or = abduction.

    An abductor does not necessarily leave his fingerprints/footprints/hair/DNA.

    But you have to go back to the original forensic search to realise:

    1. there was only one DNA swab of the apartment - the bed in the same room as Madeleine - proven to be a boy previous occupant.

    2. there were unidentified hairs

    3. there were a lot of dog hairs (the Mccanns did not take a dog on holiday)

    4. the PJ/GNR left fingerprints

    5. Fingerprints of Kate on the window

    6. Madeleine's bedding was not seized for forensic analysis.

    In other words it was not a complete DNA/forensic search of the apartment and what may had led to clues was not examined.

    Amaral himself admits as much in his book.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @21:53

      "The Mccanns have been investigated by the PJ and the AG in Portugal said there was no evidence to convict them of any crime.

      "That leaves....or = abduction."

      Inconsequential waffle.

      Far from or=abduction it leaves....the McCanns shielded by the presumption of innocence, not innocence as a fact.

      Abduction from apartment 5A was a physical impossibility. It was locked front and back and Clarence Mitchell's 'he got out of the window fairly easily' was total bullshit.

      The cover story of the rear door was only adopted by the McCanns once they realised access from the front was demonstrably a non-starter, but even then the timings didn't fit, which is why DCI Redwood invented crechedad - to extend the window of opportunity (he probably wished he could widen the window itself but half a loaf is better than no bread I guess).

      Delete
  65. There is an oft quoted fallacy by the Mccann haters - "there was no DNA of Madeleine found in the apartment."

    The simple truth is that there was no DNA search of the apartment done in the initial stage - apart from the spot found on the bed in the same room as Madeleine (and it was innocent and not related to her).

    There were no other DNA swabs taken in the apartment on the initial forensic search but importantly - the bedding on her bed was never taken for analysis - hairs were taken off it - but nothing else,

    ReplyDelete
  66. To the three anonymous 30 Jan 2017 (12.55, 14.22 and 14.36)

    If you believe that the McCanns have to be innocent, just because they urged, and still so, two Police forces to search for their daughter. Then you must also believe, that they would have gone back quietly to their home in Rothley in the summer of 2007, closing the door behind them, without officially asking anybody to search for their beloved daughter, if they were guilty.

    If they had done so, that is, showed their disinterest in finding Madeleine, it would have been quite obvious, that they must have been implicated and that they must have known what had happened to Madeleine. Wouldn’t it? Guilty people who claim to be innocent will of course always do what they believe truly innocent people would do and the McCanns are no different in this respect, though they are acting rather badly, in my opinion.



    ReplyDelete