Friday, 17 February 2017

DEAR ZIGGY, WHO ARE YOU?

Many thanks for keeping myself and my readers so intrigued this past few weeks, but now I am itchingly curious as to who you might be.  I agree, the comments have been coming thick and fast, and some have disappeared under the radar.  This evening for example I stumbled upon your post of February 14th, and was quite hurt and taken aback -  and just as we were getting on so well.....

I am guessing you are male, simply because you tried to flirt with me.  And, kudos for that, tis a tactic I often use myself, but I'm not gender biased.  I have narrowed you down to Michael, John, Jon or Jim.  Long shot, Hugh.  Whilst I secretly wish you were Gerry, tis doubtful, I read his blogs.  Whilst he ticks all the boxes for anger, hostility, arrogance and need for pay back, his writing lacks that, err, certain eloquence displayed by Ziggy in full on charm mode. 

Somewhat disappointingly, Ziggy may turn out to be one of those loons who always attach themselves to martyrs.  Their loyalties are transient however, they swiftly move on when there is a new headline. They don't have in depth knowledge of the case (arguably, nor does Ziggy), but they don't have in depth knowledge about anything else either. 

Whoever you are Ziggy, you are taking this much too personally to be a casual observer.  I suspect you are using this blog to test the waters.  That is you are trying out ways and means in which to spread the blame around.  Ie. It was all down to Clarence.  What would be the public's reaction to that one?  Kudos for that, you have few options.  But he wasn't there on the night. 

Anyway, I have no problem with that!  Why would I, it increases my readership. Besides which, since this case began, I have longed for the opportunity to 'hear' the McCanns side.  Not the Clarence approved press releases, but directly from them.  Much as I hate to give Gerry and Kate marketing ideas for the 10th anniversary, that's the angle they should be going for.  That is, the unpolished, unrehearsed, real people.   There is nothing wrong with showing raw emotion, in most cases, it is endearing.  Nothing compares with honesty when it comes to tugging at the heart strings. 

I am happy to play the game as long as you are Ziggy.  Be assured, I have no idea who you are at the moment and probably never will. I am just guessing, and trying to narrow it down with speech patters, ha ha.  Though I have ruled out the loons (not entirely), there are other 'suspects'.  I am not sure if you are an older gentleman or maybe, an aspiring 'gentleman'.  Well read should be thrown in somewhere, which again, rules out Clarence and Gerry.  But,the well read however, carries shades of Nazi and a total misinterpretation of every text. 

Your hostility perplexes me Ziggy.  Why so angry?  I am not sure if you are coming from a 'dashed impertinence' perspective, or angry young man.  Or possibly woman, I haven't entirely ruled out the mad aunts and Jane Tanner, nor even the 'subjugated wife' Kate, the angle she might well play when the chips are completely down.  And all the hand holding and dependency gives her a pretty good case.  Kate is just as wiley as husband, of that I have no doubt. You could even be the female half of Summers and Swan, somewhat embittered at being made to look like a total sell out see you next you next Tuesday, and trying desperately to hang on to some sort of credibility.  Perhaps I should hold a competition, who is Ziggy, I am sure it would amuse both of us.   

Your refusal to read books, both Goncalo's and Kate comes more from a book burning stance, rather than that of enlightenment and the search for the truth. I'm afraid refusing to read a book, in my opinion, is the height of ignorance.  It's not an admirable trait, it demonstrates that you are closed off to alternate ideas, not something to be proud of and a bit Amish.  You might just as well put on blinkers, cover your ears and pretend the 21st century isn't happening.  Just as you dismiss the greatest threat to humanity, a madman in the Whitehouse, as a distraction to the innocence of the McCanns.  It is without logic. 

You confuse truth with hate Ziggy.  Truth being the bad guy, because it upsets the paradigm.  Let's all tiptoe along as if we live in a Stepford World where nice people like Gerry and Kate don't commit heinous crimes.  It's far too easy to believe that dark forces have dark skins and nice, middle class, church going white people are automatically innocent.  And in the case of Gerry and Kate McCann, this was an 'Executive Order' from New Labour carried out by the UK's mainstream media.  How does it compare to the invasion of Iraq, time will tell.

I don't care who you are Ziggy, nor will I try to find you out.  IP addresses are as interesting to me today as they have always been, that is they remind me of boring filing cabinets.  In some areas I have the attention span of a goldfish - as confirmed by two qualified psychiatrists, Smart Arsed Sons, and a variety of ex angry bosses.  If you reveal who you are, it will be your option. 

I would like to think of this as an intelligent chess game Ziggy , but naturally I have never had the patience for that.  It is more cat and mouse, and from my perspective (as the mouse), it's getting quite exciting to meet the enemy head on.  On this occasion the mouse will not be running away.  I have longed, this past 9+ years to discuss both sides of this case rationally.  But, it has been impossible because both sides have become so entrenched, every attempt at rational discussion has descended into a slanging match. 

Much to my extreme frustration over the years, the forums and facebook pages have immediately censored and shut down any discussion at the point where it became interesting!  And probably why, I eventually had to 'create a system of my own'. 

Continue trying out your ideas Ziggy, this blog is as good a reflection of honest public opinion as any.  Some ideas will probably fall on stony ground, but ce la vie, at least here, you are in an unbound stadium and you are getting unbiased feedback. You may argue the feedback is biased, but it's an equal playing field, you can persuade the opposition over to your way of thinking, or you can throw a hissy fit and instruct lawyers.  And on the instructing lawyers bit, the McCanns might want to ask themselves, how that's worked out for them so far?  

192 comments:

  1. "I am guessing you are male, simply because you tried to flirt with me."

    You've never been a great judge of character, Ros!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 February 2017 at 08:21

      “"I am guessing you are male, simply because you tried to flirt with me."

      You've never been a great judge of character, Ros!”

      You are not great at comprehension: the sentence you quoted is not about ’character’. Ros was right however.

      T

      Delete
  2. He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree too. He's a WUM. BTW nice to see you JB your thoughts on what's been going on are sorely missed!

      Delete
    2. Thank god it's not just me. I try just to ignore his/ her posts but then everyone else seems to be replying to the nonsense. Blacksmith there are a lot of people waiting with bated breath on you thoughts on where we are now. Come on stop leaving us in suspense

      Delete
    3. "Blacksmith there are a lot of people waiting with bated breath on you thoughts on where we are now. Come on stop leaving us in suspense"

      Ha ha!

      Delete
    4. where theres muck, theres brass!

      Delete
    5. john blacksmith 17 February 2017 at 11:09

      He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable.

      That’s nasty, john. Perhaps you once again don’t know what is being talked about?

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 17 February 2017 at 21:56

      “Thank god it's not just me. I try just to ignore his/ her posts but then everyone else seems to be replying to the nonsense. Blacksmith there are a lot of people waiting with bated breath on you thoughts on where we are now. Come on stop leaving us in suspense.”

      Thank goodness I did not write that!

      “I try just to ignore his/ her posts but then everyone else seems to be replying…”

      Try harder or join in!

      “Blacksmith there are a lot of people waiting with bated breath on you thoughts on where we are now.”

      Perhaps ‘a lot of people’ do not inhale…

      A likely answer from john: We think we are now on Rosalinda Cristobell Hutton’s blog, fasten you seat belts, “take your protein pills and put your helmet on”!

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 17 February 2017 at 23:41

      You remember only about the brass ring,
      You forget all about the golden rule.

      Delete
  3. "I don't care who you are Ziggy" in a 1000+ word post headed "DEAR ZIGGY, WHO ARE YOU?"?

    LOL! I do hope Ziggy refrains from commenting!

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ziggy is either cass widebottom of Bren Ryan.bet I'm not far off.defo not a male

    ReplyDelete
  5. Troll troll troll. And dull with it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 17 February 2017 at 12:25

      “Troll troll troll. And dull with it.”

      Mercy!

      Reading and/or writing posts like yours might indeed make one dull. Luckily, there are many on this blog with larger active vocabularies.

      Thank you anyway.

      T

      Delete
  6. He is male.

    40+ years old.

    From Liverpool.

    Played football in the Anfield league (he told us this in one of his boring posts).

    Maybe a friend or relative of the Healy clan.

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/feb/10/liverpool-ban-the-sun-newspaper-over-hillsborough-coverage

    ReplyDelete
  8. On the one hand I kind of agree with blacksmith, but his comment is a bit to blunt and dismissive for my taste. I once also tried to see things from the other sides point of view and tried to debate it on CMOMM, what a waste of time that was!! Then with more research and reading I made my mind up (which is always open to change btw) and came down on your side Ros. Personally I think Ziggy is just searching for a conclusive argument to help him make his mind up, I feel he wants to be convinced but cant quite let himself fully dive in yet. Unfortunately we only have online to help us research and read up on this case, and sometimes there can just be to much info and to many persuasive arguments from both sides, which can make it very difficult to come to a unbiased rational conclusion. The problem is BOTH sides think they are right and Ziggy is just stuck in the middle. If you are reading this Ziggy may I very politely suggest heading over to youtube and watching a few videos, I came across one today I had never seen before, it was a dispatches episode filmed 3 months after MBM went missing using 5 ex uk detectives, it is called Dispatches, searching for Madeleine Mccann. Heres the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE . Anyway, i think as you continue to debate it adds to the debate and only helps to strengthen the resolve of some of us when you miss-interpret or ignore certain points that we have made. I must admit, at one point I thought you may even be WALKER1000 , the loon from #mccann lols.

    Anyway, keep up the good work Ros
    A Fan

    Ps. Why no new blog for such a longtime Blacksmith????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for your constructive and informative contribution A Fan.

      Like yourself, I too went out of my way to 'absolve' the parents. I was staying with my (mad) Irish mother in 2007 when the Madeleine story broke and the pair of us were hooked to Sky News which had a dedicated McCann channel.

      As nutty as she was, my dear old mum was very astute. She could sum up a person's character in an instant, and she could destroy them with one line. You could actually see the fear in their eyes before she even spoke. As a child I found it excruciating (for them), but now I admire her for it, because it was usually accompanied by a mischievous twinkle in her eye.

      But I digress. She immediately pronounced the parents guilty. I took the opposite side, mostly to wind her up, she was at her most witty and hilarious when we were squabbling.

      To be fair, I did believe the abduction story for a short while. The geographical location of 5A, on the corner, gave it a slight possibility. I looked at every angle from the parents' perspective. In fact, I am often accused of being a McCann supporter because of my early posts. The simple fact was I would not post negatively about the parents until I was beyond the point of reasonable doubt. Like many of the 'pros', I could not have lived with myself if I had added to their pain if they were innocent.
      And, I'm afraid it was the McCanns' own behaviour that took me beyond reasonable doubt.

      Ziggy may well be trying to make up his mind, but whoever he is, he is probably representative of many who are undecided, on the fence, or who believe that the McCanns are being persecuted by social media.

      Tis my belief, they too should be allowed a 'sane' platform, that is a place in which to express their views and opinions without being insulted and belittled.

      Those of us who know more about this case than is healthy, are but a tiny minority. Whilst we were studying the police files and the statements, the rest of the world moved on.

      I am sure there are thousands out there who are new to this case, or who have never given it more than a glance. They may already have formed an opinion, or they are seeking alternate views. But isn't that what debate is all about?

      I like to treat all my readers as welcome guests, just as if they were visitors to my home. It saddens me that people use anonymity to discard their manners and social graces - if they have any.

      I don't hate people who's views differ to mine, on the contrary, I thoroughly enjoy lively debate, probably why I got so bored with forums, everyone agrees with other! I like to keep an open mind. Quite often the words of complete strangers can stop me in my tracks and open up new doors to perception.

      Delete
  9. Probably 'Merde'..........or is it Verde? No ! It's Verdi from COMMM . What a prize twat!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''john blacksmith17 February 2017 at 11:09
      He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable.''

      ''Anonymous17 February 2017 at 13:01
      I agree.''

      ''Anonymous17 February 2017 at 17:05
      I agree too. He's a WUM. BTW nice to see you JB your thoughts on what's been going on are sorely missed!''
      ..........

      ''Anonymous17 February 2017 at 12:25
      Troll troll troll. And dull with it.''

      ''Anonymous17 February 2017 at 13:00
      He is male.
      40+ years old.
      From Liverpool.
      played football in the Anfield league (he told us this in one of his boring posts).
      Maybe a friend or relative of the Healy clan.''

      ...........
      ..Anonymous17 February 2017 at 18:19
      Probably 'Merde'..........or is it Verde? No ! It's Verdi from COMMM . What a prize twat!..

      Well, I'm honoured. A thread dedicated to yours truly.Thanks Ros.

      It's unfortunate that, like most threads that have the potential for interesting debate, your admirable but liberal stance on censorship has mean't having to allow complete morons through the net. Such scathing criticisms of me. How hurtful.Thank God you haven't taken apart my arguments with equal expertise.But kudos on the collective wit. To read 'thicko', 'troll' and 'twat' all in one little space is on a par with finding myself at a small but select gathering enjoying high tea with Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw and Lady Astor ( the last -named is most likely the closest we can get to the Blacksmith creature). As for 18:19- This prize twat could snap your jaw.But you know that the internet is a fairly safe place don't you.Legend.

      Post later, Ros. I'll wait until your little demons are tired.

      Delete
    2. Do you know something that I have noticed in the last ten years is that it's nearly all of the pro McCanns that resort to devious, rude and callous behaviour whilst the people who question the official story are labelled as trolls simply for pointing out facts. It's also nearly always the pro McCanns that use alter egos for commenting on blogs and YouTube, so any reasonable person would have to wonder why a genuine supporter of a poor couple who have had their daughter snatched by a paedophile would choose to use a fake name. Or choose to say some of the things their "supporters" have said I wrote the years including trolling a woman to death. So Ziggy you clearly have an agenda, just like Michael Walker, or looking4u2. Because any sane person looking at the facts without a bias opinion can see that Gerry and Kate have not been truthful and should finally give the people some answers to the many nagging questions regarding the disappearance of their daughter. And if they're unable to do this they should step out of the public eye because the whole case is a farce!

      Delete
    3. Also for someone who is just a casual observer of the McCann case and not in any way connected to the McCanns I find it interesting that you found this post on the day it was written. So you obviously look on here most days and most likely ARE connected to the McCanns! Why else would someone have such a vested interest in this blog?

      Delete
  10. I’ve nothing against the pseudonym Ziggy, though I do not so often share your view on the Madeleine case Ziggy. The only thing I’d wish you to do is to boil down the often long texts, so that the essential idea of the post becomes clearer. Others, who are native speakers of English, may not be of the same opinion of course, but I say this as a non-intellectual Swedish-speaking Swede, who sometimes find it difficult to clearly understand the real, and often underlying, meaning of the mishmash of the ever changing everyday language and that of a more elaborated language, which is sometimes used by so many native speakers of English, not just on this blog, which is a quite natural phenomenon. I do the same in my own language, when I sometimes comment on domestic blogs. In short, if I’d get a clear message from you Ziggy, everybody would do so.

    Anyway, as for myself, my ambition, because my English isn’t idiomatic, is to be as concise as I possibly can, by using as few paragraphs as possible, though I may never have managed to do so, yet I’ll always try.

    Finally, I’m grateful that you Rosalinda allow me to comment on your blog, just as much as I appreciate comments from whoever disagrees or agrees to what I say here, including you Ziggy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn @21:19

      "Finally, I’m grateful that you Rosalinda allow me to comment on your blog, just as much as I appreciate comments from whoever disagrees or agrees to what I say here, including you Ziggy."

      I couldn't have said it better myself.

      NL

      Delete
    2. Hi Bjorn@21:19

      Well said, your English is a lot better than my Swedish

      Delete
    3. Hi Bjorn, I wholeheartedly agree, succinct messages hit the spot more effectively. In these modern times people don't have the time or inclination to read long diatribes. I think I have said in the past, I find genius in those comedians who can sum up a situation in just one line. Or maybe even as the quote on my blog from Einstein states; if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

      Thank you for understanding my non censorship policy, I have had complaints in the past and demands that certain posters should be banned, but the situations always seem to resolve themselves. Jaw jaw is better than war war, and the better argument wins.

      Delete
  11. Meanwhile, the McCanns are thrown to the wolves and wannabe European president Tony Blair makes headlines.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Bjorn, I understand your points. Even though our language isn't yours, you do better than a lot of contributors who have no excuse.
    I often quote a post before i answer it so people know i haven't ignored it or don't know who i was talking to. You do well for someone whose native tongue isn't british.

    Tony Blair will put his chin out too far soon. People will join the dots eventually and realise he was a Tory from day one and their best asset all along.His heroic rescue of Cameron over the scottish referendum followed by the other pervert Brown showed his ral colours.He's put a huge fund( from illegal war booty) to set about keeping us in Europe and fomenting hatred to Corbyn.He belongs in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  13. (1)Dear Cristobell Unbound

    You know, you could have just as easily given me your email or number and all would have been revealed without this episode of Murder She Suspected.But, whatever the opinions and guesses are, I've never been the kind of man who could walk away from a woman who is ''itchingly curious'' without offering to scratch it for her...

    If I flirted with you, it was with no bad intention.It's a curse I've carried since birth. My mum,God rest her, blamed my Dad, God rest him.Nobody ever died in a flirting accident ( although my ex wife had a fair left hook).

    I'm not John, Michael,Jon, or Jim.And God forbid I'd have been christened Hugh in Anfield.And, as you guessed, I'm not a Gerry. I'm disappointed that you perceive 'anger, hostility, arrogance and need for pay back' in my posts.The anger and hostility you perceive is no doubt when i hit back at the latest idiot who thinks he's being hilarious or cutting and trying to throw his online weight around.They get slapped into place on or offline.It's for their own good( they don't want to keep appearing foolish do they ?).

    A loon that attaches himself to martyrs. I liked that one.Nothing I've said suggests 'loon', unless you or the regular army of anonymous can cite such. If i needed a martyr to attach myself to like a limpet, I'd be weeping endlessly for Amaral by now.Note my dry eyes.My loyalties are seldom transient.My loyalty can be fierce.Headlines have no effect on me.They come from a factory that mass produces bullshit.I won't be fooled by fools.And, for the record, I have an in depth knowledge of more than a few things.The McCann case is only on the fringe of my interests.

    I take nothing regarding the McCann case, this blog or any other personally.I'm not personally involved with it or with anyone who has an opinion about it.Why would I ? I don't need to test any water in the way you suggest.I've 'watched water' closely for as long as i can remember.I understand the ebbs and flows and temperatures well enough not to need to test it.

    I'm not spreading any blame anywhere. I'm entertaining opposing viewpoints with the same limited 'evidence' that everyone else has.I picked up the odour of fish that comes with Clarence years ago. When the media and MI5 pounced on Jill Dando's execution i knew what he was.I knew it when he arrived like a genie at Soham too.The McCanns were made for him. Or rather he was made for those who needed a lid on things closed tightly and fast.That happened.It isn't just theory.Why it happened is a mystery.It needs to be questioned and scrutinised as much as any other aspect of this case.If the McCanns have lied, it's obvious why- to keep out of prison. If Mitchell's been placed there to orchestrate his symphony of spin to the point he's starting to look as much of a killer as anyone, it needs to be explained.


    ReplyDelete
  14. (2)

    I'm not playing a game. Games don't really interest me.I need more to stimulate my mind than games. Well read ? That's a matter of opinion, really. I've read a lot. I don't bother much with fiction.The last fiction i read was Fat Ollie's Book by Ed McBain.I loved it. very funny detective novel within a detective novel. Other than that, i enjoyed reading plays and poetry( Irish especially) and the occasional Raymond Chandler. I enjoyed The Great Gatsby and the Gormenghast Trilogy by Mervyn Peake.But I have read hundreds of non-fiction books.I've studied in my own time and at a higher level. I left school because i was thrown out.I was a bad lad.I came to books late.Nazism and me ? Let's just say, I've read with great interest and have discovered a lot the documentaries left out. The fourth reich is an interest, and their game and where they are.Your regular clowns will love that.

    The hostility you perceive in me isn't there. If I quote someone back to them self and address their point it's manners.It also stimulates debate-which is what bloggers pretend they enjoy.If all i get in return is juvenile garbage and some hamstrung attempt at an insult, i'll tell the silly bastard off. You don't teach children anything unless you chastise when they're wrong and explain things to them.

    A lot of the names you quote( and some quoted by some of the morons in the comments section) mean nothing to me.Other than the obsessive Bennett I know very little of bloggers on this subject.I skimmed a few and it was all very samey; same references, same perceived 'facial' signs spotted, same 'evil' picked up in photographs and so on.I don't need to know anything about them.Why would I ?

    Your idea of the competition to unveil me amuses me, I'll give you that. After reading so much of the paranoid babbling of your 'regulars' i'm almost scared to guess what the final outcome would be.Ted Bundy was executed by the way( before anyone gets too fancy).

    ReplyDelete
  15. (3)

    I refuse to read KM or GA books and I'm not ignorant. If only KMs book was available it wouldn't be fair to read just that.Everyone would say 'well she would say that wouldn't she' with their usual brilliantly insightful powers of perception.In other words, it wouldn't be totally unbiased would it ? Why would it be any different just because Amaral's wrote his book ? He has his story;she has her story;they're enemies. I refuse to be swayed by either.It's easier to be objective if you refuse to be swayed by a biased opinion.Amaral had them in the spotlight with his team.That was his chance.If he was incompetent, tough luck.If he was competent, why was he taken off the case ? And why hasn't he challenged those decisions ? And why hasn't the PJ's quick 'cave-in' to the UK been scrutinised ? That's important. As for the madman in the big chair in Washington.Five years ago i was on fakebook. It wasn't a personal one as i don't kid myself that the world is waiting with baited breath to know what hilarious things happened during my Asda trip or wants to see a cartoon i find funny. It was political,and it was pretty anti-mainstream. I remember telling everyone in 2012 that one day Trump would run for and become president regardless of how many votes were for his opponent.He's a nutcase. He's dangerous.So was Obama, but he had better patter. You need to dig deeper into Team Clinton to understand why he was allowed in the side door.

    I never confuse truth with hate. 'Truth being the bad guy, because it upsets the paradigm.'' I don't know which paradigm it upsets.It's your theory not mine.But lies are the bad guys. That's what's at the root of every evil in the world.A wise man once said '' If it can be destroyed by the truth,then it deserves to be''. He was right. Amaral reckons he has a 'truth' somewhere.If that's what it really is, then he'll have no problem.Your 'stepford' analogy is wrong. Dark Forces rarely have dark skins. The veil of respectability that the 'better off' used to enjoy blew away years ago.They're exposed now.

    The chess game is all about the black and white.The duality in me, you and everyone and in the world.It's less dangerous if you stand back and watch.The cleverest move is not to play.

    Don't expect rational or balanced arguments and discussion now. It's ten years in and the longer it continues the further away intelligent discussion is.If you expect it on facebook or twitter, you only have yourself to blame.

    The only ideas I'm 'trying' is that of removing blinkers and entertaining two huge concepts that your regular contributors can't tackle. The first is to consider that ''i might be wrong'', and the second is ''maybe there is more than just one side to it all''. You say the feedback isn't biased.It is.Read it.

    As for instructing lawyers, screw lawyers. They're all crooks .But, you ask how that worked out for the McCanns as though the implied answer is 'not too good'.As mountains of indisputable evidence go, there's an Everest against them according to public opinion.They're getting on with their life...

    I hope this has satisfied your curiosity if it's failed to scratch that itch. If not, don't have nightmares ;-)

    Sir Ziggy Sawdust, OBE.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to admit I have skim read many of your posts lately Ziggy, but today's I have read carefully, but still come away with nothing. You hate Goncalo Amaral. That you have established beyond doubt.

      It's that hatred I find irrational. There are no circumstances where I could imagine getting myself so worked up about a foreign detective who has upset a British family I don't know.

      As for some people deserve to get their arses kicked, well possibly so, but I have managed quite successfully to run a respectful, well mannered, non abusive, dialogue on here for a number of years without any arse kicking.

      Ultimately every post will judged in the court of popular opinion, so too will the better argument. You have been fortunate thus far that those you have insulted have responded to you so politely, or even at all. Ranters usually end up alone, standing on an orange box preaching to pidgeons.

      I would ask politely that you refrain from dishing out arse kickings to my contributors and readers. This is not a hate site, nor a hate blog, and your attitude that we are all 'haters' probably explains your anger and hostility. We are ordinary people drawn into this case by the McCanns themselves, and who can see the injustice and cruelty of what they are doing.

      Delete
    2. "This is not a hate site, nor a hate blog, and your attitude that we are all 'haters' probably explains your anger and hostility. We are ordinary people drawn into this case by the McCanns themselves, and who can see the injustice and cruelty of what they are doing."

      Oops

      Delete
  16. ZiggySawdust17 February 2017 at 21:47
    "He's put a huge fund( from illegal war booty) to set about keeping us in Europe and fomenting hatred to Corbyn.He belongs in prison."

    Ziggy is ....... Ros!

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Ros, please check your spam box for me for a post I made earlier re Ziggy, maybe its got lost in the ether?
    A fan

    ReplyDelete
  18. Many thanks A fan, it is now retrieved! I do apologise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks and God bless you x

      Delete
    2. ''You hate Goncalo Amaral. That you have established beyond doubt. ''

      No- i said i don't hate anyone.If you've established otherwise 'beyond doubt', you have a wrong idea about 'beyond doubt' considering you were a legal secretary.I criticised Amaral.That was based on his failure to nail the case.I have suggested he challenged that.

      ''As for some people deserve to get their arses kicked, well possibly so..''

      ''non abusive, dialogue on here for a number of years without any arse kicking. ''

      I believe you.I don't ask people to be abusive or stupid.I post alternative opinions( you know, 'dialogue') that don't go along with 'the mccanns did it' and out it comes. That's unusual for a non-hate blog.

      ''You have been fortunate thus far that those you have insulted have responded to you so politely, or even at all''

      Why fortunate ? If a counter argument can meet mine i accept it.It's called debate and discussion and and an exchange of opinions.Should i feel blessed if somebody on this blog responds to me ? Why ?

      ''Ranters usually end up alone, standing on an orange box preaching to pidgeons. ''

      A lot find each other.Like pigeons.Then fly around blogs.

      ''I would ask politely that you refrain from dishing out arse kickings to my contributors and readers''

      Take a look at the last 4 or 5 threads you've posted and take a look at the exchanges. If somebody decides to rant unfounded BS at me or put words into my mouth they can't cite from elsewhere, I'll correct them.If they consider that 'arse-kicking' too severe, they should choose their targets more carefully. I'm not easily bullied.As for attempts at personal insults, i see that as nothing more than desperation.Read with unbiased eyes. See properly.

      ''This is not a hate site, nor a hate blog, and your attitude that we are all 'haters' probably explains your anger and hostility''

      I don't think you are all haters.It was a general statement based on what i read here.The occasional alternative view and intelligent post is a nice break from the norm.Unfortunately the norm is simple : We say the McCanns have got away with murder, therefore every public appearance they make is brazen. You bounce this narrative off each other like it's public fact and not the opinion of a section of the blogging public.If I suggest other things need equal scrutiny, why can't you or the rest tell me why they don't -ie, Government overkill, funding overkill, uk putting the PJ to bed, a PR exercise taking over ? Could it be because it casts doubt over the preferred narrative of this blog ?Agree with us and you're in, disagree and it's open season to hurl abuse like angry kids ?

      ''the injustice and cruelty of what they are doing''

      I have a strong distaste for injustice. And I dislike immensely when people are ganged up on by mobs or hounds.What's the injustice you're referring to and what exactly are they doing ?

      What's the real reason for this thread ? Is the 'itch' to which you refer really nothing more than some odd need to have the angry mob spit at me for rattling their cages ? A cathartic release ? Attack the messenger rather than disprove the message ? The easy route . Wrong route, but easy.

      Delete
    3. Spare me the martyrdom Ziggy, you reap what you sow. If you post aggressively, it will come right back at you. That's how social media works.

      Simply by commenting publicly on this case you will incite negative comments, no matter which side of the argument you are on, I've had angry mobs spitting at me for years, and in my own name.

      I have no need to rouse up any mobs Ziggy, and in fact I find them distasteful. It's your own words that make people angry, and you alone are responsible for them. If you are failing to sway the opinion of my readers, you must try harder, or test out something else. And by try harder, I mean make your theories more succinct and have the good grace to consider their replies, rather than dismissing them as haters.

      As for this thread. I am genuinely curious as to who you are and possibly getting a little closer to solving the mystery. Not for name and shame or vigilante reasons, heaven forbid, Just good old fashioned curiosity.

      For example it is curious that you refer to yourself as 'the messenger', especially as you have gone to so much trouble to disassociate yourself from those you are defending.

      I've seen you as 'the messenger' for a while btw Ziggy. And I don't have a problem with it. Team McCann really should test the waters, before issuing their bizarre statements it may prevent so many of their campaigns backfiring.

      I honestly don't understand your need to hide your identity Ziggy or indeed your agenda. This is one of those instances where I feel sorry for Gerry and Kate, they are surrounded by Judases! People who purport to be on their side, but won't do it in their own names and who deny knowing them, often a lot more than thrice.

      Delete
    4. Ziggy Sawdust @01:07

      "Government overkill, funding overkill, UK putting the PJ to bed, a PR exercise taking over?"

      I don't need to know your identity in order to share another obscure clue (non-conspiraloons look away now):

      http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

      Under sub-heading ‘The Initial Response’ (p.13):

      "The first report to a UK agency in relation to the McCann case was made on 3 May 2007, in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal from the operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying. The duty officer informed the FCO in London on the same day, by which time a member of the McCann family had also made contact with the FCO"

      'Operator' of the holiday resort?

      'The duty officer informed the FCO in London on the SAME DAY'?

      By which time 'a member of the McCann family' had ALREADY been in contact?

      It was nearly midnight before any of the McCanns' relatives in the UK knew anything of events in Portugal (Supposedly. KM made no calls home from her mobile. GM's first UK call terminated 11:52)

      A PR outfit ('Resonate' - a Bell Pottinger subsidiary) had been in PdL for a week already, on a 'generic brief' from Mark Warner Holidays apparently.

      Who might they have been talking to at the Ocean Club - not the cleaners, surely?

      Mark Chitty, Limousine procurer to the McCanns and noted scrutineer of Kate's handbag, was a part-owner of the resort (aka 'operator').

      Are we getting warm?

      Delete
    5. "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
    6. Anonymous 18 February 2017 at 11:42

      Paraphrasing ZiggySawdust:

      You and your naughty Conspiracies. Lovin’ it.

      Relevant:
      http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search/label/Martin%20Roberts?updated-max=2015-08-19T15:40:00%2B01:00&max-results=20&start=7&by-date=false

      Respect. First-class honours from me.

      T

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @12:00

      Thank you for your vote of confidence.

      This sentence from the debriefing document is particularly significant:

      "The first report to a UK agency in relation to the McCann case was made on 3 May 2007, in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal from the operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying."

      If we place it in the context of John Buck's 'phoning PJ supremo Alipio Ribeiro at dinner (11:00 p.m.), we have a scenario in which an OC 'operator' contacted the Embassy either before the police had arrived or perhaps even before they had been called (10:40 p.m.).

      The very idea that a senior figure in the Mark Warner operation would immediately contact the British Embassy on learning a child was missing from one of the holiday apartments is preposterous - unless of course their reason for doing so was other than simply to report the disappearance.

      The management (referred to as such elsewhere in the same document) were paid to take care of things on the ground, whilst the parents (as victims of crime) were entitled to appeal for any assistance they felt in need of (e.g. 'family liaison).

      This 'support' was in fact 'rubber-stamped' on the Friday with first arrivals on the Saturday, following an e-mail from the PJ directorate apparently (according to GA's book).

      And who might have represented the PJ directorate? Alipio Ribeiro perhaps? (Who seems not to have first alerted his own staff at Portimao - the GNR did that) but who had already been in contact with Ambassador Buck).

      "Al, old chap, do us all a favour and put a request in to HQ would you. All that's needed is an e-mail from you. The landing craft are already loaded. They just need a reason to sail."

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 12:52

      “Thank you for your vote of confidence.”

      The pleasure is entirely mine (as you once said to our john the Welder).

      I take note of your thoughts and findings and apologise for not having acknowledged your post addressed to me on a previous thread. I blame my circumstances, unpropitious at the time :)

      T

      Delete
  19. ZiggySawdust 17 February 2017 at 19:58, 21:47, 21:53, 22:02, 22:08, 01:07

    Powerful, wonderful turn of phrase.

    Respect.

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4237066/Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-fight-court-ruling.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Off topic, I admit that, but Anonymous 18 February 11:30 obviously wishes that we pay some attention to a MailOnline article about the McCanns' reaction to the Supreme Courts' ruling against them, as we have all failed in identifying the mysterious person, who is hiding behind the pseudonym "Ziggy"

      According to MailOnline, the McCanns are now trying to get the Supreme Court’s decision invalidated by launching a formal complaint, because the judges, when referring to the shelving of the case in 2008, among other things, state, that it does not ”seem acceptable that the ruling based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence”. This makes sense to me, but obviously not to the McCanns.

      Isn’t this what you have said so many times Rosalinda, as well as a few more on this blog, that the McCanns have never been cleared, which, in fact, was what the Prosecutors concluded in their final report 9 years ago. So the McCanns could have made their complaints already then, but it’s not so difficult to understand why they didn’t.

      Hasn’t it now once and for all been established as a fact, that the McCanns have never been cleared.

      I do not understand how the McCanns are going to make the highest judicial body in Portugal change its mind about their not being cleared, especially as they have never allowed any police authority to investigate them after the first investigation was shelved in 2008, to which they approved at the same time as they endorsed all the required protocols/documents, if I’ve understood this correctly.

      Since then, they have never asked the Prosecutors to reopen the case. The S Y did so, but not the McCanns.








      Delete
    2. The long winded, legal wording of the Portuguese archiving report was, arguably, always intended to be indecipherable to mere mortals I think Bjorn. I suspect it was the result of many lawyers notching up thousands of chargeable hours in order to produce a document that was satisfactory to the McCanns and their backers, the UK government.

      The 'not cleared' message was always there Bjorn. Even I, a mere legal secretary could see it. So too could all those news agencies and sloppy reporters who preceded all their news items with 'the parents were cleared'.

      As for the proposed complaint, I haven't read about it, but will. My first instinct is to think they are probably clutching at straws, they really have reached the end of the line.

      I think their gag on Isabel was probably with regard to the costs they now face. No figures have yet been revealed, possibly because they will be mind blowing! The £400/500k they have left in the Fund won't even cover their own costs.

      And yes, good point. They also had the power to re-open the investigation in Portugal at any time. All they had to do was answer the police questions!

      Their Expresso interview is among their most bizarre, if you haven't seen it Bjorn do take a look. They have just been released from arguido status and are exhilarated. The big news was they had been cleared.

      The small, and not even mentioned news, was that the Portuguese police were shelving the search for Madeleine. That is, no official police force would be looking for their missing daughter.

      The shelving of the case sent another blatant message that all those cashing in on the Madeleine search deliberately chose to overlook. The police were not looking for a live child, nor were they looking for an abductor.

      The McCanns were jubilant when the PJ closed the files, an odd reaction for parents of a missing child. But blatant hypocrisy when a couple of years later, they used a campaign for re-opening the case to raise money. All they ever had to do was ask and it would have been re-opened!

      Delete
  21. "I feel sorry for Gerry and Kate, they are surrounded by Judases! People who purport to be on their side, but won't do it in their own names and who deny knowing them, often a lot more than thrice."

    Doesn't calling someone a Judas require that person to have betrayed someone?

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They betrayed sweepyface.

      Delete
    2. Inappropriate example of Ros's argument.

      Delete
    3. Not at all Chez, Judas was asked if he knew Jesus, his reply, 'I don't know him'. Jesus predicted Judas would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, which he did and the rest was history. The betrayal is: 'I don't know him'.

      I think some are misinterpreting the word 'betrayal' here 22:35, thanks for pointing it out.

      Delete
  22. " DEAR ZIGGY, WHO ARE YOU?
    Many thanks for keeping myself and my readers so intrigued this past few weeks"

    I am a reader and can assure you that I have not been intrigued whatsoever.

    I have no interest in anything ziggy says and couldn't care less about his/her identity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nor can I.

      But I've deduced that he is a fellow 'scouser,' lives in / near Anfield, supports Liverpool (he has quite rightly called the S*n a contemptible rag ). Used to play football in the Anfield league. Probably in his 40s or even 50s.
      And just guessing, but I feel he's a relative or acquaintance of Kate Healy.
      He is obviously an admirer of David Bowie (or the Ziggy Stardust album).

      Delete
    2. I tend to agree 19:42. I also tend to think he is closer to the clan than he lets on. His anger towards Goncalo Amaral for example, is irrational, it simply makes no sense.

      Delete
    3. McCann helpers' betrayal set in motion the events that led to sweepyface's death.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 19 February 2017 at 12:53

      “McCann helpers' betrayal set in motion the events that led to sweepyface's death.”

      And how do you know that?

      T

      Delete
    5. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sd1as4

      Delete
  23. People reading here should remember what ziggy said previously :

    "ZiggySawdust6 February 2017 at 02:44
    It's no wonder these creatures love to be anonymous.It's unfortunate that their bullshit is still visible.I suppose we have to consider one out of two ain't bad..."

    The farcical way that someone posts under a made up name and criticises people for using the Anonymous option.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''I would ask politely that you refrain from dishing out arse kickings to my contributors and readers. This is not a hate site, nor a hate blog''

      ''Ziggy, you reap what you sow. If you post aggressively, it will come right back at you. That's how social media works. ''

      ( which one are we going with-or is the one rule for one etc )
      ''It's your own words that make people angry, and you alone are responsible for them''

      (I express my opinions and theories with words as it's a blog.What else can I use? I can't apologise for my opinions and theories.But I don't hold them up as law either)

      ''As for this thread. I am genuinely curious as to who you are and possibly getting a little closer to solving the mystery''

      ( I covered this in my reply to you.I'm just somebody in Liverpool with an interest in this case. It's not high on my radar, it's fringe. I understand that Kate's family is in Liverpool and that can imply to the websleuths as an obvious 'connection'.There's actually a lot of people in Liverpool, it's quite a big place. Sorry).

      ''I've seen you as 'the messenger' for a while btw Ziggy''

      ( That's very perceptive.Have you heard the expression 'don't shoot the messenger' ? It isn't mean't to be taken so literally.All I mean't in my one mention of the word was that the fools who have little or no self-control criticise(or try to) me, rather than counter my arguments. .It's lazy. It's childish)

      ''I feel sorry for Gerry and Kate, they are surrounded by Judases! People who purport to be on their side''

      (That's very christian of you.I'm not sure if that's a subtle hint aimed at me.If so-it missed. I suggested in a few threads that they might be having their strings pulled unknowingly by the 'team' that took over and be unaware.That would fit the more conventional use of the Judas analogy)

      @anon 17:25
      ''I have no interest in anything ziggy says and couldn't care less about his/her identity.''

      (Not sure why you bothered posting that.Are you ?)

      @anon 17:38
      ''The farcical way that someone posts under a made up name and criticises people for using the Anonymous option.''

      (We almost went a few posts without the haters popping out there didn't we.I criticised an 'anonymous' or two on a recent thread for ranting about childish things in a childish manner.Funnily enough it wasn't directed at me but i decided to swat the fly for trying to derail.But you remember that don't you 'anon 17:38')

      @ T 07:42

      I thank you and appreciate your message ^^
      peace

      @anon 11:42

      You and your naughty Conspiracies.I love it.
      That's a really interesting PDF. I wonder why Interpol wasn't an early call ? I'll re read that again later.
      The 'generic' brief i think we've touched on before. 'Generic' can be such a generic term.I think, sometimes, especially in a case as high profile as this one, a little elaboration would be in order.I'm struggling with the 'same day' calls. I wonder if the 'day' sometimes discussed was as they went past midnight and was the 4th. I've read so much about mysterious phone activity, a lot of which is wrong or imagined, it gets pretty clouded.But an official document is proof read surely. There seems to be the proverbial cast of thousands investigating it so what happened to the findings ?

      Mark Chitty eh. Bang Bang and Ian Fleming.Child catchers and handbags...

      ( I included that final line because this thread's gone all Agatha Christie)

      Delete
    2. LOL, I think we can safely say Ziggy is not his real name!

      Delete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted that, and deleted my comment simply to show that someone/anyone who is pretending to post as "not anonymous" is false.

      D

      Delete
  25. Attempting to identify Ziggy is a creepy development for this blog. (S)he has chosen to be anonymous and uses that anonymity responsibly.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just playing Chez, nothing creepy here, just curiosity. It matters not to me who posts here, and as you say, on the whole, he uses that anonymity responsibly.

      I can't help but wonder however, why supporters of the McCanns are so reluctant to reveal their identities. The McCanns issue statements, but they don't enter into any sort of discussion or debate. They have always refused to explain anything, either themselves, or any named person on their behalf. All quotes are attributed to a family friend, a family spokesman or a 'source'. Though they have given hundreds of interviews, they haven't revealed anything beyond the story they agreed on 3rd May 2007.

      I used to scoff at the idea that the McCanns were a very private couple, but the truth is, they are! Gerry and Kate have given nothing to the media beyond what they want them to know. By September 2007, the pact of silence was in full effect. All those pro active family members and family friends performing on the Sky McCann news channel, suddenly disappeared from the radar. They closed ranks. From then on, all the publicity was centred on Gerry, Kate, and media questions approved by Clarence Mitchell. Thus they and their tapas friends have been able to live under a veil of (semi)secrecy.

      Quite right too. It would have been ludicrous to bring the circus they created in PDL, back to their home towns and villages.

      The outcome has been that the only one arguing the McCann case was Mitchell. That is, he has been the only one trusted with the challenging questions, presumably because he was the professional.

      How effective his representation has been is questionable. His statements and defence of the McCanns are captured in time in freely available on Youtube. The predicament the McCanns now find themselves in, could arguably be placed at his door. Was the fortune the spent on his salary really such a good idea?

      I wonder what his advice was regarding suing Goncalo Amaral? I tend to think he said, go for it, simply because he is still threatening GA and all and sundry with high priced lawyers despite the McCanns devastating defeat in Lisbon. Will he be chipping in?

      I don't think Clarence is still on the payroll, so who will argue on the McCann's behalf? Perhaps I should do a blog on it. I don't mean in a Court of Law for £500 an hour, I mean in the Court of public opinion, on social media, where opinions are formed and sometimes changed.

      Delete
    2. @Ros 01:32

      The question of identities online isn't that important.Ever since the days of chat rooms, msn groups and forums in general, they're just 'handles' that hark back to CB days.I've had all kinds of names on sports forums in the past but they were just for fun as were the forums.If I was ever involved in any way with the McCann case and my mug appeared online, i doubt they'd have ZiggySawdust as the caption. If i was ever called to question over this or any other blog for anything serious( real not imagined by websleuths)I'd make myself known to any trusted third party with no question.But I don't have to 'hide' myself because of any fears.I don't slander, libel or threaten anyone.This, I'm sure, goes for every one.I've also seen online ugliness go offline.It's sad but true.Again, if anyone became so OTT with the neurotic outbursts and attempted intimidation, I'd just deal with it.I never fear that they may wan't to go beyond the net.They have 'bottle' trouble.I don't.It's just a shame they spoil places online where grown ups try to have a conversation.

      With regard to the McCanns 'statements' you refer to, I feel that , as from May 4th, Mitchell and Co took the wheel. As such, the McCanns were coached and scripted.This is where the source of the fish odour began for me.But, I sense it coming from politicians and emanating from Mitchell, then the McCanns. Mitchell has bosses.He has / had his briefing.But the public see and hear the story coming from the McCanns too, therefore, blame them. It's like criticising two actors for the terrible dialogue they speak in a movie.We can't see the writer so they take the flak.

      He's been very effective.Very effective for the McCanns ? No. For his bosses ? Without doubt. Ten years, no convictions or official suspects since 2008( ''nothing to see hear ladies and gentlemen...'').He's a 'clean up' man. He's a Tory Winston Wolf. He was in his element throughout the Dando farce. That turned out to be his meal ticket. The McCann meal ticket now sees him climbing further up the PR ladder. His defeat at Brighton for the Tory seat was ironic but nice.Clarence knows too much to have anything else but a charmed life now.

      Amaral was small fry to Mitchell's bosses. When you look at Mitchell, you're looking at the UK government.You just can't see them with the naked eye, but you can hear them in his scripts and see them in his arrogant dismissal of questions. A PR man doesn't enjoy the luxury of being beyond or above the questions of the media, even if the media are in the gutter.But Mitchell does. Mitchell could say whatever he liked to Amaral or the PJ with the arrogance of power that makes Britain so 'Great'. It wasn't just the PJ who removed Amaral- they may have pulled the trigger,but the gun was British. Why ?
      The hole runs deep for my money.

      Side note. February 9th Washington. President Comb Over, significantly, swears in Jeff Sessions as US Attorney General. This is the man on the mission to drain the swamp.He's the man who has a hit list of international politicians that have had dealings in blackmail and child trafficking and all things 'pizzagate' ( NOT fake news by the way). I wonder how many dominoes have to fall before they find their way to Europe.

      Delete
    3. @Ros 02:26

      ''I tend to agree 19:42. I also tend to think he is closer to the clan than he lets on. His anger towards Goncalo Amaral for example, is irrational, it simply makes no sense.''

      Last night you said i 'hated' Amaral.I asked you to give me an example of that hatred ; to quote me. You didn't. Now you say my 'anger' towards Amaral is irrational. Again, I ask you for an example. I won't dignify the suggestion i'm close to any 'clan'( unless you can cite something for that as well' of course).

      What does your dictionary definition of 'irrational' sound like ?

      Delete
    4. Ziggy @02:39

      "We can't see the writer so they [the McCanns] take the flak."

      I agree, but why would the McCanns want to do that?

      Delete
    5. Mitchell wasn't there on 4th May Ziggy, you really do need to read up on the facts. The McCanns first advisor was Alex Woolfall, spokesman for Mark Warners.

      And besides which Gerry and Kate are qualified doctors, not vulnerable adults Ziggy. Gerry especially will have real difficulties in saying he was used. One of the more popular images of him on the net is with his whiteboard and wider agenda - you can't get more hands on with your own PR than that.

      The message that you hate Goncalo Amaral seeps through in many of your posts Ziggy and it has been received by myself and I'm sure many others. I don't get into c/p battles Ziggy, I find them tedious.

      Delete

  26. ''Anonymous18 February 2017 at 18:05

    They betrayed sweepyface.''

    Sky News did that.The McCanns don't work for Sky News. Sky News should face severe harassment, distress and alarm charges for that.

    ''Anonymous18 February 2017 at 19:42

    Nor can I.
    But I've deduced that he is a fellow 'scouser,' lives in / near Anfield, supports Liverpool (he has quite rightly called the S*n a contemptible rag ). Used to play football in the Anfield league. Probably in his 40s or even 50s.
    And just guessing, but I feel he's a relative or acquaintance of Kate Healy.
    He is obviously an admirer of David Bowie (or the Ziggy Stardust album).''

    Pretty Good. Not a friend or relative of KM or family though.

    Bjorn 22:52
    '' if I’ve understood this correctly. ''

    I think the wording is perplexing for everyone Bjorn, not just you.

    that it does not ”seem acceptable that the ruling based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence”

    You see, that looks like it SHOULD equate to proof of innocence unless previously discarded evidence is re-submitted or new evidence is found.In essence it says that there's no evidence to frame them as perpetrators, therefore not enough to list them as official suspects. They're either suspects or they're not suspects.If they're suspects, let the questions begin(again).If they're not suspects, find one or find something that can frame them as such. I think there's probably more than a question of semantics behind the judges ruling and possibly it might be down to the European Court of Human Rights to have the judge elaborate as the case is so high profile.

    ''Attempting to identify Ziggy is a creepy development for this blog. (S)he has chosen to be anonymous and uses that anonymity responsibly.''

    Chez

    A voice of reason at last.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 19 February 2017 at 00:27
    [quote]
    Not at all Chez, Judas was asked if he knew Jesus, his reply, 'I don't know him'. Jesus predicted Judas would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, which he did and the rest was history. The betrayal is: 'I don't know him'.
    [unquote]

    LOL - I think you're confusing Judas and Peter! Just as well you're not trying to solve an old crime, eh?

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Chez 12.10

      Ros never lets accuracy get in the way with her after midnight posts.

      Delete
    2. Fair cop Chez, I seem to have got my bible studies in a twist, it wasn't my best subject!

      Delete
    3. "I feel sorry for Gerry and Kate, they are surrounded by Judases! People who purport to be on their side, but won't do it in their own names and who deny knowing them, often a lot more than thrice."

      "Judas was asked if he knew Jesus, his reply, 'I don't know him'. Jesus predicted Judas would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, which he did and the rest was history. The betrayal is: 'I don't know him'.
      I think some are misinterpreting the word 'betrayal' here 22:35, thanks for pointing it out."

      "I seem to have got my bible studies in a twist"

      LOL and amen!

      Chez

      Delete
  28. ''Mitchell wasn't there on 4th May Ziggy, you really do need to read up on the facts.''

    When i said 'Mitchell and Co'' it was my assertion that the case was hijacked once it was daylight. The 'Co' is the UK suited n booted.I'm aware that some of the stars of the show weren't there from the opening act and that some of the original main players disappeared into the wings and were never to be seen again; John Buck, Esther McCvey,Sheree Dodd, Bill Henderson etc.

    When i say it's obvious who did it, how they did it and how they got away with it, that's when I'll need to read up on the 'facts'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @anon 10:52
    "We can't see the writer so they [the McCanns] take the flak."
    I agree, but why would the McCanns want to do that?

    I've asked the same question for ages, anon. But they rarely look glad about their non-stick status.They seem beyond prosecution on the one hand but they appear frustrated by the gagging by their handlers on the other.I suspect they've wondered privately about the team .GM has looked really angry in certain interviews and hinted at certain quarters not doing enough to find Madeleine.He's dropped hints about the media bosses too.I think it's down to interpretation how you read that.The superficial reading will stop at 'ungrateful' or 'arrogant'.But sometimes the sub text can say more when somebody's being censored or gagged.But, again, that's a grey area.They seem to be stuck with those who took over.In return, they have assurances that the PJ shelved evidence will assure their freedom.it's a kind of horrible limbo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 19 February 2017 at 02:39

      “With regard to the McCanns 'statements' you refer to, I feel that , as from May 4th, Mitchell and Co took the wheel. As such, the McCanns were coached and scripted.This is where the source of the fish odour began for me.But, I sense it coming from politicians and emanating from Mitchell, then the McCanns. Mitchell has bosses.He has / had his briefing.But the public see and hear the story coming from the McCanns too, therefore, blame them. It's like criticising two actors for the terrible dialogue they speak in a movie.We can't see the writer so they take the flak.”

      What you are describing is a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – the conspiracy the McCanns have fronted for all these years.

      You have already accepted that the McCanns were negligent in leaving their children alone on the 3rd - having been left alone, Madeleine came to harm.


      ZiggySawdust 19 February 2017 at 16:44

      “@anon 10:52

      “We can't see the writer so they [the McCanns] take the flak."
      I agree, but why would the McCanns want to do that?”

      “I've asked the same question for ages, anon.”

      Whatever the answer to the question you’ve “asked for ages” might be, you ‘see’ both ‘the writer’ and the McCanns transgressions but still appear to advocate the McCanns’ being as pure as the driven snow.

      I am puzzled by this stance of yours. Are you being serious?

      T

      Delete
  30. I posted a while ago that this blog is turning into a "ziggy" blog.

    Seems I was correct.

    I pass.

    Get back to posting about relevant things Ros instead of being " itchingly curious" about some poster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm interested in hearing the McCanns defence 17:10

      As I said further up thread, the McCanns have never explained their side - there has been no meaningful dialogue in 10 years.

      Ziggy may or may not be connected to the clan, but I find it interesting nevertheless to hear the opinion of the other side, and the undecided. I got peed off with the forums and the facebook pages because they censored and banned anyone who did not agree with their mantra. Whenever a thread got interesting, it would be locked and the non conformist would be expelled.

      Discussion doesn't really go anywhere if it is restricted to a group of people agreeing with each other. I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but I won't learn anything by listening to people who have already made their minds up. That is, those who have 'solved' the mystery to their own satisfaction, end of.

      All we have ever heard from the McCanns is the abduction script, over and over and very nearly word perfect. Neither they, nor anyone on their behalf has been able, or allowed, to put their views forward.

      The 'pro' sites are filled with a small bunch of semi literate Nazis, who have never yet been able to string so much as a paragraph together successfully defending their supposed cause. None of the writers nor the professional marketers they have hired have been able to turn public opinion around. And their legal actions have made them appear greedy and malicious. Surely there must be someone among them who can put some kind of human face to their predicament?

      I want to hear from the other side 17:10, especially those who are reasonable and articulate. This 10 year stand off irks me, because we only have half the picture.

      I don't believe the McCanns, but I want to try and understand why some people do. We can't write all McCann supporters off as bad people or involved in the cover up.

      Delete
    2. "All we have ever heard from the McCanns is the abduction script, over and over and very nearly word perfect. Neither they, nor anyone on their behalf has been able, or allowed, to put their views forward."

      They've said what happened. They know they didn't discover and hide a body. They assume Madeleine was taken, which is the obvious explanation for her being missing. Why would any of the T9 want to get involved in 'views'?

      Chez

      Delete
  31. @anon 17:10

    Now, now, no need to come over all assertive. There's a ton of things on this blog, not just this thread. I'm sure if I can take this on the chin, you can too. Besides, it's up to the blogger what he or she chooses to blog about.We don't have to read or contribute unless we want to. Be calm, It's the Sabbath etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @zig 18.21

      It's not Saturday.

      Delete
    2. Sabbath is a day for rest and worship.

      Delete
    3. @ Anon 19.27

      "Definition of Sabbath

      1
      a : the seventh day of the week observed from Friday evening to Saturday evening as a day of rest and worship by Jews and some Christiansb : Sunday observed among Christians as a day of rest and worship

      2
      : a time of rest"

      Exactly - it is not necessarily today - Sunday.

      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust 19 February 2017 at 18:21

      “@anon 17:10

      Now, now, no need to come over all assertive.”

      Concur.

      T

      Delete
  32. @Ros 18:19

    That sounds reasonable to me. I think the ten year stand off irks everybody. In all but name, this is a cold case now.If it was your bog standard murder or abduction case, or plain missing persons case, it would be long forgotten, as the rest have been. I think , apart from the early days and the haunting photographs of little Madeleine, the case has remained so high profile due to the coverage it continued to receive and the fact that a PR agency has handled it who were brought in by politicians.These added ingredients make it a one -off. Nothing genuinely new has been added in ten years. Possible sightings and theoretical CGI images have given the impression that 'new developments' arise now and again, but when they lead nowhere( which they inevitably do), we can take them out of the case as irrelevant.Which means we are still frozen in 2007. Only a confession can change things now.

    The frustration of ten years inaction and lack of any genuine new developments has lead to all manner of new approaches by researchers or amateur sleuths.These tend to concentrate on reinterpreting photographs or body language in the hope that a 'eureka' moment will happen.It won't. Even the less silly ones can only ever be considered as someone guessing. For every pro- there will be an anti in all of these efforts. Courts will never entertain things like it.

    So, we're left with an army of observers bringing their own bias along with their theories.That can never work.This is how the engine that drives the saga around in circles is kept fuelled.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well I suppose Ros and zig answering each other keeps the post counts and hits up = income.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  34. I seem to recall Ziggy played guitar if that's of any assistance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the harpsichord, if that helps.

      Delete
    2. .... and he played amateur football in the Anfield league.

      Delete
    3. Apparently he has a twin sister who's a taxidermist.

      Delete
  35. @ Ros 01.32

    "I can't help but wonder however, why supporters of the McCanns are so reluctant to reveal their identities."

    I am a supporter of the Mccanns - I have revealed my identity on here.

    Maybe everyone else on here would like to do the same. (I suppose I include zig - but I am not bothered).

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think there's a most-likely explanation of what happened to Madeleine and a hundred barmy explanations (see twitter.com/#McCann). Does that make me a McCann supporter?

      Beats me as to why my real name, gender, sexuality, age etc should be relevant.

      Chez

      Delete
    2. I don't think it's a case of people 'being scared' in revealing their identity when commenting on this case. When people comment on the various Facebook McCann sites, their identities are completely open for scrutiny to anyone who cares to look. There is no 'anonymous' option on Facebook, there is on here.

      Signed - Gary Sweeney. (there we go, I'm not arsed who knows).

      Delete
    3. Nice to meet you Gary :)

      I don't think people are so bothered about revealing their names these days Gary, but in the past it carried real risks. The McCann supporter website Stop the Myths for example, were collecting the names of anyone who commented negatively about the parents. This was accompanied by threats to 'report' them to their employers, neighbours, friends etc. They had a website 'Exposing the Myths', which was behind the dossier used to name and shame Brenda Leyland. Prior to Brenda, it was not only taboo to criticise the parents, it was close to being made Law!

      Delete
    4. 19:24. Your prerogative Chez. It matters not to me, nor am I a snoop. I wouldn't dream of intruding on anyone, I take great pride in my good manners and I respect others' decisions.

      I've never been concerned about who posts here or indeed anywhere, and in fact I have always found the paranoia about trolls, spies etc, in forums and fb pages, highly amusing. In what universe does it matter? lol

      The fact is, most people don't care because they think about themselves around 95% of the time, any thought they give to others is along the lines of 'how do they affect me?'. The idea that others think about us as much as we do, is absurd, it just doesn't happen.

      Delete
    5. I have no problem with people posting anonymously Dave, it's up to the individual. Some people prefer it, and that's fine, this is a sensitive case.

      I do on occasion however, find it strange that someone can believe so passionately in a cause, yet not quite enough to put their name to it.

      Delete
  36. Lawyer confirms money from 'Find Madeleine' fund will be used to fight ruling that failed to clear couple of involvement in child's disappearance

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html

    ReplyDelete
  37. @Dave 18:49

    ''Well I suppose Ros and zig answering each other keeps the post counts and hits up = income.
    Dave''

    If only it was that easy.I'd be asking Ros for my cut. I think you've confused Google and Blogspot. Google make the cash from these blogs by their placed ads.if you want to make income from anything Google -flavoured you must cross their palms with silver and buy words /adspace. Like other blogs and sites that buy their 'ranking'....

    ''Anonymous19 February 2017 at 19:36

    .... and he played amateur football in the Anfield league.''

    Slightly more competently than the guitar too unfortunately


    @ Bananamouze19 19:00
    I seem to recall Ziggy played guitar if that's of any assistance.

    ''...jamming good with Weird and Gilly
    And the spiders from Mars. He played it left hand...
    But made it too far...
    Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band''


    imagine the uproar ;-)







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar.

      Delete
  38. Hi Anon@20:27

    If the McCanns want to fight the ruling that doesn't absolve them in their daughters disappearance. This could be the first chance that they will come under scrutiny and the alleged abduction theory will be tested in a court of law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John100 19 February 2017 at 23:33

      “Hi Anon@20:27

      If the McCanns want to fight the ruling that doesn't absolve them in their daughters disappearance. This could be the first chance that they will come under scrutiny and the alleged abduction theory will be tested in a court of law.”

      From http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html :
      “Madeleine McCann's parents LAUNCH [my caps, T] fresh legal battle over police claims they faked daughter's abduction”

      “The McCanns, both 48, REPORTEDLY [my caps, T] decided to launch the new challenge based on comments made by the judges in the 76-page ruling, which stated the decision “was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the crimes by the appellants”.

      “REPORTEDLY” in the above quote seems most important, as is your “could” in “This could be the first chance that they will come under scrutiny and the alleged abduction theory will be tested in a court of law.”

      The mountain is high but you still believe…

      Good for you.

      T

      Delete
  39. Odd turn of events John, and I suspect they are now doing everything in their power to avoid paying up. They have lodged a complaint - like an appeal said Isabel, but apparently not an appeal. Whether that will give them extra time to find the funds, remains to be seen.

    The MSM are really underplaying the amount the McCanns now owe - they haven't even taken so much as an educated guess as to what the final total will be. I doubt it will be covered by whatever is left in the Fund and even the sale of their house. Litigation is way more expensive than regular gambling and vexatious litigants don't stop until there is literally nothing left. If they were not so eaten up with hatred for Goncalo Amaral, they would stop. It can't possibly be fair on their kids and families, they are in the grip of a madness that will destroy all of them.

    I don't their next civil case will be tested in Court of law John. In fact, I think the only courts looming are the criminal ones. Operation Grange has been threatening to close for within a couple of months, for at least 2 years now. If, and this is a long shot, they (the police) have been holding on for Goncalo Amaral's win, it's now done. Their Portuguese colleague has now cleared his name.

    Of course his name would have been cleared by arrests being made, but GA could still have been left owing the McCanns over £400k. The tables are now turned, GA owes them nothing, but they owe the Courts and at least 4 firms of solicitors all the costs for the last 8 years.

    The truth is now beginning to see the light, and big revelations are usually followed by even bigger ones. The UK newspapers had no problem in reporting on Goncalo's victory, and even more damning, the wording of the Supreme Court Judges.

    That the Judges have said the McCanns weren't cleared, is far more damaging to their 'search' and Fund, than Goncalo's books. But once again, they are ignoring the facts and sticking with their personal vendetta. There is no way it can end well for them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're quite right Rosalinda. A Portuguese authority just implying that the McCanns aren't cleared has probably already made many of the former McCanns' supporters seriously question their innocence.

      I wouldn't be surprised at all if they now decided to attack the person in the Supreme Court, who is responsible for such a "libelous" statement and who has "made" the other judges agree to what he believes. In other words, they may now be looking for a new GA to threaten or to sue. However, this time, they'll hopefully not be supported by the British Government in doing so.



      Delete
    2. Björn 20 February 2017 at 11:02

      “However, this time, they'll hopefully not be supported by the British Government in doing so.”

      I shouldn’t think I’d be holding my breath, Björn – I’d inhale… and exhale.

      :)

      T

      Delete
    3. They may well be looking for a new 'GA' [someone to blame] among the Supreme Court Judges Bjorn. They simply can't accept the finality of the decision.

      But isn't that just Gerry and Kate eh? They have refused to accept anything at all that interferes with their plans and goals. It has been leitmotif throughout through out their campaigns this last 10 years.

      It was their refusal to lay down or give up, that won them so many admirers in the beginning. We are finishers, said Kate, and by Jove she mean't it.

      When this 'refusal to give up' crossed over into insanity is debateable. For both of them it may even have been a lifelong condition. And of course, we don't know how much of it is bravado. What kept them going in the early days they said, was 'hope', the hope of course being that they could get away with it.

      Something I picked up on in one of Ziggy's posts, was the fact that it HAS worked. That is 10 years on they have not been arrested, charged or even accused, and they still live a semi public life.

      The one thing that evades them, is that official declaration of innocence. Maybe those who are convinced SY and Operation Grange are acting on behalf of Gerry and Kate, should ask why they have given them nothing to rebut the allegations.

      When Operation Grange began, they declared Kate, Gerry and their friends not suspects or persons of interest. They even published an aged progressed picture of Madeleine.

      Five years on and in the hour of their greatest need, Operation Grange have got nothing. There are no signs they are looking for Madeleine, and no signs that they are looking for an abductor.

      Some might say they are keeping the McCanns in a state of perpetual torment. Imagine having Scotland Yard's finest breathing down your neck for 5 years?

      But returning to Gerry and Kate's latest complaint. I expect by the time all litigants get as far as the Supreme Court, the are pretty pissed off. Backlash and anger are par for the course, acceptance takes a while to sink in, even for the non batshit crazy.

      Once more Gerry and Kate are making unreasonable demands and expect them to be met. Thus far it has worked, they have achieved the seemingly impossible. You can kind of see why they hate Goncalo Amaral so much, for a long while there, he was the only man to stand in their way.

      Delete
  40. Clicked on this blog for first time in weeks, and instead of seeing a post about the most significant events in the case for years, I see one about the identity of a commenter. I won't be back, you've made yourself irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 08:27

      “Clicked on this blog for first time in weeks, and instead of seeing a post about the most significant events in the case for years, I see one about the identity of a commenter. I won't be back, you've made yourself irrelevant.”
      “I won't be back…”

      Yes, you will.

      “…you've made yourself irrelevant.”

      And so have you to this blog, my friend.

      See you.

      T

      Delete
    2. What a shame you did not read beyond the headline 08:27, you would have seen over 100 comments discussing the most significant events in this case for years, and perhaps my previous 3 blogs and the hundreds of comments discussing the same.

      That of course wouldn't have given you the opportunity to stomp off declaring my blog no longer credible.

      Nasty words in your head are never quite as effective when you seen the in print eh?

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 19.05

      "you would have seen over 100 comments discussing the most significant events in this case for years"

      I can't see over 100 comments discussing important stuff on this blog.

      Dave

      Delete
    4. There are many gems Dave, depends what you are looking for.

      Delete
    5. @20:12

      To increase the number of important stuff, you could make a contribution to the discussion.

      Delete
  41. "First to arrive in Portugal was a former Mirror journalist and long-term government spokesperson called Sheree Dodd. In an unprecedented move, the Government took over news-handling on behalf of the McCanns. Sheree Dodd, a former Daily Mirror journalist and long-serving senior spokeswoman for the Government, was dispatched to Portugal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office announced that she was being deployed as “press officer responsible to act as media liaison officer for the McCann family”. Sheree Dodd was formerly Director of Communications at the Department for Trade and Industry where she had responsibility for media handling, stakeholder relations, marketing and e-communications. Prior to that post she led the news and media relations operations at the Department for Work and Pensions and the Northern Ireland Office. Before joining government communications she enjoyed an extensive career as a political and industrial correspondent on The Mirror newspaper. Sheree is Managing Director of SC Dodd Comms Ltd, which provides advice and delivers communication solutions to a wide range of public and private sector clients. But Dodd was swiftly replaced by the more senior and bombastic figure of Clarence Mitchell, who took a pro-active role, orchestrating a visit to meet the Pope and a tour which took in Spain, Germany and Morocco."

    http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/SPOKESPERSONS.htm#23

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 08:54

      Many thanks for your reminder.

      T

      Delete
  42. Posted today elswhere:

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/missing-people-and-kate.html?showComment=1487553369699#c4901068230998842316

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/missing-people-and-kate.html?showComment=1487553482441#c8162146003829979569

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/missing-people-and-kate.html?showComment=148A7553529875#c6526665377456565852

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/missing-people-and-kate.html?showComment=1487555180132#c2873690541246232481

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am curious as to 'elsewhere' T.

      It amazes me that those who hate me and everything I say, lift my blogs and comments here in their entirety and place them on their own web sites. Apparently they are OK to read as I don't get the hits, lol.

      It is plagiarism of course, if not downright stealing. It irks me on occasion, but not too much. They only have the snippets, they don't have me! :)

      Delete
    2. "It is plagiarism of course, if not downright stealing."

      Not in this instance. They're comments recently added in respect of your own previous 'blog'.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 20 February 2017 at 18:04

      “I am curious as to 'elsewhere' T.”

      My fault entirely, Rosalinda: elsewhere = another blog of yours. Had it been otherwise, I would’ve made it explicit.

      Begging forgiveness.

      :)

      T

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 18:19

      “"It is plagiarism of course, if not downright stealing."

      Not in this instance. They're comments recently added in respect of your own previous 'blog'.”

      Spot on. Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 February 2017 at 18:04

      "I am curious as to 'elsewhere' T."

      If you had bothered to look at the links you would have been led to none other than your own blog - several new posts made today.

      No plagiarism - no downright stealing - just posts on YOUR blog by someone called Andrew Moreton.

      Dave

      Delete
    6. No worries T, I often get confused! I still can't c/p links, so hadn't looked at them. Forgiven :)

      Delete
  43. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-veale-convinced-edward-heath-paedophile-wiltshire-police-child-sex-abuse-a7588101.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. Examples of how well -oiled the political machine can be when it needs to be . It's a shame they only perceive that need when it's to hide truths that would potentially damage their careers, party or personal liberty.

    Heath was called out by Icke ten years before he died, as was McAlpine. They declined to pursue the matter with him. The Savile saga put some of them front and centre again. They've been 'investigating' ( seeing what they can 'lose') the Heath case for years now.In an ideal world, they'd be as keen and efficient when it comes to doing the jobs they were actually being overpaid to do.

    for those who haven't seen this powerful Australian documentary, i recommend it highly.

    http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/pedophile-politicians-ring-uk

    For the 49 second from-the-horses-mouth- revelation :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwkOWPauu_A


    ReplyDelete
  45. @Bjorn

    I doubt that protection from the UK Government, whoever they supply, will have much bearing on an outcome in a court of law. It doesn't matter how expensive a law firm is or how powerful a politician may be, neither can change the law. The prosecution and defence have to move within the parameters of the law. I imagine the crux of any appeal or law suit will concentrate on what could be argued is an ambiguously worded ruling made recently by the judge of the lower court; is ''not an official suspect the same as innocent .. is a shelved case the same as a closed case'' etc.It should be interesting how that pans out.If it goes against the McCanns, it wouldn't be too big a stretch to put the T9 and Murat back in the frame.They're not official suspects either, but it doesn't mean that this equates to 'innocent' just because there's no admissible evidence that stands against them.

    It's all good for the MSM . Many rags will be sold and quoted from. Nothing new will emerge.The dirty waters of the haters will be agitated by countless twitter sticks.And still nothing new will emerge.There'll be the same anger but re-worded.Eventually, the courts will open, the show will be staged and the curtain will come down after it all and we'll all be where we were 3, 5, 9 years ago. Anyone who has faith in anything different has misplaced that faith.There's ten years worth of reasons that back that up, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      I’m not as pessimistic as you are about progress in this case. I’ve always believed that the Portuguese justice would come to the McCanns’ mansion in Rothley, just as Birnham Wood came to Dunsinane hill and castle, when McBeth thought he was safe and untouchable.
      What confuses me the most, however, is, that the McCanns cannot see the overwhelming and growing distrust among decent and ordinary people of their endless suing and threats left and right. People in common, as I see it, just want to restore law and order just as Malcom and his soldiers did in Shakespeare's Macbeth?

      Delete
    2. I agree totally Ziggy and have been saying the same thing for years. Its a shame

      Delete
  46. "Björn20 February 2017 at 11:02
    You're quite right Rosalinda. A Portuguese authority just implying that the McCanns aren't cleared has probably already made many of the former McCanns' supporters seriously question their innocence.

    I wouldn't be surprised at all if they now decided to attack the person in the Supreme Court, who is responsible for such a "libelous" statement and who has "made" the other judges agree to what he believes. In other words, they may now be looking for a new GA to threaten or to sue."

    Nah and nah.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      Yes, I guess that you insinuate that I speculate too much, but we shall never forget that Gonzalo Amaral was about to be completely destroyed by the McCanns and their team, just because he was doing his job. One can expect anything from the McCann couple, whose tactics now are to keep silent.

      Every people’s opinion matters now, more than ever, and the official version about the McCanns’ innocence will hopefully be reassessed by the Portuguese authorities as well as by that of the British, as a result of both the Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of GA and people’s demand for justice..

      Delete
    2. Chez, you add NOTHING to this blog, why do you even bother coming here? Im guessing just about everybody else finds you as pointless as I do. Why dont you stick with the pro sites, im sure you fit in nicely!

      Delete
    3. I disagree 10:15, Chez offers an alternative perspective, it may not be one that you or I agree with, but it keeps the discussion lively. I get bored rigid on 'discussion' forums where everyone agrees with each other!

      Delete
    4. Alternative perspective?......Nah and Nah....LOLS

      Delete
  47. @ Björn20 February 2017 at 11:02

    "You're quite right Rosalinda. A Portuguese authority just implying that the McCanns aren't cleared has probably already made many of the former McCanns' supporters seriously question their innocence."

    No - not in my case.

    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Dave
      Of course, we all relate differently to the latest news about the Supreme Court's ruling.

      However, judging by the comments in many British newspapers, it now seems as if there’s been a pent-up need for so many years among people in common, even among The Sun’s readers, as far as I’ve seen, to express what they really feel deep inside, and that isn’t really hatred for the McCanns, but rather a demand of justice for Madeleine and for Gonzalo Amaral. So let it be.


      Delete
  48. Hi Anonymous@08:54

    Your quote about meeting the Pope was always a mystery to me. Who in my mind leave behind 2 infants in the same resort where they lost their daughter to go touring around Rome. I imagine any parent including me wouldn't let them out of my sight. I was always puzzled by that visit. I believe (I could be wrong) the Vatican website removed any mention of Madeline afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John100 @20:48

      You're right.

      http://www.bishopaccountability.org/news2007/09_10/2007_09_16_Smith_DitchedBy.htm

      Delete
    2. Hi Anonymous@21:39

      Many thanks for the link,Interesting article. I wonder what the reporter Anna Smith's view is now.

      Delete
    3. I think the 'tour' mentioned was one of Mitchell's PR stunts. Once upon a time such a story and so many photo -ops would have benefited the catholic church as much as the victims asking for prayers. In today's world, however, there's something ironic in seeing any religious figure of that faith blessing anyone who has lost a child (or worse). Child abductions, child murders, and paedophilia in general is a bit of a thorny crown for any Pope to don.It took them long enough to raise the age of consent to 'teenage'( yes, raise). For such a high profile case to appear on their radar was bad timing for the twitchy lawyers of his holiness.I wonder if the distance they placed between themselves and team McCann was just a coincidence.There were many bigger fish to fry at that time. Eventually, in 2012 they numbers started to appear :

      https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-abuse-summit-22-billion-and-100000-victims-us-alone

      Not pleasant viewing for such a large christian faith. But a solution wasn't far in coming :

      http://www.newslo.com/pope-criminalizes-the-reporting-of-sex-crimes/

      Ah, the perks of being the pontiff...

      I wouldn't take too much notice of Anna Smiths semi- literate rants to be honest. Not if it involves religion.She 'kicks with the other foot' as we say here( she's a protestant).She seems often to think with it too.She took the Vatican's decision as reason to compare it to Pilate, the man who was on the side of Jesus until he was swayed by the baying masses.And they didn't even have Twitter in the days of ancient Rome.

      I do't think carting a couple of toddlers around on tour for the media would have been beneficial.I don't think they were 'left' to fend for themselves either. I'm only guessing, but i reckon they would have been kept from the glare of the lights and cameras by their family back home.But, I'm sure if we tweak 'n' twist enough we can somehow make it seem in some way negligent.There's never too much grist for the mill is there...


      Delete
    4. I have always wondered why they stayed on in PDL John, and if times were not so bad for the Team right now, I would write a blog on it. But I'm not that mean.

      Suffice to say, like yourself, I would not have let my remaining kids out my sight, least of all in a holiday resort where an invisible child snatcher was on the loose.

      My first instincts would have been to get them home safely. However, I do understand the McCanns predicament. That is the parental instinct to keep searching the area where their child disappeared. Except. That isn't what they doing. None of the McCann party were taking part in the physical searches. On the contrary, they were working towards taking the 'search' global. Effectively, anywhere but, PDL.

      They could have run their campaign far more efficiently in an office in Leicester, but the old cynic in me suspects the rainy Midlands didn't have the same picturesque scenery and photo ops as the sunny Algarve. Plus of course, free childcare and tennis courts.

      Had we seen Gerry, Kate and all their friends and family, weary from trekking the countryside in search of Madeleine, it might all have been so different.

      Delete
  49. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

    What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

    The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

    The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
    As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

    The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

    The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that information 21:31, it is very helpful. The Court does not act as a court of appeal......... especially.

      My first thoughts are, they will play the racist card, ie. the victimised foreigners. But is good to see it cannot quash, vary or revise the decisions of the Supreme Court. The McCanns will still have to pay up!

      Delete
  50. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 February 2017 at 20:17 wrote:

    "When Operation Grange began, they declared Kate, Gerry and their friends not suspects or persons of interest. They even published an aged progressed picture of Madeleine."

    Indeed they did, and the Twitter trolls have tried their best to imply it meant nothing.

    "Five years on and in the hour of their greatest need, Operation Grange have got nothing. There are no signs they are looking for Madeleine, and no signs that they are looking for an abductor. "

    How do you know? They don't give a running commentary!
    My guess is that it will come to an end by the middle of the year giving Ros and the like to scream 'cover-up', because for sure the McCanns are not going to be accused of any crime, 'cause they haven't committed any crime!

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      I've always wondered why the S Y are not giving "a running commentary".If they do have some hot lead, it would of course be wise not to reveal too much, but if they never ever have had that, which I believe, how on earth are they going to explain that to the British taxpayers. I, personally, suspect that they've just been busy doing nothing at all in terms of searching for Madeleine. "We cannot go on forever chasing the shadow man who is supposed to have snatched Madeleine" Didn't Sir Bernard himself say so a few years ago?

      Delete
    2. Björn 21 February 2017 at 09:11 wrote
      "Hi Chez
      I've always wondered why the S Y are not giving "a running commentary".If they do have some hot lead, it would of course be wise not to reveal too much, but if they never ever have had that, which I believe, how on earth are they going to explain that to the British taxpayers. I, personally, suspect that they've just been busy doing nothing at all in terms of searching for Madeleine. "We cannot go on forever chasing the shadow man who is supposed to have snatched Madeleine" Didn't Sir Bernard himself say so a few years ago?"

      They will have been investigating her disappearance, following and closing leads and avenues. Call that searching if you like - I would call it investigating a disappearance. My guess is that they will fail, but it will have been worth trying. Also, they will make it clear that the McCanns were not involved in her disappearance. Sadly and predictably the hate targeted at the the McCanns is likely to continue.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. Operation Grange are not offering any comfort to the family Chez, in the sense of confirming the parents aren't suspects. As you are probably aware, there are many 'antis' out there who firmly believe that Operation Grange is a cover up.

      If that were the case Scotland Yard would have made statements that would have steered suspicion away from the parents. They haven't. When they dug up the areas surrounding the holiday apartment, the message was loud and clear, they were looking for a body, not a live child.

      The crux of the McCanns claim against GA was the suggestion Madeleine was dead. If people believed she was dead, no-one would search for her, the parents said. They now have the same complaint against Scotland Yard X 100.

      What puzzles me are the 'top ups'. Since Operation Grange was wound down from 30+ homicide detectives to a small handful, they have continued receiving government funding to follow 'just one more lead'.

      You have to admit that is bizarre Chez, if the intention is to close the investigation without any result. It will also leave them with a lot more explaining to do, than if they had thrown in the towel a couple of years ago.

      Delete
    4. Chez, 10:49. 'Also they will make it clear the McCanns were not involved in her disappearance'.

      Do you honestly believe that Chez? And if that is the case, hasn't been horribly cruel of Operation Grange to keep that to themselves this past 5 years? Particularly as they have just seen the McCanns financially wiped out because they had nothing to rebut GA's theory.

      Delete
    5. Why would the Met have made statements in response to wackiness on social media?

      When they dug up areas, they were following a line of enquiry, one of many. Don't take the huge leap that they have concluded MM is dead.

      Can't see why you would use the word bizarre regarding requesting a top-up to conclude a line of enquiry.

      It isn't the 'intention' to close the investigation without a result. It's taken all this time to follow all the lines of enquiry. If they had stopped a couple of years ago then they wouldn't have done the job properly. As it is, they'll probably end up with an unsolved disappearance. That's life.

      Chez

      Delete
    6. I'm bewildered by your philosophical approach to Operation Grange closing without a result Chez. Surely this must be a heart breaking prospect for the parents? Whether Madeleine is alive, or not. It will take them straight back to those days when they were 'on their own', when no-one, other than themselves as parents, were searching for Madeleine. Have they reached that stage of acceptance, where everything that could have been done, has been done? If they have it is a major shift in the dynamic, and effectively it ends the search fund.

      I look forward to your thoughts Chez.

      Delete
    7. 10 years is a long time. It might seem a strange thing to say but I think many of the Twitter idiots probably spend oodles more time discussing the case than the McCanns! The McCanns will at least be living a normal life. They will have already moved on, whilst still hoping for news of what happened to Madeleine.

      Chez

      Delete
  51. Hi Ziggy@00:28

    Great post, I agree with you that the infants weren't left to fend for themselves. I just find it strange that the parents left them in the same resort, I also find it strange they LEFT THEM at all.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Mrs Duarte confirmed at the weekend the McCanns had lodged a formal complaint against the latest court ruling, although she declined to go into detail about why and how they were fighting it.

    It was unclear today if another set of Supreme Court judges dealt with complaints about rulings - or they were handed to another judicial body to deal with."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4244534/McCanns-launch-legal-fightback-against-judges-ruling.html

    "Earlier this month it emerged the ex detective, removed as head of the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance after criticising British detectives, was writing a new book about the unsolved mystery.

    It is understood he will be critical in the new book of some of the things Scotland Yard did in their review and later ongoing investigation of the case."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous 20.2 @22:32

    "...they haven't committed any crime!"

    What? Not even incey wincey ones like giving false statements to police, illegally deploying private investigators in a foreign jurisdiction, or perjury under oath? (KM to Lord Justice Leveson: "There were no body fluids").

    ReplyDelete
  54. Björn20 February 2017 at 22:42 wrote:
    "However, judging by the comments in many British newspapers, it now seems as if there’s been a pent-up need for so many years among people in common, even among The Sun’s readers, as far as I’ve seen, to express what they really feel deep inside, and that isn’t really hatred for the McCanns, but rather a demand of justice for Madeleine and for Gonzalo Amaral. So let it be."

    "Pent-up need"? A screeching mob comes to mind.

    "that isn’t really hatred for the McCanns".

    LOL! Have you checked out twitter.com/#McCann in the past few years? Have a look at @jillycl, @mccanncasetweets, @TeddyShepherd, @Papa___Rico, @lindaweryhur etc etc. All hiding behind the claim of 'justice for Maddie' but all just peddling an obscene hatred, or maybe just an odious trolling, of the McCanns.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Chez @10:14

      What is it with you and twitter?

      Delete
    2. I'm with Chez on this one. The #McCann twitter hastag is bonkers! How OCD do you have to be to post the same things over and over 24/7? The lives of the small embedded group have been taken over completely by the intricate details of this case, logic and reason has long since left the building.

      Twitter has the power to hook people in, including myself. The McCann hashtag especially. It has a sinister, all pervading atmosphere, with more than a whiff of danger. Depending of course on how many mind altering substances you consume. If you stick to green tea and chill, it's like watching a teen High School movie, complete with wannabe Mean Girls, meathead jocks and misfits and outsiders getting beaten up.

      I believe a group of academics have written a paper on the whole phenomenon using the McCann hashtag, I look forward to reading it!

      Delete
  55. Anonymous 21 February 2017 at 10:15 wrote:
    "Chez, you add NOTHING to this blog, why do you even bother coming here? Im guessing just about everybody else finds you as pointless as I do. Why dont you stick with the pro sites, im sure you fit in nicely!"

    Hi there. Glad to hear you read my comments and, with Ros's consent, I hope you will be able to continue reading them in the future.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are quite welcome here Chez, I quite enjoy your alternative views [and facts] ;)

      Delete
    2. Hi Chez & Ziggy,

      I second what Ros just said, if we all agreed on the same thing the world would be boring.

      Delete
    3. John100 @12:07

      We're on the same page. How boring.

      NL

      Delete
  56. Hi
    Rosalinda,Chez, Ziggy and John (100)
    I agree to what Rosalinda and John think about the importance of different opinions. Personally I'm just grateful that people comment what I say, whether they share my view or totally disagree to what I say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bravo to that sentiment Bjorn, I too am chuffed that people take the time and trouble to read, consider and respond my musings. The first lesson I learned when I began my journey into writing and higher education, was, that EVERYONE is valid. Tis my nature anyway, I'm always drawn towards the shy and the reticent, the teacher in me wants to give them a prod, to encourage them to find their talents.

      Not that I'm seeing Ziggy and Chez as students, heaven forbid, lol. I am genuinely interested in what they have to say, and I hope other 'pros' or those 'sitting on the fence', won't be put off by the negative comments.

      Delete
  57. @anon10:33

    "Chez, you add NOTHING to this blog, why do you even bother coming here? Im guessing just about everybody else finds you as pointless as I do. Why dont you stick with the pro sites, im sure you fit in nicely!"

    That statement actually says that Chez adds an alternative view-not NOTHING.It also insinuates that this is an 'anti' site.So you threw a punch at Chez and it landed on the chin of Ros.That's not very nice is it, chinning a lady.

    @Bjorn22:15

    I understand your allusion to Macbeth and his good lady.But, remember, first, it's fiction, second, the characters were consumed by guilt because they had plenty to be guilty about and much blood on their hands.To watch the McCann case with the same eyes requires cognitive estrangement.That would involve ignoring reality and using 'poetic faith'. We do that all the time with fiction, ir helps us enjoy the play or film.We know the bad guy will pay and the good guy will survive but we switch logic off.Unfortunately, from a psychological point of view, doing this in real life is difficult.We have to believe a lie, with logic switched off.Then, if the lie faces challenges or logic contradicts that lie, we have to make an effort to disbelieve it.The longer you've believed it, the harder it is to disbelieve it.This is why we see so many efforts by haters to blame everything possible on the McCanns.

    @Ros
    The Vatican and Pope have a lot of nice, dramatic iconography for the headline makers. They fund was paying some greedy bastards big, big money to keep them front page or close.It wouldn't matter if it was rainy or not in Leicester. The fornt pages looking like 'postcards from' sold papers.The newspapers have made more of a killing than anyone.

    There's been no 'running commentary' because you can only repeat 'no leads or developments' so many times before people get suspicious and the social media witches start to get restless.If no commentary is given, it can appear that ''its all going on in the background''.

    If Operation Grange is a cover up, that's not down to the McCanns.They would have been taken in like everyone else.Digging for a body suggests they believe there is one.Not finding one suggests the McCanns abduction theory could be right.

    ''if the intention is to close the investigation without any result. It will also leave them with a lot more explaining to do''.

    Key word-'if'. Who can prove it ?If it was a cover up or just a show for the public, it's immoral and dishonest and theft of taxpayers money. We'll never know.I haven't believed any operation this or that or search.I believe Madeleine was procured and could have been anywhere in Europe from May4 onwards. The McCanns fund has been eroded large chunk by large chunk. That's not the problem of Scotland yard or the UK Government though.They don't care.They care about the show.If the case gets closed it's a result( for the Police and Gov here).The McCanns will be free but have no answers.The Police and Government will have accomplished the mission to place it as another 'mystery'.

    The latest 'dramatic turn of events' is the Amaral book.After ten years so much seems to be hanging on what happens next regarding the ruling of some judge and that book. That's bad form.It will inevitably have to play out.The book will go ahead and the McCanns will have the suspicion removed.A result for both parties.As such, neither will be financially ruined and neither will have sufficient proof to support their position. It has to be said that this situation, in a world were balance is the aim and justice is the goal, that 'innocent until proven guilty' must be the prevailing thought. The burden of proof is with the Police and prosecution.If the latter had that in the first place, everything would have been closed 9 years ago.

    Newspapers and Twitter are strange bedfellows.But it's a fine match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ''But isn't that just Gerry and Kate eh? They have refused to accept anything at all that interferes with their plans and goals. It has been leitmotif throughout through out their campaigns this last 10 years.''

      They refuse to be blamed for the cause of, or covering up of, their daughters death.Why is that seen as wrong if they didn't kill or hide her ? They're holding their position.That's not a leitmotif, it's a normal thing to do under fire.

      ''When this 'refusal to give up' crossed over into insanity is debateable.''

      Isn't it debateable that it crossed over to insanity at all ?

      ''What kept them going in the early days they said, was 'hope', the hope of course being that they could get away with it. ''

      Hope is all they had.Hope that their daughter was alive somewhere.You say it's hope that they could get away with it.Away with what ?

      ''When Operation Grange began, they declared Kate, Gerry and their friends not suspects or persons of interest''

      They're not-to the UK police. It was the Portuguese who are singing the alternative song, despite failing to nail the case.

      ''But returning to Gerry and Kate's latest complaint. I expect by the time all litigants get as far as the Supreme Court, the are pretty pissed off. Backlash and anger are par for the course, acceptance takes a while to sink in, even for the non batshit crazy. ''

      Backlash and anger are also par for the course where guessers on social networks rant and rave convinced they have an axe to grind (that none of the police have managed to find).Acceptance will never sink in for that branch of the batshit crazy.

      ''Once more Gerry and Kate are making unreasonable demands''

      Justice and fairness is never an unreasonable demand .Clarification of some ambiguously worded ruling isn't either . Proof to support accusatiuons made against them isn't. You say they hate Amaral-they didn't. You think he's to be worshipped for his 'brave stance'. Any alternative view you label 'hate'.There is a middle ground between irrational hatred and irrational worship. It's where I stand when I question why Amaral hasn't campaigned to clear his credibility as a detective after his superiors removed him from the case after the UK clicked their fingers. When they removed him, they removed his credibility far more than any 'tweedle dum' snipes team McCann could ever do.His 'evidence' was shelved and refuted by the PJ and Scotland Yard, not the McCanns.That's the grounds i suggest the McCanns legal team will be using in the next dull battle over the GA literary work.

      When Amaral puts some effort into attacking those who cleared the McCanns and binned his theories I'll have a lot more respect for him.He's the haters poster child now.Until the McCanns are charged, found guilty, and jailed on his detective work, that's all he'll ever be.

      Delete
  58. Ziggy Sawdust @15:59

    "...the UK Government...care about the show. If the case gets closed it's a result (for the Police and Gov. here)...The Police and Government will have accomplished the mission to place it as another 'mystery'."

    I don't know if you've yet followed up a link I proffered earlier (http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf).

    Should you read it in conjunction with the following, it ought to become apparent that the Home Office/Police response, far from being ultra-efficient, was highly irregular.

    http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/downloads/committees/cgc/060922-16-appendix01.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 21 February 2017 at 18:59

      http://policeauthority.org/metropolitan/downloads/committees/cgc/060922-16-appendix01.pdf

      Thank you for the link. I concur.

      T

      Delete
    2. @07:52

      Yet another 'coincidence'.

      From the 2009 'debrief':

      "The first report to a UK agency in relation to the McCann case was made on 3 May 2007, in a call to the FCO duty officer in Portugal from the operator of the holiday resort where the family were staying. The duty officer informed the FCO in London on the same day, by which time a member of the McCann family had also made contact with the FCO".

      (Calls made 'on the same day', you'll notice).

      And now, from a more recent investigation of 'phone records, examining calls from the Ocean Club specifically

      (https://h42a.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/other-call-records-pt-3/):

      “British Vice Consulate, Portimao – This call was made around 1404 on the 3rd. It lasted just under three minutes. Given the information on their website, their number is not much use unless there is some kind of emergency or bereavement.”

      A 'phone call made 'on the same day'.

      Well, well.

      Delete
    3. Hi Ziggy@19:08


      ''When Operation Grange began, they declared Kate, Gerry and their friends not suspects or persons of interest''

      I remember DCI Redwood saying that on the Crimewatch special, and at the time saying to my wife that's quite an unusual comment to make, especially since The Met have been digging around the resort which I don't believe for one minute was for show. I've watched Crimewatch again and has anybody got the feeling DCI Redwood was quite distant from the McCanns. It was something I noticed when first seen.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @13:07

      “British Vice Consulate, Portimao – This call was made around 1404 on the 3rd."

      Quite the find!

      NL

      Delete
  59. Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 11:15

    With respect to Brenda Leyland and yourself.

    I take it that your link was intended as a reply to my question immediately above your post

    While the link may be interesting, it does not answer my question.

    The reasons for Brenda’s alleged suicide are unknown.

    I agree that the disclosure of her identity and the possible consequences she might have imagined would follow might have affected her state of mind.

    It is impossible to ascertain the magnitude of the effect the disclosure and its imagined consequences had on Brenda’s likely mental disquiet at the time, hence it seems wrong to say categorically that “McCann helpers' betrayal set in motion the events that led to sweepyface's death”.

    Furthermore, had Brenda not twitted, no disclosure of her identity would’ve followed and we wouldn’t be talking about her. It may be said that Brenda’s tweets set in motion the events that led to her death. In any case, ‘McCann helpers’ did not expose Brenda to danger by treacherous means and therefore did not ‘betray’ her.

    I assure you that I feel for Brenda.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ 12:53

      They identified BL after posting on Facebook about the McCanns.

      Delete
  60. Hi T@12:53

    I agree with and respect your view, mental health issues hopefully will be recognised and be openly discussed without any stigma attached. Were I agree with you, yes Brenda didn't have to tweet or comment but however the same applies to the McCanns they didn't have to leave their children unattended and therefore set in motion a chain of events that were now discussing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ T 18 February 2017 at 11:42

      I enjoyed that read. The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure. I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout. It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal.God bless our tabloids...

      @ T Anonymous22 February 2017 at 12:53
      Anonymous 20 February 2017 at 11:15

      Re Brenda Leyland and 'betrayal'.

      I remember seeing the 'ambush' by Brunt. I remember being struck by the calmness and dignity that Brenda L displayed. Brunt trying to look all 'fly-on-the-wall' grass roots as she merely gave him calm short responses.Then off she went. It's hard to imagine that she was on her way to carry out a planned suicide.But, officially, that's what she must have been doing.

      Sky TV are the guilty party.It's up for debate if they 'betrayed' broadcasting's code of ethics.But they certainly trespassed upon Brenda Leyalnd's right to privacy in order to harass her.That's not up for debate. If the idea behind the ambush was to highlight hate speech on Twitter, then Sky should have been in touch with Twitter beforehand to point it out and question them with regard to their responsibility to members of the public and the potential for danger and them being party to libel and defamation.If that discussion took place, then she was betrayed by Twitter also.But Twitter and Sky thrive at the same gutter level.

      That the tragedy of Brenda Leyland can be put at the door of people who disagree with the online majority who call G and K McCann killers of their own child is a sign of the times.These are bad times.One angry impetuous mind is dangerous enough. When it finds so many others like it and then a platform to shout from, anything nasty can happen.

      R I P BL

      Delete
    2. @anon 07:52

      (https://h42a.wordpress.com/2017/02/21/other-call-records-pt-3/):

      “British Vice Consulate, Portimao – This call was made around 1404 on the 3rd. It lasted just under three minutes. Given the information on their website, their number is not much use unless there is some kind of emergency or bereavement.”

      A 'phone call made 'on the same day'.
      Well, well''

      Hmmm..stretching a bit here methinks...

      Putting aside that the caller isn't known, the call only lasted a max of 3 minutes. Allowing for the time taken for both parties to speak, it suggests a wrong number with time to redirect a caller to a right one.

      It's highly likely that the caller was either on holiday or working there if it was to the Consulate. The Consulate is called for many reasons and often.

      https://www.gov.uk/government/world/organisations/british-vice-consulate-portimao

      An 'emergency' of the type we're talking about involving the events of May3rd i'd guess would involve a longer call.Plus, why would anyone connected make the call earlier that day if Madeleine was still around ?

      Delete
    3. Ziggy Sawdust @22:46

      "...the call only lasted a max of 3 minutes. Allowing for the time taken for both parties to speak, it suggests a wrong number with time to redirect a caller to a right one."

      How strange. The analyst (Ben Salmon) arrived at exactly the opposite conclusion and for the very same reason. I quote (parentheses mine):

      "its (the call's) duration reflecting this as the ‘correct number’ for whatever issue was passed on."

      "It's highly likely that the caller was either on holiday or working there if it was to the Consulate."

      Yes, since the call in question was made from the Ocean Club. A statement of the obvious rather.

      The Consulate is called for many reasons and often."

      You don't say. Well clearly you do, but it adds nothing to your objection.

      "An 'emergency' of the type we're talking about involving the events of May 3rd i'd guess would involve a longer call."

      You might be talking about an emergency. Others of us take a different view. Although appropriate to your own perception of the affair your guess remains just that - a guess.

      "Plus, why would anyone connected make the call earlier that day if Madeleine was still around?"

      Why indeed.

      Maybe 'if' has a little more to do with it than you'd care to accept.

      Why should GM falsely deny having received a volley of text messages the day before, or KM suddenly be put off photography on the Thursday afternoon if Madeleine was still around?

      You clearly see nothing strangely coincidental in this call being made during the day, when the official (2009) police debriefing announced that the first report to a UK agency in connection with the McCann case occurred during the day - when Madeleine was still around, allegedly.





      How strange. The analyst in question came to the very opposite conclusion for exactly the same reason. I quote (parentheses mine):

      "...its (the call's) duration reflecting this as the ‘correct number’ for whatever issue was passed on".


      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust 22 February 2017 at 20:33

      “I enjoyed that read. The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure. I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout. It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal.God bless our tabloids...”

      “I enjoyed that read.”

      Likewise, more than once.

      “The 'doc' knows how to craft a line to be sure.”

      Indeed. And much more than that I dare say.

      “I remember reading about the pub crawl somewhere and Ridout.”

      Reminds me of Karl Marx (pub crawl + erroneous propositions :))…

      “It had all the hall marks of those spitting image press 'pigs' grunting, drinking and scraping for scandal”

      You are not too bad ( :) ) at crafting a line yourself if I may say so, Fruity Footy. (hallmarks :))

      God bless our tabloids... :)

      More in due course.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
  61. http://algarvedailynews.com/community-news/what-s-happening/5489-new-telephone-numbers-for-british-consulates-in-portugal

    Our Consular team in Portugal is available to provide assistance Monday to Friday, from 9.00am to 4.30pm. In an out of hours emergency these numbers will also connect you to the Foreign Office in London, where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @09:37

      Thank you for the link and the quote - interesting.

      The announcement being a change to the numbers, not a change in procedure, if this same regime of attendance were in place in 2007, that would invite further questions in relation to the 2009 debriefing account.

      Delete
  62. Anonymous 23 February 2017 at 01:25

    One hundred and eeeeeiiiighty ( % :) )!

    T

    ReplyDelete
  63. @anon 01:25

    Isn't it a bit too difficult to conclude anything from a 3 minute call from an unknown caller ? If we don't know who made the call and what was said, what can we conclude of any value ?
    I think 3 minutes is a short call for any reason to anyone. To make a call to the consulate of that length doesn't add up to urgency. That's only my opinion. If Ben Salmon has the opposite view, fair enough. One of us could be right, both could be wrong. An unknown caller and a call about something we have no evidence of doesn't allow anyone more than speculation.

    ''You might be talking about an emergency. Others of us take a different view. ''

    That's fair enough. But, rather than take the enigmatic stance, why not add that 'different view' to the objections of my views or anyone elses ?

    ''You clearly see nothing strangely coincidental in this call being made during the day, when the official (2009) police debriefing announced that the first report to a UK agency in connection with the McCann case occurred during the day - when Madeleine was still around, allegedly.''

    I can't 'clearly' see anything.An Unidentified caller and the content of said call unknown.If i can't see it, you can't see it, and nobody has furnished the detail, who can see anything 'clearly'.

    The volley of text messages GM received but 'falsely' denied' ?I take it you mean that he denied receiving them but he actually did receive them.If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @15:03

      "Isn't it a bit too difficult to conclude anything from a 3 minute call from an unknown caller? If we don't know who made the call and what was said, what can we conclude of any value?"

      Even without knowing exactly what was said, and by whom, the very fact of a 'phone call from somewhere within the Ocean Club to the British Consulate mid-afternoon on Thursday 3 May is of interest and possible significance.

      I suspect you did not return, as I suggested, to the 2009 Police debriefing document I linked you with earlier. The statement on p.13 concerning first contact with any UK agency constitutes a more appropriate context for this discussion.

      "I think 3 minutes is a short call for any reason to anyone."

      No. It was long considered the average duration for a typical 'phone call:

      https://www.quora.com/How-long-is-the-average-phone-call

      "Vodafone reckons the average duration of phone calls on its network has halved in five years. People now talk for around one minute and forty seconds, rather than over three minutes."

      "...rather than take the enigmatic stance, why not add that 'different view' to the objections of my views or anyone else's ?"

      Because I wish to stick to the issue at hand and not invite digression.

      "The volley of text messages GM received but 'falsely' denied'? I take it you mean that he denied receiving them but he actually did receive them. If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it?"

      "If that's the case!??"

      If you were not already aware of the 15 text messages McCann received on the Wednesday, reports of which he dismissed on camera as 'actually rubbish', then you have some serious catching up to do! The PJ exposed that anomaly in very short order.

      As to how and why 'detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it', your guess is no doubt as good as mine, but I think 'third party involvement' might offer a clue.

      Delete
  64. anon 09:37

    ''Our Consular team in Portugal is available to provide assistance Monday to Friday, from 9.00am to 4.30pm. In an out of hours emergency these numbers will also connect you to the Foreign Office in London''

    but :

    anon 07:52
    ''This call was made around 14.04 on the 3rd''

    Is the plot thickening, or thinning...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."

      Who knows?

      Delete
    2. "Is the plot thickening, or thinning..."

      It's coming along nicely.

      Delete
  65. Anonymous23 February 2017 at 20:28

    "...where consular assistance is provided 24 hours a day, 365 days a year."

    Who knows?

    ( that's why i posed the questions above lol)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @21:12

      "(that's why i posed the questions above lol)"

      Unfortunately they're not terribly perceptive questions (sigh!)

      Delete
  66. @21:08

    very enigmatic

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ anon 21:06

    ''Because I wish to stick to the issue at hand and not invite digression''.

    A new direction isn't necessarily a digression. It could be a new area that has a lead.

    ''If that's the case, how many different detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it?"
    "If that's the case!??"

    No, it's a lie if it's the facts you're quoting. If you have a suspect in a possible murder or abduction and he lies about his whereabouts or anything else pertinent to the case, it's a red flag.

    ''The PJ exposed that anomaly in very short order.''

    And did what with the information ? You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something.

    ''As to how and why 'detectives in the last ten years have missed this little nugget or failed to pursue it', your guess is no doubt as good as mine, but I think 'third party involvement' might offer a clue. ''

    I've been saying a 'third party' ( and fourth, fifth, sixth etc) is why ten years has done nothing.GM and KM aren't third parties as you and I know.The string pullers are.What's their real motive ?

    ''Vodafone reckons the average duration of phone calls on its network has halved in five years.''

    Good for Vodafone and their made up market research. If they'd have listened to two of five calls i had today they'd have thought again.They lasted under 30 seconds and not nicely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust 23.2 @21:24

      "A new direction isn't necessarily a digression. It could be a new area that has a lead."

      That's as may be. Personally I favour pursuing one enquiry at a time.

      "You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something."

      Very true, which is why my current concern is with the blatant contradiction between what the Police have had to say about that night's incident being reported 'that day' and accounts from various other sources, e.g. Kate McCann. They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.

      The string pullers' motive? That's the $64,000 question



      Delete
    2. Ziggy @21:24

      As for your last point, from sender to receiver or from receiver to sender?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 13:11
      ZiggySawdust 23.2 @21:24

      “"You can dismiss 'scent' or 'DNA' on the grounds that it may be contaminated by bleach. You can't 'unsay' something."

      Very true, which is why my current concern is with the blatant contradiction between what the Police have had to say about that night's incident being reported 'that day' and accounts from various other sources, e.g. Kate McCann. They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.”

      Might it not be said thst the McCanns and others have ‘unsaid’ much by changing their various initial statements at a later date?

      “They cannot each be telling the truth. One or the other perhaps, or neither even. That there is a lie somewhere in the mix appears indisputable.”

      Very much so. Thank you.

      “The string pullers' motive? That's the $64,000 question”

      Very interesting observations, suggestions and conjectures at http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/09/metaphoric-comprehension-revisited-by.html

      T

      Delete
  68. (Anonymous24 February 2017 at 13:40
    As for your last point, from sender to receiver or from receiver to sender?)

    Both.In my defence, I never asked those people to piss me off.

    Rather than address points individually up there ^^ I'll post link.

    I've read far too many supposed 'quotes' that have been attributed to people involved in the case, not least, the parents. I've also read the subsequent interpretations of those quotes by thousands of online bile - peddlars.

    I can ( as can you, dear reader) only hazard a guess as to what kind of chaos ensued on the night of May 3 2007.The shock of discovering the disappearance of a defenceless toddler far from home is horrendous enough, but who can really grasp the turmoil that was raging within each of the parents. I defy anyone to be word -perfect and have total (reliable) recall under such circumstances.It seems, however, that while level headed individuals can accept this fact, they are more than prepared to make the McCanns the exception to this rule. Exactly why they take this view doesn't seem to matter ; it's merely of secondary importance.To be fair to these anger junkies, they do try to justify their complete lack of empathy and sympathy by offering up all manner of pseudo deductive reasoning based on a mountain of assumptions built high enough and wide enough to hide the molehill of actual fact. Their apparent hollow -sounding rationale is that they 'just want justice for Madeleine'. This is used as some kind of anti dote to any criticism of their unfounded, and often irrational, rage. It becomes clear, however, once the pattern and route of their directed hatred is identified, that their fuel is hatred and their aim is revenge.Their targets are the parents of Madeleine.

    I hold the opinion that the MSM is nothing more than a governmental arm.It doesn't matter which government is dictating to us in their unerring quest to establish the new Dystopia , propaganda is a tried and trusted tool in the shaping of the collective consciousness of the masses. The 'mass' media is only 'mass' because of the size of the audience it can reach and the means it has to do so.The size of ownership of this machine is far from mass.On the contrary, in comparison to it's audience, it's minuscule.But large numbers are rarely needed if you have the majority of the power.An 'elite' run the country and the world; thousands rule billions.That's power.But what does this have to do with the case in point you ask( I heard you).A lot.

    The media's other agenda is to make vast amounts of cash for their shareholders.Gauging the zeitgeist is of the highest importance in order to know what the 'market' is.Their trick is to colour the views of the public first, encourage a momentum, then keep it going.Should an alternative view begin to rival the agenda it will be exposed as lies, conspiracy, or just hidden away.Get the herd onside first and the 'battle field' will always be uneven.This is why so many people repeat so much crap.They trust the liars who feed their needs.

    If you are to examine what little evidence and fact connected to the Madeleine case there is properly, it's important to be objective and come to it with no preconceptions.If you already have preconceptions, put them to one side.It can be done- I did it. Look again at the quotes and accusations and the often wild conclusions jumped to based on pointless interpretations of body language, clumsy readings of speech and photographs. Decide which is of more importance- police files or media reports.Ask why ten years has done nothing to solve anything.Ask why the media lie or tweak and are rarely carpeted for it( their bosses ?).Ask why the media cling to sensationalism rather than probability and misquote to support their lies.

    With this in mind I offer this :

    http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page

    ReplyDelete