Monday, 27 February 2017

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY


I am very fortunate on my blog that I have many intelligent and informative contributors from both sides of the divide in the case of missing Madeleine McCann.  I think we all attempt to keep open minds, so the discussion doesn't get bogged down in a small space behind a wall. 

In my last blog, discussion turned to the issue of Libel and the notion of Innocent until proven Guilty.  A noble idea, built on sound foundations, but one that rarely works very well in practice.  In every high profile crime, the public will form an opinion, especially if the main protagonists are constantly in the public eye.  What Gerry and Kate have consistently failed to realise, is that every time they, or their spokesman, make seething, angry, bitter, threatening, statements, they are building up their list of people to sue.  Their tactics are not likeable. 

The problem with the Law, or whatever protection the McCanns are demanding, is that it is universal, it applies to everyone.  For example, in the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Daily Mail named the suspects and put them on the front page. Quite rightly some would say, they were a gang of racist thugs and career criminals. But they hadn't been charged, nor had they been put on trial.  Strictly speaking the Daily Mail broke that IupG law, but in fact they were all lawyered up and ready for the suing to begin.  It didn't.  And those men carry that stigma for evermore. Something I am not unhappy about. 

I do wonder sometimes if Gerry and Kate understand the importance of freedom of the press, because throughout their ordeal (10 years), they have stamped all over it with hobnail boots.  To such an extent that we had that ludicrous 'no-one's allowed to say anything' This Morning interview with Mark Williams Thomas.  If the public don't get that they are being treated like mugs in this case, a quick watch of an astonished Holly and Phillip and a blathering MWT will confirm it. 

A Free Press keeps the establishment and the corrupt in check.  And people have given their lives to protect that Freedom.  The majority of those who are found out, or uncovered by investigative journalists have not been charged with the crimes they are accused of, nor found guilty in a Court of Law.  The kind of draconian laws demanded by Gerry and Kate would protect them.  Hacked Off was a storm in a teacup, something that most of the members seemed to have dropped like a hot brick.  Demands to restrict the press and jail reporters was bound to have a backlash.  Even spokesman Gerry seems to have gone quiet on the subject.

Libel trials are a joke, high profile ones especially.  There is nothing more detestable than demands to burn books.  It's like watching Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in slow motion.  How deranged do you have to be to go those lengths?  With their legal actions I think we seeing folie a deux in action. Though, the best libel story I have heard lately was Donald Trump .v. Bill Maher.  The Claimant wanted damages because the Defendant said the C's mother had sex with an orange orangutan.  Probably not a good example because the Defendant had to settle.  Shame it would have been the trial of the century. 

But I digress.  Gerry and Kate have been given a relatively easy ride by the press.  And quite rightly.  Nobody wants to see the days when News of the World paedo witch hunts led to angry mobs and the homes of paediatricians being burned to the ground.  Though I do wonder if Karen Matthews would have got the same courtesy had Shannon not been found. 

I like to hope however, the police and the MSM have made most of their decisions for humanitarian reasons.  Some however, clearly weren't. This case brought out the Little Englander in those faux liberal journalists, who abandoned all their principles because Gerry and Kate were PLU (People Like Us).  The assistance of the MSM gave them the millions they needed to the UK's best lawyers on a retainer for 10 years.  Result. 

Gerry and Kate have always had the ear of media moguls and politicians, ergo, it has always been within their power to change public opinion.  Their failure to convince the public rests entirely with them.  Someone really needs to have a quiet word with them about 'blame' and accepting responsibility for their own actions. 

They have had every opportunity to give an honest account of what happened, even now I am sure there are sympathetic MS journalists out there, who would leap at the chance to have an honest question and answer session.  As Kate said herself, most people are inherently good.  Any anger has subsided to a quiet trickle, most people eventually realise that certain public figures are not responsible for their bitterness and malevolence and move on. There are of course, still a few rabble rousers hanging on in there, but their 15 minutes has passed.  Most people just want the truth and I'm glad so many are now looking in here.  Such is life, the assumption of innocence cannot be handed to them on a plate or enforced with legislation.  It is something Gerry and Kate have to prove through their words and actions.  It always has been. 

 

261 comments:

  1. "Such is life, the assumption of innocence cannot be handed to them on a plate or enforced with legislation. It is something Gerry and Kate have to prove through their words and actions. It always has been."

    Wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ''A Free Press keeps the establishment and the corrupt in check. And people have given their lives to protect that Freedom''

    Those people gave their lives for it and much more.That's evidence of the futility of war and the disregard for human life held by politicians.Our press is privately owned and used to serve any agenda of it's owner/s.

    ''The kind of draconian laws demanded by Gerry and Kate would protect them.''

    Laws such as the right to privacy and innocent until proven guilty ?What's draconian about them ?

    ''There is nothing more detestable than demands to burn books.''

    I agree.But books that are proven to be lies intended to mislead should be burned.See some history books.

    ''Gerry and Kate have always had the ear of media moguls and politicians, ergo, it has always been within their power to change public opinion.''

    Nonsense.GM has voiced his disgust at the moguls and demanded explanations.If you accept that they were GIVEN a media control man via the UK gov you can't say they change any public opinion. Journalists write the articles-not the McCanns.If the journalists are heavily biased in one direction, questions should be asked of our 'free press''

    ''Such is life, the assumption of innocence cannot be handed to them on a plate or enforced with legislation.''

    It's already in place for them, you, and me.It's called the human rights act article 11.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One of the key points in the Supreme Court Judgement was the fact that the McCanns compromised their own privacy by courting publicity.

      Books should never be burned Ziggy, not even books full of lies, which incidentally could run to thousands if not millions. I'm currently watching the fabulous Lucy Worsley's 'history's biggest fibs' where the sycophantic scribes of the medieval Kings recorded history in favour of their masters. So if you want to burn books full of lies Ziggy, where will you begin?

      There really isn't any need to get the matches and petrol out Ziggy, lies can be countered with truth, and truth usually wins.

      Gerry and Kate may have been GIVEN a media control man, but their interviews and TV appearances were all them. They were the 'faces' of the Madeleine campaign, they had the audience and the air time, only they could keep the public engaged and on their side.

      You cannot deny that they have had plenty of opportunities to put their side Ziggy, especially in their dispute with Goncalo Amaral. They could have saved all those millions they have wasted on libel actions by simply answering the questions put to them by interviewers like Sandra Felgueiras.

      As for your final sentence, you have missed the point of my blog completely. In high profile crimes, the public will form their own opinions, it is not something you can legislate for, or you could have 30million people in the dock.

      Delete
    2. 27.2 @22:18

      "books that are proven to be lies intended to mislead should be burned."

      Posts here and elsewhere that are proven to be lies intended to mislead should be deleted then.

      Delete
  3. The reality of the legal small print is that whichever way you define the status of the McCanns or anyone else, the burden of proof will always be on the shoulders of the prosecution.In common sense terminology that equates to innocent until proven guilty.If it was any other way, a suspect, or suspects, would have stood trial by now.Twisting and pulling the 'innocent until proven guilty' definition into 'not cleared' is desperate.That the McCanns and anyone else has been enjoying their liberty for 10 years also suggests that that this particular 'legal' definition is worthless.

    Regarding any critical facts of a case the burden of proof is entirely on the state.Defendants have no burden of proof whatsoever.Critically, the judge is '' not to draw any negative inferences even if a party has been charged of a crime.Rather, they must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.''The last point is probably the area the McCanns' legal team will explore .

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 11 states : '' Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence''..This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members.

    So, unless the prosecution has some impressive physical evidence that we have been unaware of, or a body turns up, I think it's safe to say the McCanns are not in the gloom and doom position the tabloids are trying to promote and that the tabloid's gullible sniffer dogs then bark around the internet.

    If the burden of suspicion is supposed to be the prosecution's 'stepping stone' to burden of proof then it will land on it's arse if all they can produce is Amaral's 'literary work'.A close examination of his standpoint would be undertaken by a defence team and he would collapse like a house of cards under cross examination. He'd have to provide solid reasons for his initial, almost automatic, suspicions of a McCann cover up and why that gave him the total confidence to NOT declare a crime scene with equal speed,thus allowing 20 plus people to stomp around and contaminate possible crucial evidence( I know this little indiscretion is discussed among certain bloggers and tends to accuse the McCanns and their Tapas gang only).It also took the slick outfit 12 hours to set up roadblocks.Border patrol were alerted the next day and Interpol were informed 5 days later.If Amaral's superiors are summoned by the defence on top of these nuggets it's not a difficult case for the McCanns.But I don't think Mr Amaral's future prospects as a best selling author would come out of it all unscathed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still you speak aggressively of legal action and winning points of law Ziggy, the McCanns lost! Goncalo Amaral's factual account of the Portuguese investigation in the summer of 2007, did NOT collapse like a house of cards, he was the victor.

      Regurgitating the same old arguments about the PJ's failure to set up road blocks etc, hasn't worked in 10 years and what's the point. Shouldn't the McCanns priority be to find Madeleine? Why have they wasted all their money and resources on legal actions against Goncalo Amaral?

      Kudos to you for the bravado 'it's not a difficult case for the McCanns', but I fear you, and perhaps they, have moved into the area of delusional/off your trolly.

      You are not doing them any favours in encouraging them towards more legal action Ziggy. Their hatred of Goncalo Amaral is irrational, so strong that they are destroying themselves and all around them. Those telling them they can win are feeding the madness Ziggy and adding to the pain. The professionals, may their gods forgive them, have their own reasons, but the family and friends - why? Who the feck tells someone they love to put themselves through the stress, agony, financial risk and emotional turmoil of another 5/10 years of legal action? Isn't there anyone sane within the Team McCann camp?

      Even if they do have a surplus few million to continue their libel actions against Goncalo Amaral, what would be the point? Most of the world now believes Madeleine is dead, they saw SY in PDL with diggers and cadaver dogs, so their original claim is now moot. That is they can't blame GA because the public are not looking for a live Madeleine.

      Delete
    2. Exactly Ros and beautifully put!!! Ziggy is now trying to twist the words of the PT suprememe court, maybe he knows better than them?? Ziggy please read their words again, it catagorically states that just because the case was shelved(archived) it does NOT equate to the mccanns being cleared or PROVEN innocent. Please stop trying to state otherwise.

      Delete
  4. Hi Ros,

    I totally agree The Daily Mail was wrong to name the suspects in the SL case as it could and possibly did prejudice the case against them. The same happened in the Joanne Yeates murder, Christopher Jeffries was arrested, the media had him guilty from day one, hence after he was released without charge and the police arrested and convicted the real killer some newspapers were fined for contempt of court. Christopher Jeffries got substantial settlements from them as well. This was in 2011, it's possible the MSM are sitting on the fence with regards to the McCanns case and will come off it once something substantial in evidence comes along. With regards to the SL case scrapping the double jeopardy in my view makes bad law.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You misunderstood John, my fault I wasn't very clear. It was one of those occasions where I applauded the investigative journalism of the Daily Mail. Those evil thugs who murdered Stephen Lawrence were basking in their infamy and flaunting the fact they had got away with murder. In this case the Free Press were highlighting an abhorrent miscarriage of justice, ie. exactly what they are supposed to do.

      I think the MSM are sitting on the fence with the regard to this case, because the McCanns are so litigious. They were quick enough to publish the Supreme Court's verdict and place emphasis on the most damning statements, because as a Court document it is not libel. They may possibly be waiting to pounce.

      Delete
  5. "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY"

    Agreed, but I skimmed the rest 'cause it looked as if was just another 'INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, but...."

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  6. @ZiggySawdust 27.2 at 22:25
    ("Interpol were informed 5 days later.")

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PJ_INTERPOL.htm#p2p454

    Policia Judiciaria

    Interpol Office Lisbon

    Subject: Missing Girl ? Possible Abduction of Madeleine McCann, aged three

    We have in our possession information and press reports relating to the suspicion of abduction of the girl mentioned above from a holiday apartment of the OC resort in Praia da Luz on 3rd May 2007.

    We request that you inform us urgently if our help is necessary. We would be pleased to provide any help necessary to your office.

    We request that you keep us informed about the state of your inquiries about this case.

    With compliments

    Interpol London

    04/05/07

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_455.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Each Country has a national Interpol Office . The same applies to Portugal. If you note the correspondence, it is in the headed paper of the Portuguese Interpol National Office, you only have to look at the headed paper in correspondence attached. So you are incorrect, London offered help as a national Interpol Office, Portugal did not fail to communicate with Interpol. Portugal replied to London's offer for help on the 9th. There is a difference.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_455.jpg

      Delete
  7. "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man auch am Ende Menschen." - Heinrich Heine

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi everybody
      I suppose, that everybody knows about this famous quote from Heinrich Heine, but yet I'll translate it into "my" English in case ther's someone who hasn't read about Heine.
      "That was just a rehearsal, where books are burnt, there will finally also people be burnt" You certainly have better translations than mine, but in the German language, as it feels, the words become much stronger than in my own language. Anyway such an important issue to discuss, isn't it.

      Delete
  8. Die heutigen Moralisten hat wahrscheinlich aus der Geschichte Europas überhaupt nichts gelernt.
    Heinrich Heine hat vor zwei hundert Jahren viel mehr davon verstanden als die Bevölkerung Deutschlands später in den dreißiger Jahren hat, und leider auch mehr als die meisten Leuten der heutigen europäischen Ländern. Es tut mir wirklich leid.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Rosalinda.
      Someone addressed us in German so I thought it was a German, but I suppose it could be anyone just quoting H Heine and I just tried to say
      "The moralists of today has evidently not learned anything from the European history. H-Heine knew already 200 hundred years ago much more than the German people did in the 30:s and, I'm afraid, more than most people in the European countries today, which really makes me sad.

      Then NL answered me in Swedish as matter of fact. "Sent, men kanske inte för sent?, which in English means "Late, but perhaps not too late", there after my response in yet another language that I've tried to learn, that is yours.

      Sorry for all confusion

      Delete
    2. Not at all Bjorn, I found H-Heine quite enlightening, but not technical enough to use translate facility. His words, were sadly to be prophetic.

      I find the idea of burning books totally barbaric Bjorn, it is comparable to destroying works of art, and such an extreme form of censorship I am astonished it still exists in the 21st century. Good luck with that in the ECHRs!

      The McCanns libel actions remind me of that little ditty 'here lies the body of Edward Jay who died maintaining his right of way. He was right, dead right, as he sped along, but he's just as if he were wrong'. Perhaps Gerry and Kate do believe they are dead right, but it's not doing them any good.

      Delete
  9. Björn @10:18

    Sent, men kanske inte för sent? NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe not NL, but I become so disappointed and so sad seeing that even people on this blog suggest book burning, some implicitly, and some explicitly like Ziggy. Haven't they learnt anything from history.Fortunately Rosalinda fights back and defends freedom of expression. Many thanks Rosalinda.

      Delete
  10. London. Interpol See Scotland Yard

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_R6-bZsejk

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Bjorn 14:01

    ''disappointed and so sad seeing that even people on this blog suggest book burning, some implicitly, and some explicitly like Ziggy. Haven't they learnt anything from history''

    If you have to quote me, don't do it out of context.

    What was said :
    ''There is nothing more detestable than demands to burn books.''

    I agree.But books that are proven to be lies intended to mislead should be burned.See some history book

    Did you see 'I agree '? Or read past it.

    The thing is, Bjorn, I HAVE learned from history.And what I've learned is that lies, or official recordings of events, are riddled with bias or bullshit.It's been 'edited' to suit the authors.That's what i suggest is burnt- BS. I wouldn't suggest burning truth or opinions and theories as long as they state that they're opinions and theories. You'd learn more about history if you 'follow the money'; if you look at economics. You'll only get a lot of fiction with the occasional truth in a lot of history books.Some of them weren't even written by the author stated on the cover.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no circumstances whatsoever that makes the burning of books acceptable Ziggy. Who is to judge what is true or what isn't? In the past history has been written by the victors, some of whom were despots who destroyed everything that went before them. That's why everything should be preserved, even those books that are ruled to be 'lies'.

      Any serious academic will look at all accounts Ziggy, and with history, sometimes the lies reveal more about the story than the factual accounts.

      It could be argued that Kate's book is full of lies Ziggy. And no-one can dispute the damage it has done to Goncalo Amaral, the staff from Warners, the tourist industry in the Algarve, Brenda Leyland. Should Kate's book be burned Ziggy?

      Everyone's word is valid Ziggy, and everyone, even liars should have their freedom to write. We as readers have the freedom to choose whether we believe them. We don't need someone else deciding what is or isn't good for us.

      To be honest, I just hate the word 'Ban', and I'm so grumpy these days, I can't even bear to be in the company of people who want to ban things. There's a lot of things I don't like. I avoid them. It really is that simple.

      Delete
    2. Have you ever noticed how everything anyone says before the word BUT is a lie.

      see 17.52.

      "I agree.But books that are proven to be lies intended to mislead should be burned.

      Delete
    3. @22:42

      ditto 17:17

      Delete
  12. '' the McCanns lost! Goncalo Amaral's factual account of the Portuguese investigation in the summer of 2007, did NOT collapse like a house of cards, he was the victor. ''

    The victor ? He was supposed to lead up an investigation into a possible abduction or murder and was fired from the position.He won the right to be a published author.

    ''Regurgitating the same old arguments about the PJ's failure to set up road blocks etc, hasn't worked in 10 years and what's the point''

    The point is to attempt to find some perspective.In 10 years there have been no arrests. Amaral is being lauded as hero /martyr.

    'Kudos to you for the bravado 'it's not a difficult case for the McCanns'

    It isn't bravado.

    'You are not doing them any favours in encouraging them towards more legal action Ziggy. Their hatred of Goncalo Amaral is irrational'

    I'm not intending to do anyone favours.Nor am i encouraging them to anything.I just believe it will come about.They can't aaccept a supreme court decision to allow a cop who messed up to continue advancing what is more about suspicion than fact.If it was fact, he'd be in the job he had and the McCanns would be in prison.I don't believe i've read a word or seen a quote by the McCann camp that says they hate anyone.That doesn't mean they don't hate him, obviously( I know I would if it was my child that had gone missing and the detective failed then went on to defame me).But know the difference between quoting somebody and putting words into their mouth.

    ''The professionals, may their gods forgive them, have their own reasons, but the family and friends - why? ''

    Your implying the legal team are milking it for money alone.Maybe they think they have a case-have you considered that ? Family and friends give support to family and friends who need it.It's human.I hate to use the dirty word, but some call it 'empathy'

    'Isn't there anyone sane within the Team McCann camp? '

    Sane? Who knows.Clever? yes.If they're as guilty of the deeds you and most hope they are guilty of and haven't seen a court yet in 10 years, sanity doesn't matter as much as cleverness. Rather than sanity I suggest a more important question to ask is concerning competency.The competency of so many that who have failed in this case. If it's as cut and dried as the internet detective agency seem to think, what happened ?

    ''Even if they do have a surplus few million to continue their libel actions against Goncalo Amaral, what would be the point?''

    Justice. Also, the 'innocent until proven guilty' status would render Amaral's accusations as what level headed observers would call dangerous smears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm picking up quite a bit of seething in there Ziggy (at 18:00), you seem particularly irked that GA is being 'lauded as a hero/martyr'. Well that's usually what happens in David v Goliath battles and David wins.

      What 'does attempt to find some perspective' even mean Ziggy? Journalists assigned to the case can't even remember what the libel was about Ziggy, and the public don't care. Whatever it is that is bugging them doesn't mean two hoots to anyone else.

      It is not humane to encourage those you love to make disastrous choices. I thank all the gods there may be that I have been fortunate in my life to have had people who cared enough and were brave enough to be brutally honest with me. And I thank each and every one of them for stepping in and saving me from myself.

      Justice? In what form Ziggy? All the earnings from GA's book, past, present and future? His family home, his childrens' college funds?

      Big wads of cash does not equal innocence Ziggy, though it does extend the length of time you can stay out of jail. The McCanns have taken two cases all the way through the Portuguese civil courts. First with the book ban, second their claim for damages. Both have failed. This is the end of the line for their financial claims.

      A civil court cannot declare the McCanns innocent Ziggy and even if they were awarded all Goncalo's worldly goods, it still wouldn't make them popular. In fact it would have the opposite effect. Nothing irks the public more than seeing former suspects being given big cash rewards.

      At the moment they are probably still coming to terms with the Supreme Court verdict. I doubt very much that they have enough money to cover what must be, record legal costs.

      Goncalo Amaral's so called 'smears' are no more 'dangerous' than those of anyone else Ziggy, including the Supreme Court Judges who stated the McCanns weren't cleared. Focusing solely on the words of Goncalo Amaral makes it personal, not logical.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy, as far as im aware the case was archived because the PJ could not progress any further, the tapas lot would not come back for a reconstruction,the FSS "ruined" the sampleas, KM would not answer her questions and they fled as soon as they were made arguidos.The pact of silence has been deafening!! Now it seems to me that the PJ knew what they were doing but did not have enough solid evidence to charge them, and to charge someone with not enough evidence knowing that they would get off would be a waste of everyones time. Hence, shelved until further evidence becomes available, and if "it", when added to the evidence already held, becomes deemed enough for a successful prosecution, then I bet, if they can, prosecute they will. In the meantime it certainly does not appear to me that the PJ are helping the mccanns by searching for MBM ( I stand to be corrected) since the day they left portugal and were escorted home. I think the PJ are realists, they are pretty sure about what happened alas they could not get enough admissable evidence to prove it. Sometimes as we all know, the criminal is caught but not convicted.

      Delete
    3. I don't know what the laws are with regard to double jeopardy in Portugal but I think you are on he right tract 23:07. And of course, Gerry and Kate have been lawyered up from Day 1.

      But as you say, no-one seems to be in any hurry, everything is preserved in time and who knows who advances new technology and science will bring.

      Delete
  13. '' Most of the world now believes Madeleine is dead''

    I agree.In the parents place I'd probably be the only man alive who refused to believe it.I don't think I could face the reality of things because it would hurt.It isn't a crime( even if it's a McCann feeling it).It's down to the police to declare her dead, not the McCanns or the MSM or the great herd who never make mistakes.

    The constant referring to the PJ files isn't doing anyone any good here.Who composed the files?On whose words and findings were they based ?And who has failed to get a case to court.In ten years. You should all refer SY to the files.Or have they read them and found nothing to bring a prosecution ?

    ''Still you speak aggressively of legal action and winning points of law Ziggy''

    I thought the title of this thread was 'innocent until proven guilty'.If that's not a point of law then I apologise for my mistake.

    ''Gerry and Kate may have been GIVEN a media control man, but their interviews and TV appearances were all them.''

    What was Mitchell's job and function ? Scripting question and answer sessions ahead of the game.The interviews were 'all them' because they're the parents.What was allowed to be asked and how to answer was all Clarence Mitchell.

    ''You cannot deny that they have had plenty of opportunities to put their side Ziggy, especially in their dispute with Goncalo Amaral''

    I don't deny it.I consider that they put their side in their statements when they declared they come back to an apartment and Madeleine had been taken(''they've taken her''). Amaral's basically said he doesn't believe them and he believes they lied because they killed her one way or another and hid the body.Burden of proof ?

    ''As for your final sentence, you have missed the point of my blog completely.''

    I don't think I've missed the real point of your blog.But the Human Rights act was passed by a lot of high powered people.Why is it out of place when discussing one of the biggest crimes / mysteries of our time ? Two people considered guilty by a herd walk free. The detective investigating them is in an on-and off legal action trying to get his theories in print which name them as guilty parties.

    '' I fear you, and perhaps they, have moved into the area of delusional/off your trolly. ''

    When i cite various MSM newspapers to support anything I say, that statement will be valid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust at 18:04

      "I consider that they put their side in their statements when they declared they come back to an apartment and Madeleine had been taken("they've taken her")."

      "The constant referring to the PJ files isn't doing anyone any good here.Who composed the files?On whose words and findings were they based ?"

      ?

      Delete
    2. @18:04

      "When i cite various MSM newspapers to support anything I say, that statement will be valid."

      Deluded.

      Delete
  14. Supreme Court Portugal: they made their point. Now: silence.
    MSM UK: they live by scoops and scandals. Now we support the McCanns, now we ehrrr ... don't.
    The world: the McCanns? Who?
    Anonymous: Wait. Don't bait.

    ReplyDelete
  15. To whom it may concern
    The McCanns' chose to sue GA for libelous writing, when they instead could have chosen to argue against his hypothesis about their guilt, as suggested by Rosalinda. However, they haven’t succeeded in making the Portuguese Supreme Court believe that it’s GA, who has destroyed their lives, nor that his book has damaged or sabotaged the search for Madeleine.

    As for Kate, she spent years preparing herself to give the general public “an account of the truth” in her book “Madeleine”, but, as far as we know, she hasn’t added anything of importance, which has been useful to the subsequent investigation, definitely nothing, which wasn’t known before her book “Madeleine” was published.

    Does Kate in her book mention anything about Madeleine’s little pink blanket, that mysteriously vanished into thin air, anything about the real reason as to why Gerry took the fridge (if he did) from their second apartment to the dump, anything comprehensible about why she and Gerry didn’t try to persuade their tapas friends to join them in the reconstruction, suggested by the P J, or anything about the rumours, about her being in contact with dead bodies just days before they left for Portugal? And of course why or if she washed little “cuddle cat” once or twice, and if it really was smeared with suntan cream?

    If she and Gerry expect the support from people in general, they could start by pointing out to all of us what’s false and libelous in ”The Truth of the Lies”, instead of writing a book, which is more about herself and her “Lies about the Truth”, than about what the title “Madeleine”suggests. Has there ever been a case, that has attracted the interest of so many, in which so many questions still after almost 10 years remain unanswered, not because they cannot be answered, but because two former suspects don’t have to answer any of them, as they aren’t asked by those whose duty it should be to ask them, that is, the police investigators in the “alleged” on-going investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "First of all the main problem that I have with this book by Kate is that it didn’t do anything to change my POV to the case prior to reading this, in fact in places some of the issues raised did lead to more questions and whilst the title did put forward a chain of events that they believe happened it did leave me wondering exactly how carefully this book has been viewed by lawyers as there is no real emotion behind it, presenting more a staged front rather than an account from the heart."

      http://falcatatimes.blogspot.com/search/label/Kate%20McCann

      Delete
    2. I agree 19:51, it was as detached and wooden as Kate is in all her interviews.

      When I wrote my memoirs, it was one of the most bizarre experiences of my life. I went through every emotion as I recalled my experiences and the people I knew. I actually wept at times, but I also giggled at the fond memories and my own gallows humour. Probably why it didn't do so well as a misery memoir. It is probably comparable to having 4 months of intensive therapy!

      The problem Kate had in writing the book, was that she had to live up to the perfect wife, perfect mother, perfect Christian she had created for the media. And gawd 'elp her, she has had to live with it ever since.

      We ordinary mortals can admit to our failings, and even laugh about them, Kate and Gerry can't even have a row.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros - 20.59.

      Kate wasn't writing her memoirs.

      Delete
    4. @21:04

      Kate was writing "an account of the truth", "an intensely personal account", she says in 'madeleine':

      "What follows is an intensely personal account, and I make no apology for that."

      Delete
    5. To Anonymous 28 February 21:04
      You're absolutely right. She wasn't. She was writing a fictional novel, based on her experiences of life.

      Delete
    6. Bjorn, with the utmost respect, the trial WAS NOT a Libel trial. The mccs NEVER once said that anything he wrote was libelous. It was a claim for their hurt feelings and their childrens.
      Please read up on this Bjorn, try Textusa for a start, lots of great factual info there.
      regards

      Delete
    7. Bjorn, or indeed anyone should try Textusa, but first and foremost they should be aware that Textusa believes the tapas group were on a swinging holiday. If you can get past that and the impossible to read cryptic style of writing, you might find something. I gave up years ago.

      Delete
    8. yes that is what they propose Ros(textusa sisters), but for quite a while now they have been blogging about the damages case and news reports and how they read the latest verdict from the supreme court. Yes it can be a bit convoluted, but there is some excellent info in there if you persevere. I personally think they have as much right to a theory as anyone else, and in the spirit of finding out the truth (which i sincerely believe they are trying too), lets not rule anyone out.
      regards
      Afan

      Delete
  16. @ Björn 18.38.

    Whilst everything in your comment is rehashed myths and rubbish and pure hate about the Mccanns, I will just pick up on one point:

    "If she and Gerry expect the support from people in general, they could start by pointing out to all of us what’s false and libelous in ”The Truth of the Lies”,"

    Whilst accepting that English may or may not be your first language, the answer to that question has been obvious to anyone who has followed the case of missing Madeleine and also the libel case:

    They have stated that they were not involved in the unproven "death" of Madeleine

    They have stated that they were not involved in any "cover up" in the disposal of their "dead" child.

    Did you not know Björn that that was the main thrust of the libel case against Amaral and is also the reason why they protest their innocent after 10 years - or are you just playing ignorant for the crowd (crowd in this case means getting complementary comments and slaps on the back from Ros)

    By the way - the fridge was a figment of Amaral's imagination generated by the forum hate blogs at the time and picked up by him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To anonymous 28 February 19.45, and 20.09

      Naturally, the McCanns will go on denying having anything with Madeleine’s disappearance to do as long as they can, and can easily do so as long as they’re not asked any questions. Still, there’s a solid and coherent chain of forensic- and circumstantial evidence, which anyone can find in the P J files and elsewhere, substantiating the thesis about the McCanns’ implication in the disappearance of their daughter, which, as the Supreme Court now refer to, in order to shed some light on the Madeleine case as a whole, not just this, hopefully completed lawsuit about libel. Not sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution, does of course not mean that there isn’t any evidence at all, but just insufficient.
       

      Delete
    2. If circumstantial evidence could sink a battleship, the McCann battleship would be firmly entrenched on the bottom of the ocean.

      Alas, they need actual evidence along with all the circumstantial kind to successfully prosecute - or a confession, of course.

      Gary Sweeney.

      Delete
  17. @ bjorn

    In case you don't realise why the Mccanns sued amaral - from the conclusion in his book:

    "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:

    1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;

    2. There was simulation of abduction.

    3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.

    4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;

    5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children."

    "

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Anonymous28 February 2017 at 20:09

    And to think people are condemning the McCanns for suggesting slander and defamation. What vexatious litigants lol

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Bjorn 21:29

    ''Still, there’s a solid and coherent chain of forensic- and circumstantial evidence, which anyone can find in the P J files ''

    Ahhh 'the pj files' again....

    So, how 'coherent' and how 'solid' is this evidence that has failed to find it's way into the files of a prosecution team ? If it's coherent and solid, what's the hold up ?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Björn28 February 2017 at 21:34

    To Anonymous 28 February 21:04

    ''You're absolutely right. She wasn't. She was writing a fictional novel, based on her experiences of life.''

    Do you not understand the difference between 'personal account' and 'fictional novel' ? Then again, if you think Amaral's personal account isn't fiction I suppose not.After all, his account is supported by....well..his friends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust at 22:07

      An intensely personal account is subjective.

      Delete
    2. You have really got it in for GA today Ziggy,

      Tut, tut, tut, Goncalo's book is a factual account of the PJ investigation between May and September 2007. It is supported by the all the statements and evidence in the official police files, including the interim statement of Tavares De Almeida. The files and GA's book are 'in sync'.

      And again, because I am sure you have never answered me, lol, why on earth would Goncalo Amaral and the police want to frame the parents? Give me one sane, logical reason. Bearing in mind that wrapping the case up quickly would leave every child in the area (where they lived) in danger?

      Delete
    3. "And again, because I am sure you have never answered me, lol, why on earth would Goncalo Amaral and the police want to frame the parents? Give me one sane, logical reason. Bearing in mind that wrapping the case up quickly would leave every child in the area (where they lived) in danger?"

      There are a number of possible reasons - from wanting to protect the child friendly view of Praia Da Luz to covering up for his and his team's ineptitude during the first few hours after Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
  21. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/lawyer-in-the-news/familys-victory-in-katie-hopkins-libel-case/5059264.article

    Adam Tudor

    Career high: Acting for Kate and Gerry McCann, including in their successful complaints against the News of the World, Star and Express. It has been a privilege to represent two individuals who, placed in the most appalling predicament, have nevertheless conducted themselves with such dignity.’

    ReplyDelete
  22. ''There are no circumstances whatsoever that makes the burning of books acceptable Ziggy''

    Try the 9/11 official report.Try the Warren report.How about Mein Kampf ?Even Anne Franks diary needs a very large dose of salt and a few whiskeys.

    ''In the past history has been written by the victors, some of whom were despots ..That's why everything should be preserved, even those books that are ruled to be 'lies'. ''

    Matter of opinion.Mine is that they should burn and be replaced by books explaining why.

    ''It could be argued that Kate's book is full of lies Ziggy. And no-one can dispute the damage it has done to Goncalo Amaral, the staff from Warners, the tourist industry in the Algarve, Brenda Leyland. Should Kate's book be burned Ziggy? ''

    If it defames, slanders or directs unfounded allegations about Amaral, staff at Warners and Brenda Leyland, then yes it should.If it's a personal account of losing her daughter, and the aftermath, then no.

    ''Everyone's word is valid Ziggy''

    But not the McCanns ?

    ''I'm picking up
    a bit of seething in there Ziggy (at 18:00), you seem particularly irked that GA is being 'lauded as a hero/martyr'. Well that's usually what happens in David v Goliath battles and David wins''

    Amaral is neither, so i believe he shouldn't be treated as either.
    In the Red corner : Twitters finest, Facebooks finest,Youtubes finest, Blogspot's finest, Amaral and former team. In the blue corner :Kate and Gerry McCann. Be careful what you wish for.

    ''Justice? In what form Ziggy?''

    I already said.

    ''Goncalo Amaral's so called 'smears' are no more 'dangerous' than those of anyone else Ziggy''

    They're far more dangerous. He was the lead detective who immediately( according to him) 'knew' that the parents were lying,that they'd killed the daughter and disposed of her.That he couldn't get that to court and keep his job hasn't deterred the McCann haters from pointing to his unfounded ramblings merely because his 'literary work' is being allowed to go on sale.He is knowingly fomenting hate.

    As for a critique of Kate McCann as author.She's a GP, not an author.I don't think anyones expecting JK Rowling any more than they're expecting Amaral to morph into Ernest Hemmingway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A chill ran down me when I read you would burn the diary of Anne Frank! Even Mein Kamf or sexed up government documents. Stf?

      So who would you appoint to decide which books to burn Ziggy? Who would write the approved version? Do you not see that therein lies dictatorship? You seem to have missed quite a few key warnings from history, do you want a reading list?

      'Knowingly formenting hate'. Do behave. He has written his account of the Portuguese investigation, which is virtually identical to the full police files, only shorter and much more reader friendly.

      All Goncalo Amaral did was to write a truthful account of what happened in the summer of 2007 to defend his own reputation. GA doesn't have the power, or indeed the inclination to be 'knowingly formenting hate' Ziggy. He has been the defendant this past 9 years, the McCanns have been protagonists, the instigators.

      The 'formenting hate' argument has been overwhelmed by information, newspaper headlines, commentary on social media with far more compelling arguments for 'formenting hate' than anything said by Goncalo Amaral.

      As for the rest of your penultimate paragraph, honestly, you really do need to read GA's book. It will take you one afternoon, tops. GA is not an ogre, he did not say 'they killed the daughter', he puts forward an explanation that shows understanding and compassion. He is not malicious.

      Those you would describe as haters, have long since abandoned the theory of Goncalo Amaral Ziggy. The extremists have whole new theories of their own.

      Delete
  23. Björn28 February 2017 at 21:29

    ''Naturally, the McCanns will go on denying having anything with Madeleine’s disappearance to do as long as they can, and can easily do so as long as they’re not asked any questions''

    If you were being accused of killing your daughter and you hadn't, how long would you keep repeating that you are innocent before caving in and saying you were guilty ?

    Questions can be badly chosen( ask Amaral).Answers can tell lies anyway.Do you know what never makes a mistake and has no agenda ? Evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust @22:48

      The McCanns weren't being accused of killing their daughter.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy
      What I wouldn't do if I were innocent and accused of having killed my daughter is to tell journalists who don't believe me. "Find her body and proved I (we) killed her", as Gerry did. It is like saying "I've fooled all of you idiots, you are so stupid that you are never going to find out how I did it" Sorry I cannot help but having that feeling.

      Delete
    3. Hi Ziggy
      You ask me; "Do you know what never makes a mistake and has no agenda ? Evidence". Or why not the dogs Eddie and Keela in all cases, but just one (1).

      Delete
  24. Hi Ziggy, Interesting subject.
    Even Rousseau's "Confessions" are today by many researchers within the science of literary criticism analyzed as being partially fiction. Earlier literary critics used to seek as many faults and incorrect statements as possible, with regards to what could be found in more "reliable" historical documents, just in order to criticize the author.

    However many literary critics now approach, what was earlier believed to be his "memoirs", from other angles, as they are now aware of that whoever writes about his life has an intention and always wishes the reader to see things in a certain light, all books that promise to tell the truth, are no exceptions. Neither is Amaral's book, nor Kate's or any other's. There are always more or less fiction, but in Kate's "more". Still her book is important as well as many others. Her lack of feelings/emotions is one aspect among many other, that can be further analyzed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well put Bjorn, Kate's book has its' place as does Goncalo's. Those who would burn or ban books really should give the readers a little more credit.

      Delete
  25. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 28 February 2017 at 23:03 wrote:

    "Goncalo's book is a factual account of the PJ investigation between May and September 2007. It is supported by the all the statements and evidence in the official police files, including the interim statement of Tavares De Almeida. The files and GA's book are 'in sync'. "

    His conclusions are not facts.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      Exactly "Amaral's conclusions are not facts", though they are based on facts in the P J files, because a lot of assumptions and intuition are needed to reach a conclusion, so in this sense there is a little bit of fiction in his book. Just as it was for Heinrich Heine when he predicted what was going to happen, or what could happen if books were burnt. He wouldn't have been able to prove it, just as nobody can prove that it's going to happen again, if too many books are banned and if freedom of expression becomes more limited.

      Delete
    2. Chez is playing semantics Bjorn, or he is being deliberately obtuse. Goncalo wrote a factual account of his experience in the summer of 2007. His experiences are facts, they happened to him.

      Chez is claiming that GA is stating as fact, the parents killed Madeleine and hid her body. He isn't. He is writing about the investigation and the conclusion his TEAM reached based on the evidence. He doesn't claim it is a fact.

      There is a subtle but quite significant difference. Idiots like Bennett, Hall and Hyatt, claim their theories are facts. Goncalo Amaral however, is a scholar and a gentleman, and like any academic, he would never be stupid enough to claim his theory is a fact.

      Digressing slightly, I've been watching the delightful Lucy Worsley's three part series 'History's Biggest Fibs' on YouTube. A series she concludes by saying that she has no doubt another historian will come along and debunk her own theories, but she says it with a beaming smile and a sense of anticipation. No tantrums, no threats of law suits, no outrage that someone else might think differently.

      This is what separates the terminally stupid from the thinkers. Goncalo is presenting a theory, he is not claiming his theory is a fact, but based on the police investigation in the summer of 2007, it is the most likely explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. Others can, and have, put forward theories of their own, it's a level playing field.

      Delete
  26. Anonymous28 February 2017 at 22:32

    ZiggySawdust at 22:07

    ''An intensely personal account is subjective.''

    I agree.But personal diaries are all subjective.There's no need to suppose how you feel when you write in your diary-you know.Only people outside can speculate as to it's reliability.In Amaral's case, his conclusions are subjective.No arrests.

    Ros 23:03

    ''Tut, tut, tut, Goncalo's book is a factual account of...''

    Of nothing that could amount to anything strong enough to arrest anyone.

    ''And again, because I am sure you have never answered me, lol, why on earth would Goncalo Amaral and the police want to frame the parents?''

    Maybe he didn't want to.Maybe he was lazy. Maybe he was incompetent.Only his superiors could answer that as I'm sure they must have asked him before deciding to relieve him of his duties.Maybe he used the tired 'in most cases the parents are responsible' statistic and sought to fit the evidence into that.

    ''Knowingly formenting hate'. Do behave.''

    Don't patronise me.If you think his assertions that leave nobody in doubt that he thinks the parents are the culprits and, on top of that,they lied to cover up the crime isn't inciting people to turn on the them it's you who should 'behave'.

    I hope this doesn't send a chill down your spine Re Anne Frank's diaries.There's plenty more about this elsewhere by the way.

    http://nationalvanguard.org/2015/01/anne-frank-hoax-exposed/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/af1-intro-anne-frank/

      Delete
    2. You still haven't put forward one logical reason for GA to frame the parents Ziggy. Ask his superiors is wishy washy, and too lazy, is lazy on your part. I doubt there is a police department in the world who would leave a child predator on the loose so they could enjoy long lunches. Can you not see that the thinking behind that is ludicrous?

      The detectives searching for Madeleine are human beings Ziggy, they have kids and families of their own. In those early days GA and his team were working around the clock, sleeping at the office and rarely going home. They weren't going to abandon a 3 year old child just so they could wrap the case up quickly. All the time there was hope that Madeleine could be found alive, they searched. In fact the search for Madeleine was the biggest in Portugal's history.

      The chill down my spine is still there Ziggy - I have no interest in theories debunking Anne Frank, and to be honest, I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to.

      Delete
  27. Anonymous28 February 2017 at 23:36
    @18:04

    "When i cite various MSM newspapers to support anything I say, that statement will be valid."

    Deluded.

    Deluded for not allowing myself to be led by the nose by the mainstream media ? Are you serious ? You probably are, come to think of it. par for the course here..

    ReplyDelete
  28. @02:21

    Excuse me for speaking English, but where's the negative aspect to your earlier sentence?

    In the same place as the 'but' you first wrote, then overlooked in yesterday's reply to Bjorn @17:52

    Oh I know..."Don't quote me out of context".

    As I said. Deluded.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @ZiggySawdust 28 February 2017 at 18:00
    (“I don't believe i've read a word or seen a quote by the McCann camp that says they hate anyone.”)

    Kate McCann, in black and white:

    (referring to Robert Murat)
    I was possessed by some demonic alien that infiltrated my thoughts and filled me with anger and hatred. I needed a face on which to pin all this rage, someone to blame.

    (referring to Ricardo Paiva)
    ‘Fucking tosser, fucking tosser.’

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ziggy clearly has severe mental problems and readers continually goading him, are in very poor taste.

    He admits he cannot read, if he could, he would not state that the Macs have never expressed hatred for anyone.

    He would read Kates book where hatred oozes from the pages. She tells us of her months of hatred for Murat but Ziggy cannot read.

    He just says books should be burnt to keep us warm,he being the arbiter of what is allowed

    Ziggy is back to his Jew hating ways, even Anne Frank is included.

    I have offered advice before for Ziggy to seek strong medication for his severe mental illness,which is clearly getting worse.

    I believe, you Ros, must take some of the blame for this, for allowing the goading of this poor individual.

    Its like prodding a sick dog with a stick.

    How can anybody have a valid opinion of books, Kate's, Amaral's or anybody elses, if they have not read it, but all day, every day spouting lie after lie.

    Anyone spending this amount of time on your blog cannot be eating properly, lets try and get Ziggy some urgent medical care.

    Ros, we know you are a compassionate person, you should really not be feeding his mania.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Ros. Honestly, I think this is pretty accurate. It's lowered the tone of your valuable blog.

      Delete
    2. Apologies JJ, I am being a little self indulgent here, that is I enjoy reading the arguments of the far right, because it gives me an opportunity to tear them down.

      Is Ziggy mentally ill? Who knows? Scarily, in many ways he is representative of a new breed of fascism that seems to be spreading throughout the western world. Are they all mentally ill?

      I'm afraid I can't agree that I am feeding 'his mania'. Most mental problems stem from the inability to communicate. There is nothing more frustrating than not being understood, or worse, not even being listened to. Does Ziggy not have a right to an opinion because someone on social media has declared him mentally unfit?

      Ziggy is quite erudite, so clearly he can read JJ, it is just that his fixed opinions give him a very narrow view of the world. Maybe his father was a macho patriarch and the family thinking hasn't changed for a century. Sadly, he is far from alone. He speaks for many, which is why I and I'm sure, Bjorn and many of my liberal readers are grateful for the opportunity to put forward, err, let's say, more enlightened views. It bugs the hell out of me that heated discussion is forbidden in this new nightmare world.

      Ziggy raises important issues, issues that should be discussed. I personally love the book burning debate, it is one of my passions. I'm not sure the general public are fully aware that libel trials can lead to ACTUAL book burning.

      I think denying Ziggy, or indeed anyone, a voice is cruel JJ. I'm sure many of us will remember how we felt when denied the right to reply in the cesspit and on FB pages.

      I agree, the debunking of Anne Frank's diary is about as distasteful as you can get, but covering our ears won't make those arguments go away. Confronting them will. As for his anti-Semitism? Do you honestly think he got any converts?

      I'm afraid this is where I fall out with my fellow socialists (actually, everyone, lol) - I detest the PC assault on the English language, the removal of the right to offend. And I detest those whinging female Labour MPs who demand special treatment because they are women. But I don't want to go off on a destruction of language/feminist rant - yet, lol.

      Delete
    3. I agree with JJ

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda @12:39

      "I'm afraid this is where I fall out with my fellow socialists (actually, everyone, lol)"

      You are really something :) Keep up the good work! NL

      Delete
    5. john blacksmith @12:16

      You called it right regarding ZS previously:

      "He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable". (17 Feb. at 11:09)

      Delete
    6. Rosalinda @12:39

      "Ziggy is quite erudite, so clearly he can read"

      Too bad he can't write without contradicting himself.

      "it is just that his fixed opinions give him a very narrow view of the world".

      Funny, that's exactly what he thinks of others.

      "Sadly, he is far from alone. He speaks for many"

      e.g., the collection of sanctimonious 'special pleaders' like himself and to whom he previously referred everyone, at 'madeleinemythsexposed'

      Delete
    7. Re Rosalinda's blogspot 1 March 12:39 and her response to JJ;s 10:36

      I share of course your view on freedom of speech Rosalinda, and respect you for allowing those who so wish to express what they want on your blog. Freedom of speech could be discussed in its own right, so to speak, and just not in the context of the Madeleine case. That will perhaps be on another occasion?

      To J J
      As for bloggers and insinuation about what kind of mental disease he/she/they may suffer from isn't really so interesting, only what he/she/they are saying/believing. I've learnt some methods and theories in textual analysis, a kind of recognized science today, I'd say. Anyway in most such theories, the author himself has to be left out, so the text comes in focus for a serious analyze. Having said this, I'd just hope that we could therefore perhaps ignore the person Ziggy, but respect his texts and agree to or argue against what's in the text.

      Delete
    8. I do hear you JJ, JB and others, but banning people isn't my thing. I am very much with Aristotle on this one, 'it is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it'.

      Looking at the bigger picture, I am interested in human behaviour, especially with regard to anti social behaviour online. I want to understand the reasoning behind it, the ways in which social media is able to rally crowds (or mobs) and make or break celebrities or causes.

      The answer to ignorance is education. I'm very fortunate, and perhaps a little haughty, but I have the ability and the means to introduce new ideas without any preaching and tubthumping.

      I apologise to those who find Ziggy's views objectionable, but this is an uncensored blog that has found it's own level. My laissez faire attitude has worked out quite well. Discussions reach a natural conclusion or are taken over by other events. There's rarely any need to take a stand.

      Delete
    9. You might have something there with your last paragraph 14:51. Ziggy does seem to use much the same vernacular as the Myths sites and JATKY2. Words like herd, hater, though not yet harpy, lol. BB1 has been a 'suspect' or maybe a toned down Tigerloaf (or whatever), but they all use the same language, even the alleged Portuguese one, Pedro.

      His feelings are far too intense to be unrelated to the family, not necessarily through blood, but perhaps in a professional capacity (not all lawyers are bloodsuckers, some might think G&K have a very good case)not a lawyer (no legalspeak), but possibly spin, medical or a slick opportunist watching a great business going down the pan. Someone with an old fashioned education, a religious school rather than grammar. I would guess his qualifications are vocational, more technical than arts. His refusal to read certain books rules out higher education, he is not an academic.

      He is set in his ways, sometime during adolescence I would guess. That is, he has deliberately chosen to shut out information that he doesn't want to hear. It is a common complaint in men, and I guess some women, of a certain age. They pretty much want to carry on in the same way as their patriarchal fathers before them. That is, they hold the values of previous generations aloft as if our generation were somehow superior. I was there, we weren't.

      Ziggy's patronising dismissal of social media for news, such as twitter, Facebook etc, also places him in an older 'set in his ways' age bracket, and also rules out Jim. Although I am tempted to say, 'is that you Tony?', lol.

      But I don't want to scare Ziggy away. It has puzzled me for years exactly what it is that goes on in the minds of those sanctimonious trolls embedded in the Cesspit and the Myths forums. They are now virtually indistinguishable from each other. That is small groups of right wing loons who use anonymity to pass judgment on others, always while eating cyber cartons of popcorn. They are indeed the Deplorables. If Ziggy is one of them, then he must have steam coming out of his ears as he types.

      I personally want to hear the arguments of the other side. What if I am wrong? What if there is something I have missed. For me, nothing is finite, exploration shouldn't reach a certain point and then just stop.

      Ziggy hasn't said anything that has altered my opinion, but he is always free to try. Although he might want to change his tactics a little, his present ones are getting him nowhere.

      Delete
  31. Quote..

    A local crime reporter, who knows the Portuguese police intimately, said that Amaral remains very well-respected among his former brethren, several of whom appeared in Lisbon to support him.
    'He was a copper's copper. The only criticism or doubt I have heard about him is that he may not be an open-minded policeman.
    'One policeman told me that when he thinks something has happened, he excludes all other lines of inquiry.
    'And that can sometimes be a dangerous trait.'


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 1 March 2017 at 10:55

      A link please.

      T

      Delete
    2. T @11:56

      I'm not 10:55, but it's from an article by Richard Pendlebury in the Daily Mail, 25 July 2008.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038715/A-copper-shame-Maddies-detective-blames-lack-answers.html

      Another (imo more interesting) quote:

      "Amaral writes how he had wanted Madeleine's UK medical records, but they 'were not given to us because of huge difficulties raised in England.

      'They certainly would have been very important. Why were they not given to us? The British judicial system was not very co-operative in these matters, which was regrettable.'"

      Delete
  32. Ziggy

    Could you please have a look at my posts at

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/mark-williams-thomas-on-this-morning.html?showComment=1488205074477#c7705450922407552184

    and

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/mark-williams-thomas-on-this-morning.html?showComment=1488229907439#c1062076682231163557

    T

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 1 March 2017 at 12:39

    “I agree, the debunking of Anne Frank's diary is about as distasteful as you can get, but covering our ears won't make those arguments go away. Confronting them will.”

    I presume that your distaste for “the debunking of Anne Frank's diary” is grounded in your familiarity with and consideration of all “those arguments”.

    Speaking as a curious observer, is it less or more or equally as distasteful as printing, selling, buying, reading, arguing for or against Mein Kampf, Rosalinda?

    Regardless of whether or not any or all of the items listed in my above paragraph are distasteful, they appear to be facts of our time, ‘even’ in Germany. According to the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38495456

    I AM NOT inviting you or anyone else to comment on any of the above, nor do I wish to join THIS discussion, I onle have shared a thought.

    Bless you, my writer.

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous 1 March 2017 at 14:05

    “john blacksmith @12:16

    You called it right regarding ZS previously:

    "He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable". (17 Feb. at 11:09)””

    With respect.

    Not quite as “right” as you suggest: john was unnecessarily crude in his attempt to insult ‘the messenger’ whilst saying nothing about ‘the message’.

    I might’ve been wrong in interpreting (for myself) john’s words as meaning that many of Ziggy’s arguments had been void of merit, but had john posted along those lines, I would’ve agreed.

    Sarcasm is fine and is often appropriate. Attempts to insult the messenger = attempts to insult this blog and all it’s bloggers. Such attempts, before anything else, distort the tenor of any blog, this blog in particular, and that’s apart from their (such attempts’) being a logical fallacy.

    “…thicko…”. You wish. Learn to read before reading, I’ve been taught.

    Peace.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  35. ''You still haven't put forward one logical reason for GA to frame the parents Ziggy.''
    (1)
    I know I haven't.I was merely trying to answer your question.I didn't say anyone tried to frame anyone.GA ( and other coppers) are all human, as you say. IS GA the first to make a mistake ? Of course not. A lot of detectives arrest and charge the wrong culprit/s.Some cases are more high profile than others.Some wrongly accused culprits don't get their freedom back for years.Some were hanged.To state that a mistake could have been made doesn't amount to an accusation of framing.

    ''The chill down my spine is still there Ziggy - I have no interest in theories debunking Anne Frank, and to be honest, I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to.''

    In the interest of honesty.The Anne Frank diary was only an example as we were talking about 'literary works'.

    @02:21
    You're over stretching. Save the comments that are only to slight me- you're not important enough to me, personally.By all means counter what i say or argue if you prefer-that's what a blog's about. Ad Hominem arguments are the last resort of the desperate.

    JJ1 March 2017 at 10:36

    ''Ziggy clearly has severe mental problems and readers continually goading him, are in very poor taste.''

    JJ, the 'severe mental problems' song is one you sing too often for it to mean anything to anyone but yourself. By all means disagree, but try and keep it adult.

    ''He admits he cannot read''

    Actually I can read.I read ( then wrote) my way to academic qualifications you wouldn't understand.

    ''Ziggy is back to his Jew hating ways, even Anne Frank is included.''

    I attempted on another thread to address your ridiculous assertion that called me a jew hater.Who is it you say can't read ?

    ''I have offered advice before for Ziggy to seek strong medication for his severe mental illness,which is clearly getting worse.''

    Same song, different verse.Don't talk psychology to me.It would take you a lot of years to learn the bits I've forgotten.

    ''I believe, you Ros, must take some of the blame for this, for allowing the goading of this poor individual.''

    Did you miss the part where Ros made it loud and clear that she hates to ban or censor ?I'm not sure your sentence regarding the goading has worked grammatically if it was intended to slight me.

    ''Its like prodding a sick dog with a stick.''

    I'm afraid I'll have to take your word on that.It's not something I've ever felt the urge to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Self-reference @02:21

      Delete
  36. (2)

    ''How can anybody have a valid opinion of books, Kate's, Amaral's or anybody elses, if they have not read it, but all day, every day spouting lie after lie.''

    I agree.But I haven't given an opinion on the books.I stated why i haven't read them.I prefer to be objective if looking at the case.I don't think reading them helps.Both may contain truth and booth may contain a lie here or there.If I don't read them i won't have the extra confusion on top of the lack of evidence.I was saying it isn't worth much to compose a critique of writing styles of either party as one is a GP and one is a Detective.

    ''Anyone spending this amount of time on your blog cannot be eating properly, lets try and get Ziggy some urgent medical care. Ros, we know you are a compassionate person, you should really not be feeding his mania.''

    Verse three.Equally as hilarious as 1 and 2.

    john blacksmith1 March 2017 at 12:16

    ''Hello Ros. Honestly, I think this is pretty accurate. It's lowered the tone of your valuable blog''

    Thankfully brief.Great contribution, Blacksmith.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 March 2017 at 12:39

    Where do i start ? I don't think I need to address points here.
    I see a lot of posts following mine. I said a lot in my posts.I discussed burning lies and championing truth.I discussed points of law pertinent to any possible future court battle between the McCanns and Amaral and publishers and whoever else gets involved. I cited the points.All of this, under normal circumstances, and amongst well adjusted adults who have the ability to think critically and put any bias to one side, would amount to points to debate.But what actually happened(again) was a pile of personal attacks.I see 'ziggy' discussed and opinions offered about 'ziggy'.Why bother ? It's not clever and not funny. It cheapens the blog. Name calling is something we leave behind us when we go to 'big school'.It doesn't matter if it's done with well constructed sentences decorated with pseudo intellectual allusions or if it's the quick 'you're mentally ill ner ner''- it's the same thing and both are without weight or value.None of it says a thing about me, but plenty about the author/s. Bile is never attractive.Nor is it ever beneficial to anyone or anything.You all share this worrying need for catharsis.That's clear from your text.So, you may think it's me that's the problem, but clearly it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @ 'T'


    why are the two books (‘Madeleine’ and ‘The Truth of The Lie’) by two protagonist from “BOTH sides” are not on your ‘reading list’ (not to mention Dr Roberts’ extensive writings of which you seemed have been totally unaware)?

    I've said before, T, I look at what happened on May 3 2007, the details of how it was investigated, the involvement of politicians and the subsequent failure on many levels to solve or close the case. Amaral and KM, I suspect, both have their personal views in print and i doubt if either offer any support for anything the 'other side' contend.As such, having to decipher the sincerity of either author and havibg to decipher 'possible' untruths would only be a subjective opinion at best and would only muddy the waters further. Standing back and ignoring their personal accounts allows a clearer view.

    'You obviously know whose comments you are referring to.
    “You're right for a change.”
    “..for “a change” from being wrong? Care to point out the wrong/s?'

    That particular 'anonymous' has it's own pattern of thought and particular 'style' of expressing itself.The 'SOB' comment is juvenile and fails to destroy anything I contend or support it's own feelings( 'thoughts' don't matter when the tone is juvenile).As such, I can't be bothered trawling through countless 'anonymous' posts to pick it's posts out.It's easier if posts have a signature.

    ''What have your “open eyes” been seeing as you have been “looking into the case”??? ''
    You haven't let “unproven theories” stop you from believing that Madeleine was abducted and that her parents, you contend, have been totally unaware of and therefore not (knowingly) party to the conspiracy whose existence you assert? Have I understood you correctly?
    ‘Prove’ it. Would you?

    That was a tough paragraph to get through there, T. Very unlike you.I think I know what you're saying though.

    The key word is 'believe'.I once, like most, thought the McCanns were hiding something.Given the event, it suggested the obvious, 'they were either guilty of something horrible or party to it'. I only suspected it, though.When i came back to look a bit deeper into it i began to entertain other ideas.I questioned a lot of other notions that didn't have the parents involved.I used to, in conversation, offer the two 'standards' up - the sniffer dogs and the 48 questions.On top of this i heard 'rumours' here in Liverpool.Rumours are just rumours and i dismissed them.My own personal distrust of poliitcal parties and politicians was already installed in me as was my distrust of MSMs agenda. These are bedfellows. Cover ups, psyops, false flags, conspiracies etc were 'my thing'. I've delved for years. I know how to weigh up facts and fiction and facts versus opinion. My opened eyes that you picked up on 'saw' a conspiracy above and beyond the McCanns.I believe Madeleine was procured.I suspect GM suspects the same.There have been things like it happening all over the globe for a long time and this has the hallmarks.I believe it serves those who are aware of what really happened to keep the McCanns in the firing line and i believe it's why they have received so much protection from politicians and the MSM.The 'evidence' was contaminated and inconclusive.That protects the McCanns.It also protects anyone else who may have been in the apartment.It ensures nobody will have to be revealed-not just the McCanns.

    'Prove it' ?

    I can't. Nobody can prove anything.Possible exceptions to this just won't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Both KM and GA's books are integral to the discussion here Ziggy, most of us have read them, therefore it is irritating to hear you making claims about them that aren't true. Imagine yourself in a reading or discussion group where one member has not read the text under discussion and you will understand the frustration.

      In my opinion you cannot get closer to the truth than reading a first hand account, which of course is why witness statements are so valuable.

      I really don't understand how anyone can reach a logical conclusion with only half the information Ziggy. It makes no sense and it invalidates most of your arguments because you haven't got the facts.

      Delete
  38. The following might help some to alleviate their pain/s (of not knowing)..:


    “…thicko troll…”


    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/thicko

    “noun

    informal

    An unintelligent person.”


    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thicko

    “Top Definition

    Thicko

    Used in the UK to refer to someone who is stupid, idiotic, retarded etc. One who is 'thick' is a 'thicko'.”


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

    “Usage

    The advice to ignore rather than engage with a troll is sometimes phrased as "Please do not feed the trolls."

    Application of the term troll is subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. Like any pejorative term, it can be used as an ad hominem attack, suggesting a negative motivation.[6]

    As noted in an OS News article titled "Why People Troll and How to Stop Them" (25 January 2012), "The traditional definition of trolling includes intent. That is, trolls purposely disrupt forums. This definition is too narrow. Whether someone intends to disrupt a thread or not, the results are the same if they do."[7][8] Others have addressed the same issue, e.g., Claire Hardaker, in her Ph.D. thesis[8] "Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions."[9] Popular recognition of the existence (and prevalence) of non-deliberate, "accidental trolls", has been documented widely, in sources as diverse as Nicole Sullivan's keynote speech at the 2012 Fluent Conference, titled "Don't Feed the Trolls"[10] Gizmodo,[11] online opinions on the subject written by Silicon Valley executives[12] and comics.[13]

    Regardless of the circumstances, controversial posts may attract a particularly strong response from those unfamiliar with the robust dialogue found in some online, rather than physical, communities. Experienced participants in online forums know that the most effective way to discourage a troll is usually to ignore it,[citation needed] because responding tends to encourage trolls to continue disruptive posts – hence the often-seen warning: "Please do not feed the trolls".

    The "trollface" is an image occasionally used to indicate trolling in Internet culture.[14][15][16]

    At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with.[17] Such usages goes against the ordinary meaning of troll in multiple ways. Most importantly, trolls don't actually believe the controversial views they claim. Farhad Manjoo criticises this view, noting that if the person really is trolling, they are a lot more intelligent than their critics would believe.[17] “

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‘Troll’ and ‘hater’ are highly overrated words. The word 'overrated' is overused. Let's lol.

      Delete
  39. T @15:08

    On the subject of 'banning books', the NSDAP declared ‘Mein Kampf’ to be compulsory reading. The book was also an official state wedding present to newlyweds.

    From one extreme to the other.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi NL
      I read part one (the German edition), donated to our University among a lot of DDR books, by the DDR embassy in Stockholm, which closed down in 1989, just to see if I could figure out something interesting about the Führer's background and childhood and his way of thinking, but I couldn't, because his reasoning is confusing to say the least. I've also learnt that the publisher/editor had to rewrite essential parts of both the first and second part before they were published. They were simply not considered to be readable unless improved/restructured. Still a lot of what is written remains confusing and sometimes incomprehensible. When things are indeed confusing in the original language, translators will of course try to translate in a way that makes sense.
      So what I suspect is that the translations are a step towards improvement in terms of comprehensibility, which adds to the original correction made by the German publisher.

      Therefore Adolf himself may seem to be more intelligent than he really was and the message may in all different translations appear to be a little clearer than in the original one. From what I've read, taking the publishers' improvement into consideration, Hitler's message and way of thinking must have been totally confusing and blurry from the beginning, because it's still confusing and odd.

      Not knowing who the author is, I'd think that most people, who would read the original text, would believe that it was written by a person/patient really suffering from a mental disease. Yes Hitler eventually learnt that a minority had enormous influence on life in Austria, and most of them Jews, but from there to what then happened in his mind and in his life, he probably didn't understand himself. Nor his readers, I'd say.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Björn, interesting post (22:43). I think you are absolutely right.

      “When Mein Kampf was first released in 1925 it sold poorly. People had been hoping for a juicy autobiography or a behind-the-scenes story of the Beer Hall Putsch. What they got were hundreds of pages of long, hard to follow sentences and wandering paragraphs composed by a self-educated man.”

      http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/kampf.htm

      As for his mental health, I’ve always thought that inbreeding was part of the problem.

      NL

      Delete
    3. Many thanks Bjorn and NL, Mein Kampf has been on my reading list for decades, but something I keep putting off :( I think I might take a short cut and delve into the Spark Notes :)

      I have always been too much of a wuss to look too deeply into the mind of Adolph. I think I traumatised myself as an adolescent by saturating my mind with books about the holocaust. Even now as I type, my eyes fill with tears. I lived in a convent and had very limited reading material, I'm the only person I know who has read A Pilgrim's Progress, lol. Happily, I was saved by the wonderful P.G. Wodehouse, even all these years later Uncle Dynamite is my all time favourite literary character. His only desire in life, to spread sweetness and light. And, I'm sure, much nicer company than Herr Hitler!

      I'm actually seeing The Donald as a more up to date and viewer friendly version. The ludicrous hairstyle, the exaggerated (tiny) hand gestures, the clown faces, the malignant narcissism, somebody stop me! lol.

      I've totally abandoned UK Politics for the US kind, it's far more entertaining! Not knowing what the lunatic is going to say or do is spell binding. Theresa May really needs to up her game, maybe some green pancake makeup and an extension to her nose?

      Delete
  40. Anonymous1 March 2017 at 18:20 ( 'T')
    A fine post.I doubt certain parties will have the stamina to get through it all though.

    ''At times, the word can be abused to refer to anyone with controversial opinions they disagree with.Such usages goes against the ordinary meaning of troll in multiple ways.''

    'nuff said, really.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous 1 March 2017 at 19:31

    “‘Troll’ and ‘hater’ are highly overrated words. The word 'overrated' is overused. Let's lol.”

    Nice one :}


    A compound paraphrase:

    They just hate to see the “‘overrated’” go to waste
    They’re just a rockhard in a funky place
    “Let's” rock rock
    Rock rock

    Or perhaps you would rather W-H-Auden:

    Base words are uttered only by the base
    And can for such at once be understood;
    But noble platitudes - ah, there's a case
    Where the most careful scrutiny is needed
    To tell a voice that's genuinely good
    From one that's base but merely has succeeded.”
    W H Auden

    Concord.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 March 2017 at 21:33

      '' Both KM and GA's books are integral to the discussion here Ziggy, most of us have read them, therefore it is irritating to hear you making claims about them that aren't true. Imagine yourself in a reading or discussion group where one member has not read the text under discussion and you will understand the frustration.
      In my opinion you cannot get closer to the truth than reading a first hand account, which of course is why witness statements are so valuable.
      I really don't understand how anyone can reach a logical conclusion with only half the information Ziggy. It makes no sense and it invalidates most of your arguments because you haven't got the facts.''

      Why are two books integral to a thread headed 'Innocent Until Proven Guilty' ?What claims have i made about their content ? I haven't read them.I've explained why i haven't read them.All I claimed was that the waters were muddied enough and i don't wan't the accused or the defendant colouring my opinion.The ruling that states Amaral can have his book out there is important to Amaral's rights.Call me old fashioned, but i think what happened to Madeleine McCann is sightly more important.

      You and most here may well have scrutinised both books.All i see is snipes about KM's sincerity and writing style and how erudite and sympathetic Amaral is.Views held, coincidentally, by the same audience who will not hear a word of defence for the McCanns or a word against the man who failed to investigate the actual case with sufficient proficiency( it must be down to that 'broad view').And you question my not wanting the waters muddied.

      If i was in a reading or discussion group I'd read the book/s. But I'm not.The greater part of this blog is about the fate of Madeleine McCann, what could have happened, how and who could possibly be involved.Forensic evidence( or lack of) features, along with statements made by witnesses and detectives.Personal positions are stated and, for the best part, those holding them will not see an alternative position as acceptable enough to consider.Tunnel vision comes to mind( because I'm in 'polite' mode).

      Any 'conclusion' i express is stated very clearly.Because they're clearly stated doesn't mean they're correct.I don't, therefore, 'conclude', i state what i believe is the more probable scenario of May 3 2007 and state that it's an opinion I hold after looking at the events as reported and everything since( apart from MSM bullshit).

      As for my arguments being invalid because i ' haven't got the facts'- who has ?I don't claim to have facts.The case is ten years old- even the police don't have any that can be of any use. Nothing would surprise me regarding an outcome in this case.

      Delete
    2. I will never understand how more information can 'muddy the waters' Ziggy. The more information, the better.

      But it is para 2, your final sentence that caught my eye '.......but what happened to Madeleine McCannn is slightly more important' [than GA's FOS].

      'No-one' knows what happened to MM, therefore all theories are valid and discovering whether she is dead is just as important as discovering whether she is alive.

      Whilst pretending she is alive might spare the parents' feelings, it is not realistic and it certainly shouldn't have laws to support it.

      Madeleine's rights should include the right to be found and laid to rest in peace. And should include the rights of all those who loved her and reached out to her to know her fate and that justice has been done. The one sided narrative denies her and those who cared about her, all of the above.

      Delete
  42. @ T 20:23

    You just reminded me of a time when i was forced to look at Auden's stuff.I remember the feeling that used to wash over me that made me want to beat someone-anyone- up.An undoubted genius, but complex writer. I was relieved to get back to the 'Bard of 'Salford John Cooper Clarke and his 'i wanna be yours'.

    All in all it adds up to that fine state of 'The drunkenness of things being various.' (MacNeice)

    ReplyDelete
  43. "Ziggy clearly has severe mental problems and readers continually goading him, are in very poor taste.

    I have offered advice before for Ziggy to seek strong medication for his severe mental illness,which is clearly getting worse.

    Is Ziggy mentally ill? Who knows? Scarily, in many ways he is representative of a new breed of fascism that seems to be spreading throughout the western world. Are they all mentally ill?

    Ziggy is quite erudite, so clearly he can read JJ, it is just that his fixed opinions give him a very narrow view of the world.

    Maybe his father was a macho patriarch and the family thinking hasn't changed for a century." - various authors

    Oh dear. Not this blog's finest hour.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  44. Chez wrote: "His conclusions are not facts."

    Rosalinda wrote: "Chez is claiming that GA is stating as fact, the parents killed Madeleine and hid her body."

    Nope. I said nothing of the sort.

    Rosalinda wrote: "Goncalo wrote a factual account of his experience in the summer of 2007. His experiences are facts, they happened to him."

    No. GA wrote an account of his experience in the summer of 2007.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 March 2017 at 11:27

    ''Goncalo Amaral however, is a scholar and a gentleman, and like any academic, he would never be stupid enough to claim his theory is a fact. ..Goncalo is presenting a theory, he is not claiming his theory is a fact ''

    As we all know, I haven't read Amaral's book.Remind of the title again.

    Björn1 March 2017 at 10:09

    Hi Ziggy
    What I wouldn't do if I were innocent and accused of having killed my daughter is to tell journalists who don't believe me. "Find her body and proved I (we) killed her", as Gerry did. It is like saying "I've fooled all of you idiots, you are so stupid that you are never going to find out how I did it" Sorry I cannot help but having that feeling.

    I believe the McCanns warned Amaral to 'put up or shut up' before they had his book stopped in round one.He did neither. The 'feeling' you can't help is suspicion.

    Björn1 March 2017 at 16:51

    ''Hi Ziggy
    You ask me; "Do you know what never makes a mistake and has no agenda ? Evidence". Or why not the dogs Eddie and Keela in all cases, but just one (1).''

    Why was it shelved ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      The case was shelved because the McCanns wished so in 2008, supported by Gordon.
      The case was reopened because the McCanns wished so in 2011/2013, supported by David.

      Delete
    2. It's assertions like this that gets internet debate such a bad name.

      Would you like to post your evidence - not newspaper gossip - that the case was shelved because the McCanns wished it? And would you like to produce your evidence that Gordon Brown "wished it"?

      As well as being factually incorrect your second sentence makes no sense whatever. David Cameron authorised a "review" by the British police, not an "investigation" by anybody. The McCanns never asked for a new investigation at any time. The re-opening of the Portuguese investigation had nothing to do with either the McCanns or the UK, as you will discover if you look at the documents. But please post your evidence to correct me.

      Why are people making - and others failing to call out - these absurd claims on here?

      Delete
    3. Operation Grange is an investigative review.

      Delete
    4. This is an Opinion blog John, not factual, I'm not Bennett ;)

      Perhaps, strictly speaking Bjorn should have preceded his comments with 'imo', but most of us, I think, got the gist, and I remember a 'here here' in my head as I read them. Hasn't it been one of the themes of this case, that the McCanns appear to have been given everything they asked for?

      Many suspect, and not without good cause, that several UK Prime Ministers have used this case for their own political agendas. There is every likelihood that the cover up went all the way to No. 10.

      It is my opinion that when the McCanns launched their 'we want a review' campaign in the autumn of 2010, they didn't really mean it. The review they wanted was based on the report of Jim Gamble, not a friend of then Home Secretary Theresa May. She sat on it until the following May.

      At that time, David Cameron was very much in with the 'Chipping Norton set', going riding with Rebekah Brooks and suchlike. As Kate McCann launched her book in May 2011, the Sun published the parents 'desperate plea' on the front page, and lo and behold their wish was granted.

      I agree with you John, they wanted a REVIEW (based on the CEOP report), not an investigation. Tis my belief, they were double crossed. The divine RB had the massive boost in tabloid sales she desired, and then she moved on.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for your response John Blacksmith

      Have I totally misunderstood this? Didn’t Rebekah Brooks threaten, or as she preferred to phrase it at the Leveson Inquiry, persuade Theresa May to order the S Y to do a review of the case?

      Didn’t Kate together with Gerry write a letter to David Cameron, who then had a close contact with RB, both privately and at work, in which they demanded a transparent, comprehensible and independent review of the case? In doing so, did the McCanns then not understand that such a review could lead to the reopening of the Portuguese crime case, if there would be something of importance in the case (in the files), that the P J had overlooked? If their ultimate aim wasn’t to make (or pretend to make) the Portuguese Prosecutors reopen the case, what was then the point in asking Cameron to help them do a review? Just for fun? Therapy? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that the McCanns wished (or pretended to wish), that the case should be reopened, but of course on their terms.

      As for Gordon Brown, Gerry, whether he was lying or not, revealed his close contacts with him in an interview with Sandra Felgueiras in 2009. It would be very naïve to believe that the relationship on a personal level between a suspect, a victim or a witness, in a crime case in a foreign country, and his/her Prime Minister doesn’t have an unhealthy influence on a criminal investigation, which should be carried out without any political interference. Anyway, the Portuguese investigation was shelved and one important reason was the McCanns’ and their tapas 7 friends’ refusal to co-operate with the P J. At least Gerry must have had moral support from Gordon Brown.

      In short, the McCanns sabotaged the investigation, and welcomed the shelving, just as much as they welcomed the re-opening in 2011/2013 (of course, I don’t know if it’s reopened in due course), and thereafter it has been, as far as I can understand, just a random search for Madeleine on the McCanns’ own terms, just as the review or investigative review, which preceded it, had been. I personally believe that the McCanns haven’t tried to clarify anything about themselves, which was not sorted out in the first investigation, in the now on-going “Operation Grange”. Nor have they been asked any question about it in the “on-going” British-Portuguese joint-venture investigation.


      Delete
  46. Clinical records – The Public Ministry decided that the PJ should not access the clinical records of Madeleine and the twins Sean and Amélie. The prosecutor sustained that such would violate the privacy of the children and their parents, and the evidence might be considered null. For the magistrate, the request was not duly sustained, either.
    C d M paper edition

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @00:26

      Yes, I know. The McCanns said they would cooperate fully with the Portuguese police. Why would the parents (or whoever) refuse to hand over Madeleine’s (not the twins’) medical records? If the evidence might be considered null, they had nothing to fear. Why not avoid suspicion?

      Delete
    2. The magistrate refused- only the dental records were requested under the rogs.

      Were the McCanns ever asked for records??

      Delete
    3. 27 September 18, 2007

      http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic9372.html

      "Officers are also looking through Madeleine's medical records to see whether or not the missing four-year-old could have suffered an allergic reaction to sedatives.

      Since Kate and Gerry McCann were named as official suspects last week, there have been suggestions in Portugal that Madeleine was given drugs on the night of her disappearance.

      The accusations have been strenuously denied by the couple but have not been ruled out by police. Although the order to seize medical files came from the Portuguese authorities, the background searches are being carried out by Leicestershire police."

      Delete
  47. FGS review/investigation they wanted the UK police to look at the case.

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's all about blood stains and body fluids. And those who should know it ... know it.
    A forensic cleaning of an appartment is no big deal for doctors. A forensic cleaning of such an enormous amount of discrepancies, yet not to speak about that 'cloud of suspicion', is another thing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. For the record, rather than opinion, Operation Grange has not been a review since 2013. It has interviewed people in Portugal under the rogatory treaty protocol who were not involved in the original investigation - check the records. Neither rights to interview new suspects, nor the right to undertake searches in Portugal nor rogatory treaty powers were granted to the review. That is why Metodo directors could not be interviewed by the Yard duyring the review but only asked if they wished to throw light in the case by volunteering documents.

    By the way, in case you are a Bennett fake news "Remit means Remit" sufferer a UK police investigation, unlike a review, does not require a remit. Otherwise a remit would have to be agreed before the CID could investigate your granny's missing purse or a common or garden murder, wouldn't it?

    Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 1. "This is an Opinion blog John, not factual, I'm not Bennett ;)"

    2. "Perhaps, strictly speaking Bjorn should have preceded his comments with 'imo',"

    3. "It is my opinion that when the McCanns launched their 'we want a review' campaign in the autumn of 2010, they didn't really mean it."

    All in the same post! LOL (x3)

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      I suppose you quote Rosalinda here about the McCanns not really wanting a review but yet officially asking for one, which I believe is reasonable to assume.

      If the McCanns had really wished a thorough, extensive and prolonged review of the whole case and also a further investigation and if they truly believed that something had been overlooked by the Portuguese investigators, they could easily have asked the Prosecutor to reopen the case.
      They must have had a reason as to why they wanted a review. So why didn't they contact the Portuguese authorities (the Prosecutors) instead of the British authorities to say what it was.

      What did they think the S Y could do that the Portuguese PJ were not able to do? My conclusion; With a cloud of suspicion hanging over their heads,they pretended so well that they wished a review, that it happened.

      Delete
    2. Me too Bjorn. I think this was a case of 'be careful what you wish for - you might get it'.

      In the autumn of 2010, the Fund was running low and the McCanns launched a fund raising campaign. It consisted of the cringy letter setting out how the donations would be used. £10 - prayer cards, £50 - 24hr switchboard, etc, etc. They embarked on a series of TV and newspaper interviews with a Petition they hoped to get to 100,000 signatures, appealing for a Review. Something that would take years.

      However, the Review they wanted was based on the report by Jim Gamble for CEOP. It was a report that was submitted to the previous (Labour) Home Secretary and left to gather dust. Gerry and Kate discuss the report in their Autumn 2010 interviews, by which time Theresa May had taken over as Home Secretary. Theresa May also sat on the report, as Kate says, all they got from TM were 'fluffy words'. There was little love lost between TM and Jim Gamble, therefore there was little likelihood of TM going along with his recommendations.

      By the Spring of 2011, Kate was preparing to launch her guaranteed bestseller Madeleine. I think this where the divine Rebekah Brooks stepped in. Combining a book launch (together with serialisation in the Sun) with a new appeal to riding buddy David Cameron, would send sales of the Sun and it's stablemates, through the roof. I am sure that it was through gritted teeth, that the McCanns agreed to a front page appeal directly to the PM. But then again, they have never been able to resist a front page.

      DC had little option but to give the McCanns their Review, he would have appeared a complete scoundrel if he hadn't. However, whether it is was the Review they wanted, the CEOP one, is a different matter. As the McCanns were launching their new fundraiser and online petition in Oct/November 2010, Jim Gamble was having differences of opinion with Theresa May and he quit as head of CEOP on 3rd October. As we know the McCanns did not get their wish until 7/8 months later together with a whole new team of detectives who stated they were going to start from scratch.

      The McCanns were taking an incredible risk with their Petition for a review, but these are people who have taken incredible risks from the get go. I have a sneaky feeling they enjoy living on a knife's edge!

      Delete
    3. Comment to Rosalinda 3 March 09.31

      Just an attempt to shed some light on the McCanns’ bizarre close contact to the S Y/Met.

      “The McCans were taking an incredible risk with their Petition for a review but these are people who have taken incredible risks from the get go. I have a sneaky feeling they enjoy living on knife’s edge”

      In Dostojevskij’s “Crime and Punishment” Raskolnikov often seems to “enjoy living on Knife’s edge” if I may borrow your phrase Rosalinda.

      He justifies his actions in his own inner philosophical reasoning, but of course, he knows, that Porifiry Petrovich has seen through him long ago, but yet he feels a need to maintain a close contact with him, not just in order to find out if this police detective may suspect someone else or if this “Amaral” character has found new evidence, that might be used against him, but also because he has a pathological need for control and finds a kind of peculiar pleasure in challenging his opponent, even if he really shouldn’t have to do so, but still enjoys it just as much as he fears it.

      Raskolnikov completely lacks self-awareness and in his mind he’s an invulnerable “übermensch”, who lives his poor life determined to avoid justice, but Dostojevskij wouldn’t let his protagonist do so.

      Delete
    4. Another heavyweight book on my list that I keep putting off Bjorn! Raskolnikov and Gerry sound as though they have much in common!

      Both Gerry and Kate show signs of Duping Delight in their interviews, but Gerry especially.
      http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/lessons-in-duping.html There is one interview (release of age progression picture) where he can be seen fighting off the giggles. Neither of them are able to control their micro expressions, Kate sneers, Gerry's face says 'I'm laughing at you, you mugs'. They are unable to hide the malevolent feelings that lurk beneath the surface.

      The game playing is, I believe, all part of the folie a deux (madness shared by two), it's just bizarre that they have drawn so many into it. In the Expresso interview, just after they were released from Arguido status (and the police were no longer looking for their child)- they are positively jubilant. They have beaten Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, they are the victors.

      Gerry and Kate are ferociously competitive, they are finishers said Kate. But their battle is not to find their daughter, it is to beat Goncalo Amaral. There is no longer any pretence that the money left in Madeleine's Fund is going to be used to search for her, it is all going towards another pointless legal battle that they haven't a hope in hell of winning. If all their funds go on the civil case, how will they defend themselves should criminal or extradition lawyers be required? Or is it something they won't ever have to worry about?

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 3 March 2017 at 19:00

      “…Raskolnikov and Gerry sound as though they have much in common!”

      Perhaps not quite, Rosalinda. The question that tormented Raskolnikov was ‘If there is no God, then everything is allowed?…’ I shouldn’t think our Gerald ever has lost sleep over anything as ‘simple’ as that. PROFESSOR is he, not some down and out…

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    6. Hi T
      What Raskolnikov believed before he met Sonya was that it would be possible to live a life without a soul, that his crime wasn't really a crime if he could just live his life by his own rules and stay away from justice. Anyone can physically live denying guilt in a crime but will mentally be eaten, tortured and destroyed by his/her own lies and dishonesty When Raskolnikov became aware of that thanks to Sonya he went to Petrovich and confessed. If Gerry and Kate are implicated in the disappearance of their daughter, someone must make them confess so that they can live their lives as human beings.

      Delete
    7. Rosalinda writes
      "In the Expresso interview, just after they were released from Arguido status (and the police were no longer looking for their child)- they are positively jubilant. They have beaten Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, they are the victors"

      Yes, that interview is so revealing. Everybody should read it. Anyone who has done that must have understood how desperately they must have fought, with support from the British authorities, in order to close/shelve the investigation. They were relieved and happy. There's no doubt about that. So I still maintain, with at least a little help from Gordon, although John Blacksmith may argue that I haven't any evidence.

      Delete
  51. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/75july13/Metropolitan_04_07_2013.htm



    ReplyDelete
  52. 'I will never understand how more information can 'muddy the waters' Ziggy. The more information, the better. ''

    Then I'll tell you. Each book (KM, Amaral) is an 'account' of May 3 2007.Amaral is sure that the parents are not innocent and that's the thrust of his book.KM has written a personal diary of the event and how they felt, what they thought and how they felt after it.The camps are in opposition and both are convinced the other is lying.Neither should be considered 'information' of any value to an investigation into an abduction, murder, or both. KM has her suspicions, theories and fears.Amaral has his suspicions and no physical evidence to support it.It's better to separate their accounts from an ongoing investigation.

    ''No-one' knows what happened to MM, therefore all theories are valid''

    You said mine weren't.Is my defence of the parents and my pointing to a failed investigation anything to do with that ?

    ''Whilst pretending she is alive might spare the parents' feelings, it is not realistic and it certainly shouldn't have laws to support it. ''

    Can you prove who is pretending ? Name anyone ? Until evidence tells a different story, she is alive, even if it's only in theory.I doubt she was alive much later than May 3, personally.But, as I've said before, If she was my daughter I'd still tell myself she was out there somewhere.It's denial.It isn't really logical but it's self -preservation.You should allow the parents hope under the circumstances.

    ''should include the rights of all those who loved her and reached out to her to know her fate''

    Like her extended family and the friends of the McCanns who continue to support them with what you consider bad advice.

    ''The one sided narrative denies her and those who cared about her, all of the above. ''

    Yet you insist we all should read the one sided narrative of Amaral and KM.

    ''It is my opinion that when the McCanns launched their 'we want a review' campaign in the autumn of 2010, they didn't really mean it''

    Gerry McCann , more than once, has requested a review because the lack of progress has angered him.He wrote( or Mitchell wrote in his name) to Cameron.He had a rant on camera.Both odd incidents if he or his wife are guilty.How did you arrive at your opinion that 'they didn't really mean it' ?

    Re - medical records and sedatives.

    Even if the children had been sedated, no evidence would exist on record as they were all infants.No GP writes a prescription for sedatives for infants.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Bowie man,
      Ziggy has died, together with his creator. So has Madeleine McCann, thanks to her creators ?

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust at 17:34

      "Self prescribing is legal in the United Kingdom: registered and licensed doctors can have access to any prescription drug and can purchase private prescriptions from pharmacies."

      http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20006142

      Delete
  53. While the so-called UK media tumble over each other with non-news about Kate McCann as missing people choir errm ... ambassador, Gerry McCann as savior of UK’s heart patients and Madeleine McCann as the pitiful victim of abduction-by-neglect, the PJ as well as OG remain 'death silent'. Period?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous2 March 2017 at 17:58

    ''Dear Bowie man,
    Ziggy has died, together with his creator. So has Madeleine McCann, thanks to her creators ?''

    It's a stretch, anon.
    If you mean her fate could have been avoided by employing the services of a nanny, i suppose you could argue that the McCanns could have prevented it but failed to.If you're suggesting they actually killer her, I'd suggest it wasn't exactly Jack The Ripper or Son Of Sam territory that night.But, somehow, It's turned out as much of a mystery.Somebody dropped the ball. Or was it kicked into orbit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry? Killed? Death-by-neglect, maybe?

      Delete
  55. Björn2 March 2017 at 09:02

    ''Hi Ziggy
    The case was shelved because the McCanns wished so in 2008, supported by Gordon.
    The case was reopened because the McCanns wished so in 2011/2013, supported by David.''

    Bjorn, I think you have an unrealistic view of what exactly the McCanns had the power to do. There were Portuguese detectives on the case after half an hour.Their leader (Amaral) was replaced by some other detective with 'a background' in similar cases. Scotland Yard were brought in. Forensic teams were brought in. But, alas, today we are are in the exact same place as we were ten years ago. Why we're here isn't clear.We can call Amaral and Co morons.We can call his replacement, 'the yard' and the forensic team the same thing.We can question the interference and unprecedented political 'interest' shown by politicians.But, it's a tall order to expect people to accept a scenario that has the McCanns voicing wishes to all of the above in their investigation.Even before they were suspects can you really imagine them dictating to investigators' well, we'd rather you got rid of any evidence that has our fingerprints or DNA on it thank you very much' or 'look, it's 2008 now, shelve the case please' then, in 2011 ' can you reopen the case please as we need some PR to show us as victims and the police as negligent'.

    How realistic is it.Really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:50

      "There were Portuguese detectives on the case after half an hour."

      Wrong again.

      10.00 p.m. Kate McCann raises the alarm.

      10:40 p.m. First call to the (not detectives) GNR.

      You do the math.

      Delete
    2. When the Leics police met the Mccanns on Sat 5 May at 20:00 they did not have the authority to do so and were breaking both UK and Portuguese Law.

      In this meeting according to the British Police Officers Kate and Gerry gave them questions that the Macs wanted following up and answered by the PJ.
      Kate and Gerry also wanted to know from the British police officers had anybody mentioned drugs as playing a role in said 'abduction'

      So within 48 hours the Mccanns or their handlers were giving their orders with no regard whatsoever to the authority of Amaral or the PJ

      If Mr Ziggy, you were not bullshitting the other day when you informed us all Interpol were not informed of said abduction for 5 days, you have a gone a long long way to solving the mystery of Madeleine McCann.
      I hope you can prove your allegation.

      Delete
    3. JJ @20:27

      "If Mr Ziggy, you were not bullshitting the other day when you informed us all Interpol were not informed of said abduction for 5 days..."

      He was. Interpol London contacted Portugal 4.5.07 (see another's post up-thread 28.2 @06:43).

      Btw. do you have a link re that Leicestershire Police observation that Home Office signed off permission to despatch FLOs under section 26? (I asked previously under an earlier topic but you must have missed it)

      Delete
    4. "JJ2 March 2017 at 20:27

      When the Leics police met the Mccanns on Sat 5 May at 20:00 they did not have the authority to do so and were breaking both UK and Portuguese Law."

      You have repeated that numerous times on Ros's blog - isn't it time you proved your allegation?

      Delete
    5. @21:47

      No doubt JJ can and will answer for himself, but perhaps you would care to consider the following meanwhile:

      A letter was addressed to Chiefs of Police, on behalf of the Home Office, ACPO, and the Association of Police Authorities, dated May 2006.

      Its purpose was to remind them of ‘the procedure to be followed when police officers are deployed to provide assistance overseas.’ It included the following observations:

      “Application for the Home Secretary’s authorisation is not a bureaucratic formality and his consent should not be regarded as a foregone conclusion.”

      And

      “It follows from the above that forces should not initiate....requests for assistance from overseas agencies”

      Perfectly clear wouldn't you say?

      How then to explain this (2009) observation by the NPIA:

      “There has only been one other case reported to the debrief team where, as in Operation Task, the pressure for assistance has come from the UK rather than from the country concerned.”

      The pressure originated with the FCO perhaps?

      Nope. Courtesy of the NPIA once more:

      “It is unknown whether the Portuguese authorities would have requested assistance if Leicestershire Constabulary had not offered to deploy resources to Portugal."

      Now then...

      "When assistance is agreed, the Secretary of State issues a Section 26 authorisation as discussed in Section 2. At this point the terms of reference for the deployment, its length, the resource requirements and how costs are to be met, will be clear."

      Not only will they be clear, they'll have been set out in a proforma application, which has first to be considered before permission can be given - in writing.

      So how long was Madeleine expected to be missing?

      According to the NPIA:

      “The McCanns live in the Leicestershire Constabulary area and on Friday, 4 May the force deployed Family Liaison Officer (FLO) resources to Portugal to provide support to the McCanns and to act as a link to the Portuguese investigation.”

      They actually touched down in PdL on the Saturday (5 May), suggesting that all of the necessary bureaucratic appraisal had been completed only hours after the Leicester commanders had first heard about the incident via the media that morning, so it is said (On arrival at the station - Put the kettle on. Watch TV).

      Constabularies can proceed with overseas deployment provided they are in receipt of an assurance that written permission under Section 26 WILL be forthcoming, but that still presupposes an adequate case has been constructed, submitted, vetted and already approved by the Home Office.

      Are we to suppose that all parties concerned in this instance acted with the most extreme urgency imaginable because a little girl was missing from her bed somewhere? Or indeed that they did exactly as required by international law, and as explained, by letter, to the Chiefs of Police exactly a year earlier?

      I'll leave it to JJ at this point.

      Delete
    6. FLO's can be deployed in advance in the UK. However FLO's cannot be deployed abroad but a CC may at his own discretion and payment of all costs, deploy officers on a case by case basis, once the following criteria have been complied with in their ENTIRETY.

      Risk assessments must be undertaken before deployment regarding the officers health, welfare
      ,endangerment and mental stability.

      FLO's must be deployed in pairs.

      Before deploying FLO's the CC must obtain in writing authority from ACPO.

      The police adviser to the FCO must be consulted.

      Interpol London must be informed.

      The FLO's must be requested formally by the foreign country.

      The FLO's must undergo a evaluation meeting with the force occupational health unit, before departure, regarding physical and mental health issues.

      These evaluations must be signed off in writing before departure.

      Section 26's must be signed off by the Home Secretary.

      There should be a meeting with FCO press department and host country in order to agree a media strategy.

      Once overseas, FLO's must first meet with local police, to agree investigation strategy.

      Note to FLO's, you have no power or authority to question witnesses or local police officers.

      Failure to follow any of the above can leave you liable to criminal charges.

      source NPIA

      Delete
  56. "No-one knows what happened to MM, therefore all theories are valid."

    Nope.

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one? The abductor maybe?

      Delete
    2. 'Nope' refers to 'therefore all theories are valid'

      Delete
    3. I believe Madeleine was abducted by aliens - teleported out of 5A to a waiting UFO not visible from the Tapas restaurant.

      There is no evidence that this did not happen (the Americans won't release their satellite images of the spacecraft for fear it would frighten too many people to death)

      Delete
  57. OK, I’ll bite, and at some length. Just this once.I will not pick a zigzag post for my own purposes but take the first one available.

    “Each book (KM, Amaral) is an 'account' of May 3 2007.”

    Madeleine devotes 13 pages out of 252 to May 3 2007= 5%. False.

    “Neither should be considered 'information' of any value to an investigation into an abduction, murder, or both. KM has her suspicions, theories and fears. Amaral has his suspicions and no physical evidence to support it. It's better to separate their accounts from an ongoing investigation.”

    False. Textual analysis has a strong role to play in such cases. Why do you think police take statements?
    Textual analysis has demonstrated that KM’s diary is not a diary and was written retrospectively. A definition of a diary is “a book in which one keeps a daily record of events and experiences.”

    “KM has her suspicions, theories and fears.”

    You mean she says she does. You are taking her word for it? But she admits, even in the book, that she is a liar about the case. The lies are there, the admission of lying is there so she has no veracity. So why are you accepting her word without corroboration?

    The drivers of “suspicions” about the McCanns were other officers on the case, not Amaral. A presumption that the McCanns were “not innocent”did not precede their investigation; the reasons why they did not believe the McCann version of events, judged on what they observed and heard, can be easily found in their police statements. Have you looked?

    Amaral wasn’t even there on May 3, by which time the officers on the scene had already decided that the McCanns were, literally, unbelievable.

    “But, as I've said before, If she was my daughter I'd still tell myself she was out there somewhere.It's denial.It isn't really logical but it's self -preservation.”

    Carry on trolling. It is a long established fact (look it up) that nobody knows how they will react to personal loss, terror or tragedy. That's why people drop dead with shock, chum. So how could you know? I mean it: how do you know how you would feel?

    Continued.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Two.

    “Until evidence tells a different story, she is alive, even if it's only in theory.”

    This time we have falsehood plus gibberish. How can one be alive only in theory, zigger? Unless we bring in Professor Shrodinger.

    “Gerry McCann , more than once, has requested a review because the lack of progress has angered him.”

    Really? How would you know if he was angered or not? The question of motivation for the “demands” is a very live one. Try looking it up.

    Kate McCann also claimed in her book that they wanted a review because “at this time” [2010/2011] nobody was currently looking for Madeleine. False, of course. Check the record of the libel hearings and the PJ officer’s evidence about how inquiries have been being followed up at all times since 2007.

    But you’re a bit light on evidence from the courts - real evidence - rather than imagination, aren’t you? For some reason you never quote it. I wonder why.

    Perhaps it's because you genuinely can’t distinguish between fact and fiction. You were unable to understand the evidence as it unfolded, which is why you never quote it, and you are unable to comprehend it now.That is why you are on the losing side of the McCann – Amaral case that is now c-o-n-c-l-u-d-e-d. Over. Finished. Done.

    All, of course, just my opinion. And it’s opinions that count, isn’t it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John Blacksmith @19:54/59

      Thank you.

      I'm reminded of the anecdote about giving chimpanzees typewriters and time in which to re-draft the complete works of Shakespeare.

      At the end of the day they're still just chimps, and not so much as a Sonnet in sight.

      If you're lucky you'll be treated to an answer from ZS, although it probably won't correspond to any of the questions you raise.

      Delete
  59. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/03/02/how-researchers-tried-to-understand-one-of-twitters-oldest-trolling-groups/?postshare=6431488478372073&tid=ss_tw-bottom&utm_term=.88e97dc539f4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous2 March 2017 at 19:47

      ''Sorry? Killed? Death-by-neglect, maybe?''

      Neglect can only be a contributory factor in an actual cause of death.Leaving your children vulnerable ( no adult supervision) is closer to reckless endangerment.I don't think I've seen that term used in many places regarding the McCann case.It surprises me, because it has more dangerous connotations and could work well for so many McCann haters.The usual context for child neglect is one that has been allowed to exist for a longer period than just one night.

      Killed ? There was no body there.If you mean killed then hidden, the correct term is murdered.Killing by accident can be called manslaughter but concealing the body elevates it to murder as it can be argued that it was no accident and any deliberate attempts to hide the body are suggestive of deliberate murder.

      Delete
    2. THERE WAS NO NEGLECT !!!!!

      Delete
  60. Anonymous2 March 2017 at 18:28

    ZiggySawdust at 17:34
    "Self prescribing is legal in the United Kingdom: registered and licensed doctors can have access to any prescription drug and can purchase private prescriptions from pharmacies."

    http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/view-article.html?id=20006142

    I stand corrected. Thanks anon.

    I remember back when i was suspicious of the McCanns that, apart from the 'big 2'( dogs..48 questions yada yada) I was shocked to read that the twins had(allegedly) remained asleep as more than 20 people moved around the cramped apartment people shouting and crying out etc.There's 'good sleepers' and there's unconscious.As they are both doctors i too added the 2+2. Surely at least one detective wold have noted that.One child abducted, 2 others out of the game ?I don't know why the police didn't have the twins examined for possible 'interference' if they believed A- Madeleine had been abducted or B- she had been murdered.As the twins were sleeping throughout that commotion, it would be natural for the police to consider that they had been doped.To eliminate that, an examination would have been a normal consideration and, as such, bring relief to the parents.It doesn't have to be a drug-it could be chloroform, a long -favoured tool in the box of any kidnapper or rapist.Why wasn't any of it undertaken ?A crucial move i would suggest. Didn't KM say that she thought the twins had been sedated early on or did i read that on a blag blog ? If they had medicated the kids, surely she wouldn't risk a bluff that big. She would have been, potentially, sticking her head on a chopping block considering Amaral was already writing all kinds of possible scenrios in his head.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So why weren't the twins and the indeed the other tapas children, tested for drugs? With that you could also include, why weren't the clothes collected? That is, the clothes Madeleine had worn that day, along with the bead she had in her hair? How about the clothes the parents were wearing and those of their friends? One witness specifically mentions seeing a man wearing beige trousers with buttons carrying a child. Admittedly several weeks later, but what they were wearing on the night would have been invaluable to forensics.

      Could it be that by the morning of the 4th May, the Portuguese police were being pressured by the British Government to treat the parents with kid gloves?

      If the McCanns suspected the twins had been drugged, and clearly they did, Fiona Payne in her statement says Kate kept checking their breathing, why did they not insist on getting them to hospital? No-one knows their babies better than a mother, it's not a random policeman's call. Had Kate stated she was worried, I am sure an ambulance would have been called.

      Consider for one minute, the position of the police Ziggy. When they arrived at the scene, there was chaos, the apartment was full of people and the parents were hysterical. Have you read the police statements?

      There would of course be a natural inclination on the part of the police to be sympathetic to the parents. They can't just turn up at a crime scene and slap handcuffs on them because statistics show they are the most likely suspects. It is a situation that has to be handled with compassion, diplomacy and tact.

      For example, when the family of Tia Sharpe went missing, the police didn't turn up at the family home with forensics and cadaver dogs.

      When a child disappears hardly anyone thinks 'stranger abduction' because it hardly ever happens. In 99.9% of cases, there is another explanation. It is not unreasonable therefore, that the apartment wasn't immediately declared a crime scene. The McCanns insistence that it was a stranger abduction, was one of the first red flags. Victims of crime rarely know who done it and how and why they did it, before the police arrive. It was an abductor, through the window, who specially wanted a 3 year old girl - now go put up road blocks and close the borders.

      Some might say, the McCanns took charge of the investigation. They were certainly going all out to establish Madeleine was abducted and taking the search worldwide, rather than in the area she disappeared from. And kudos, abduction worked well, it is only in recent years that the MSM have said 'vanished' rather than abducted.

      As for your final dig at Goncalo Amaral, 'writing all kinds of possible scenarios in his head' - lol, he's a detective, that's his job!

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy
      I think Kate suggested that the twins should be examined, in order to find out if they had been drugged/sedated. But if I'm not mistaken, she did that days later, I think a week or more, when there wouldn't have been any substances left in the kids. What makes me suspicious is, however, that neither she and Gerry nor any of their tapas doctors did worry at all about the health of the McCanns twins, who as you say didn't wake up. Common sense tells me that someone ought to have worried and called for a doctor, as they could not possibly have brought all necessary medical equipment to PDL.

      Delete
  61. Blacksmith

    ''False. Textual analysis has a strong role to play in such cases. Why do you think police take statements? ''

    The conclusions of a textual analysis is subjective.Ask anyone who has analysed a literary work how many 'schools' they have available to use in an analysis. Two people can come to an identical text blind and conclude different things.Books are also proof read and edited if they are going to be published by anyone but yourself( it's business). Statements are not texts-they're vocal.They are only recorded in text by the police.

    ''A definition of a diary is “a book in which one keeps a daily record of events and experiences.”

    Yes , retrospectively.I don't think she could have began a diary from May 02 in anticipation of Madeleine being abducted.It is a personal account of her take on the night and it has to be written retrospectively.If she wants it as 'a record for the twins' it is a diary in all but name.It can't be categorised under 'fiction'.It may have been therapeutic for her too- who can say ?But it is still her personal views and feelings and thoughts recorded.

    ''You mean she says she does. You are taking her word for it? ''

    If you, or someone close to you, had their child abducted it would be only natural to have suspicions and fears-realistic or not.Why not take her word for it ? You can only suggest she's lying if you know for a fact( that can be backed up) that she is actually behind Madeleine's fate.

    ''So why are you accepting her word without corroboration?''

    Who can corroborate someone elses thoughts or feelings ?

    ''You are taking her word for it? But she admits, even in the book, that she is a liar about the case''

    There's a red flag bigger than PDL itself that the police have missed-yes ?

    ''The drivers of “suspicions” about the McCanns were other officers on the case, not Amaral.''

    Who wrote 'the truth of the lie' ?

    ''Have you looked? ''

    You mean things like KM was sat on a bed but not in floods of tears or hysterical or GM was pretending to cry but shed no tears ? Do you know what it's like to be paralysed by shock or fear ?

    ''the officers on the scene had already decided that the McCanns were, literally, unbelievable. ''

    I can believe that.But any copper knows 'i just don't believe them' is a reason to turn into a dog with a bone to nail the suspects-what happened ?

    ''Carry on trolling''

    A textual analysis of that statement suggest the author suffers from paranoia and is susceptible to random tantrums.

    ''It is a long established fact (look it up) that nobody knows how they will react to personal loss, terror or tragedy. That's why people drop dead with shock, chum. So how could you know? I mean it: how do you know how you would feel? ''

    ( see above 'chum')

    '' How can one be alive only in theory''

    She hasn't been officially declared dead, nor is there any evidence that she's alive.

    ''Really? How would you know if he was angered or not?''

    His voice was raised, he spoke fast and said he was frustrated- all clues.

    ''But you’re a bit light on evidence from the courts - real evidence - rather than imagination, aren’t you? For some reason you never quote it. I wonder why. ''

    I often quote.But, as i'm discussing my views of both sides, i have little need to.

    ''Perhaps it's because you genuinely can’t distinguish between fact and fiction''

    Ahh, dear old 'smithy' but i can.It's one of many talents i have.And that's not just the opinion of my good self.If only all those coppers could...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:06

      "You are taking her word for it? But she admits, even in the book, that she is a liar about the case"

      "There's a red flag bigger than PDL itself that the police have missed-yes?"

      It's a reddish dust cover actually:

      "We’d never lied about anything – not to the police, not to the media, not to anyone else. But now we found ourselves in one of those tricky situations where we just didn’t seem to have a choice." (Kate McCann in 'madeleine')

      "Who wrote 'the truth of the lie'?

      "Have you looked?"

      "You mean things like KM was sat on a bed but not in floods of tears or hysterical or GM was pretending to cry but shed no tears?"

      Is that paraphrasing the book you haven't read?

      "She hasn't been officially declared dead, nor is there any evidence that she's alive."

      Tell that to the parents, both of whom seem pretty sure about the situation.

      Kate McCann (to Sara Antunes de Oliveira, SIC, 9 March, 2010):

      "We're not going to sit here and lie...and say she's one hundred per cent alive." (<100% alive = 'dead' btw.)

      Gerry McCann (to Nicky Campbell, Radio Five Live Breakfast, 1.5.08):

      "What evidence does anyone have to suggest that Madeleine is dead? Because we know of no evidence to suggest otherwise."

      "Perhaps it's because you genuinely can’t distinguish between fact and fiction"

      "Ahh, dear old 'smithy' but i can.It's one of many talents i have.And that's not just the opinion of my good self."

      BGT beckons another chocolate soldier to its ranks. I can't wait ('My good self' indeed).



      Delete
  62. JJ2 March 2017 at 20:27

    ''If Mr Ziggy, you were not bullshitting the other day when you informed us all Interpol were not informed of said abduction for 5 days, you have a gone a long long way to solving the mystery of Madeleine McCann.''

    Shucks..thanks. you're welcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:23

      Ah but you were, weren't you (bullshitting that is).

      Rounding up to the nearest whole number, how many days had elapsed between 3 May when Madeleine disappeared and 4 May, when Interpol London contacted Portugal following report of a possible abduction? (Hint: it's an integer no greater than 1)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 2 March 2017 at 23:09

      “@21:23”

      Typo: 21:13

      “Rounding up to the nearest whole number, how many days had elapsed between 3 May when Madeleine disappeared and 4 May, when Interpol London contacted Portugal following report of a possible abduction? (Hint: it's an integer no greater than 1)”

      1?

      Corrrrect.

      T

      Delete
  63. Anonymous2 March 2017 at 21:03
    John Blacksmith @19:54/59

    ''Thank you.
    I'm reminded of the anecdote about giving chimpanzees typewriters and time in which to re-draft the complete works of Shakespeare.
    At the end of the day they're still just chimps, and not so much as a Sonnet in sight.
    If you're lucky you'll be treated to an answer from ZS, although it probably won't correspond to any of the questions you raise.''

    And what a fine( and inappropriate) anecdote that is.I could join the whimsical debate and send Darwin into the fray to fight my corner against you big bad bullies.I believe it was once suggested that if one was to give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, then he would eventually be able to produce ( not re-draft) the complete works of Shakespeare. Well - it happened. Apes evolved over quite a long period of time(no infinity needed) and the great bard happened in Stratford-upon-Avon.Bingo.But kudos at the fine attempt.Give yourself a banana-you earned it.

    ''If you're lucky you'll be treated to an answer from ZS, although it probably won't correspond to any of the questions you raise''

    You're playing a blinder aren't you. See above.

    On a brighter note, i see I'm now 'ZS'. I have official initials now . I've made it.

    (ZS)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      Honestly, I do appreciate your sense of humour Ziggy and it's not a ironic remark by me.

      Delete
  64. You are kidding, ziggurat, aren't you? That was a response?

    I will make only two points. Textual analysis in this context is nothing to do with literary criticism, you ignoramus. Statements, which are always written down, are then analysed to see where the facts or the lies or deceptions are. There is no subjectivity involved. Ditto for any other available material written by suspects.

    And you were unaware, were you, of the admission of lying to deceive the public in Madeleine, as well as the lies themselves?

    It is now firmly established that the McCanns have lied repeatedly about the disappearance and its aftermath. Established in both the libel trial in 2009/10 with examples in the court record and in the 2013 libel hearings, with examples in the court record. These findings are now matters of fact, not opinion, and can be quoted without fear of libel as proven facts about the couple in any future proceedings, whether civil or criminal.

    That's why, as the first of what may be a series of consequences, the McCanns are having four hundred thousand euros forcibly taken from them. And that is why those elements of the alleged abduction which are based on unsupported and uncorroborated statements by the couple - i.e. all of them - cannot be accepted by either investigators or courts in the way they could for those who are not proven liars. Or don't you get that?

    Ignoring these facts and their implications for the future and replacing them with rambling conjecture is leading you, like others, deeper and deeper into self-deception.

    That's absolutely fine with me: the greater the number of McCann supporters whose belief systems, such as they are, go down with the sinking McCann ship, the happier I am. That's the psychological price that credulous suckers pay.

    Bye-bye zig.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @00:34

      Re: your first paragraph.

      Absolutely.

      I've mentioned it previously elsewhere, but a more startling example one could not wish for than that of an observant rookie homicide detective in the USA, who spotted just two 'out of place' words in an entire witness statement ('all', when there were supposedly only two present, and 'immediately', describing how an individual claimed to have gone to bed on returning home in the early evening).

      His insight led directly to further scrutiny of two overlooked individuals, who turned out to be the culprits.

      'God is in the details' alright. Of course 'Sawdust' should know that already, being nearer to Him than many, apparently.

      Delete
  65. I didn't see this one..

    ''You might have something there with your last paragraph 14:51. Ziggy does seem to use much the same vernacular as the Myths sites and JATKY2. Words like herd, hater, though not yet harpy, lol. BB1 has been a 'suspect' or maybe a toned down Tigerloaf (or whatever), but they all use the same language, even the alleged Portuguese one, Pedro. ''

    I thought your 'regulars' had the monopoly on paranoia. I had you down as just narrow minded.My bad.

    ''His feelings are far too intense to be unrelated to the family, not necessarily through blood, but perhaps in a professional capacity''

    This is a fine example of a' people watcher with literary leanings' playing Psychologist.I told you( and your puppies) on the get ziggy blog, I have no personal interest in this case or relationship with the family.Take it or leave it.You're embarrassing yourself with your flailing in the wind.

    ''Someone with an old fashioned education, a religious school rather than grammar. I would guess his qualifications are vocational, more technical than arts. His refusal to read certain books rules out higher education, he is not an academic. ''

    I studied Theology but abandoned it for practical reasons at a higher level.But it taught me to abandon Religion. I have a BA and Masters.Close.

    ''He is set in his ways, sometime during adolescence I would guess''

    I grew up a bit wild.Even after adolescence i was too free a spirit.I got involved in things i shouldn't have and with some bad people.When i became a Dad, it stopped.I went in a new direction. I've entertained every idea i could.I've looked at many philosophies(including new age and satanism) just to understand why people are how they are.I did the same with Psychology.Your insinuation of some kind of arrested development is a mile off.I'm moving all the time.

    ''Although I am tempted to say, 'is that you Tony?', lol. ''

    You mean 'Tony the McCann hater from the cesspit' who wont hear any alternative to the McCanns guilty verdict as seen all over 'social media' ?I'm not his echo-are you ?

    ''But I don't want to scare Ziggy away. It has puzzled me for years exactly what it is that goes on in the minds of those sanctimonious trolls..''

    I don't scare easily.I arrive and leave anywhere when i choose.I hope you can support your 'sanctimonious' assertion as well as 'troll'. If you think a 'troll' is someone who merely disagrees with your unfounded allegations and isn't worthy of anything but personal digs and weak attempts to insult him, that's sanctimonious as well as ignorant.

    '' If Ziggy is one of them, then he must have steam coming out of his ears as he types. ''

    Not even close.The only negativity that flows through me on this blog is despair of the BS that has become the norm.

    ''Ziggy hasn't said anything that has altered my opinion, but he is always free to try. Although he might want to change his tactics a little, his present ones are getting him nowhere.''

    The gauntlet was carried away by the wind.If a Portuguese bus driver confessed to the murder of Madeleine tomorrow and took us to the grave, you and Bennett would probably ask questions about how much the McCanns paid him from the fund.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The gauntlet was carried away by the wind.If a Portuguese bus driver confessed to the murder of Madeleine tomorrow and took us to the grave, you and Bennett would probably ask questions about how much the McCanns paid him from the fund."

      Never a truer word. The conspiraloons will continue with their wild theories forever.

      Mind when the likes of Amaral talks about old ladies, coffins, cremation and dark forces what can you expect!

      Delete
    2. "I studied Theology but abandoned it for practical reasons at a higher level"

      No doubt when St. Peter handed you that message from God about sex and travel.

      "The only negativity that flows through me on this blog is despair of the BS that has become the norm."

      Just a few of your own 'prime cuts' then:

      Madeleine was abducted from her COT.

      The McCanns NEVER changed their statements.

      The McCanns have been ‘cleared’.

      There were Portuguese detectives on the case after half an hour.

      Thank you for the banana. Keep trying with the typewriter. You've a way to go yet before you arrive at Shakespeare, Auden or, dare I say it, legibility.

      Delete
    3. @09:32

      "The conspiraloons will continue with their wild theories forever."

      Compare and contrast:

      "i state what i believe is the more probable scenario of May 3 2007 and state that it's an opinion I hold after looking at the events as reported and everything since..." (ZS 1.3 @22:17)

      "I believe Madeleine was procured." (ZS, 1.3 @18:11)

      "I doubt she was alive much later than May 3, personally" (ZS 2.3 @17:34)

      Obviously the procurers didn't get their contract renewed.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 3 March 2017 at 11:38

      Gosh, you make me laugh! More please!

      :)

      T

      Delete
    5. exactly anon 11.38 !!

      And we have not even mentioned blood and cadaver odour, chez and ziggy will bust a bloodvessel if we do.
      There was NO NEGLECT...hence NO ABDUCTION. all the theorizing above re bus driver confesses is merely distraction and diversion by ziggy.

      I fear ziggy is tirig now and will not have the endurance of chez on this blog.

      Delete
  66. There is a widespread misconception among the public, media and many Police Officers, that the Police have the authority to operate outside the UK.

    This is not correct.

    Police Officers travelling abroad do so at the invitation and with the permission of the requesting nation and the Secretary of State.

    They do not hold any additional power.

    Police Officers have no jurisdiction overseas.

    No Officer can attend another state without prior permission and in certain circumstances could find themselves breaking the law and liable to arrest.

    source NPIA strategic debrief operation task section 2 page 9

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ @09:33

      With you all the way.

      It might be worth adding that John Buck had no business in PdL either. His role as a diplomat was to interface with reps. of the host government, not attend to the well-being of UK citizens abroad - that's one for the Consulate, and VC Bill Henderson was there before him.

      So why endure the 3-hour drive from Lisbon? (a rhetorical question that - he was no doubt instructed to).

      (P.S. Have you that link I asked for re Leicestershire Police stating the section 26 approval was signed?)

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 March 2017 at 11:14

      “JJ @09:33

      With you all the way.”

      Likewise.

      I concur with the rest of your post.

      Many thanks.

      T

      Delete
    3. Anon 11:14

      My apologies

      In the NPIA debriefing document section 3, Strategic considerations, page 14.
      ....The Leicestershire Police received an email for assistance on Friday May 4th for deployment to Portugal. This was quickly followed by section 26 Police Act Approval, from the Secretary of State.

      Section 26 action then needs to consider Section 97, dealing with the pension rights etc, of officers working in another jurisdiction.

      Section 97 does not kick in until a letter of authorisation, regarding Section 26, has been received from the Secretary of State, page 10 of same document.

      ....Police forces cannot initiate action in a jursidiction overseas without the necessary permissions and the authority of the Secretary of State.

      Earlier I posted a list of the protocols which must be followed before foreign deployment it is blindingly obvious they were not.
      I would be interested in other opinions


      Delete
    4. JJ @19:59

      Got it. Thanks. I'll read through the NPIA once more but I can see how progression to section 97 implies receipt of a signed letter.

      No contest. Bureaucracy simply does not work that quickly (especially on a Friday!!)

      Delete
  67. Namaskar

    ZiggySawdust 1 March 2017 at 17:16

    “But what actually happened(again) was a pile of personal attacks.”

    You are right. I consider such attacks deplorable.

    So far there has been only one poster who’s properly dealt at some length with several of your statement. (The ‘SOB’ sentence was NOT “juvenile”. In the circumstances, one could have taken it as an interjection indicating disagreement and/or even displeasure. Be it as it may, we are all adults here and an occasional remark, however abrasive it might appear, ought to be let pass so that a reasonable debate can continue.) A few others have made useful and sincere contributions to the debate also.

    I have yet to read yesterday’s and today’s posts to find out if any interesting criticisms of your views, ‘enfant terrible’, have been served.

    See ya.

    T

    FAO name callers, witch hunters, abusers and ‘pots’:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    ReplyDelete
  68. In cases like this the P of police means patience.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous 1 March 2017 at 18:12
    “T @11:56

    I'm not 10:55, but it's from an article by Richard Pendlebury in the Daily Mail, 25 July 2008.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1038715/A-copper-shame-Maddies-detective-blames-lack-answers.html

    Another (imo more interesting) quote:

    "Amaral writes how he had wanted Madeleine's UK medical records, but they 'were not given to us because of huge difficulties raised in England.

    'They certainly would have been very important. Why were they not given to us? The British judicial system was not very co-operative in these matters, which was regrettable.'"”

    I am grateful for your post.

    I should have searched myself instead of asking Anonymous 1 March 2017 at 10:55. It took me about 20sec to google the article after I’d posted.

    The usual second-hand hearsay.

    The ‘more interesting’ quote you’ve referred to seems likely to be from Dr Amaral, it sounds very familiar. A quick search of his TOTL has brought no result, I’ll look into it at leisure.

    Regards

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's about time a bit of sanity was restored- nice one.

      I said in my earlier posts and have maintained it since that too many rules of protocol were ignored and ignored with urgency from May 3 onward.I questioned why and voiced suspicion regarding the panic it suggested.I also stated that the McCanns are NOT royalty or politicians, they were only two Brits abroad with family and friends. That 'higher ups' pounced on this case and pounced on the investigation-and detectives in charge of it-smacks of a cover up. It hasn't, in my opinion been questioned enough.Nobody from the higher levels have been questioned enough.Why was it so important to so many politicians to crush this case ? It was them who 'contaminated' it - but why ?I won't entertain any notion that has them panicking because they were doctors or just British. It's silly.

      The recent history of paedophilia in Portugal and Belgium was still reverberating in certain hallowed halls of power in Europe (including here). There had been abductions prior to Madeleine's fate in Portugal and not far from PDL. Belgium is a nest for such things as we now know.We also know that when our top MPs( and PMs) want immediate action, they hit the switch and it happens.Top policemen are briefed, editors of 'news'papers are briefed, TV bosses are briefed. And then it begins. Evidence is 'lost' or dismissed. Statements from police are 'edited' or lost.Valuable eye witness testimony is rejected if it incriminates the 'wrong' man(or woman).These instances are fact now-they can no longer be called conspiracy theories. Real people have been sent to prison, real investigators and judges have been shot. What's the game ?

      I still believe that a case was contrived to make the parents look like the suspects.I believe the 'shelved' case and evidence will guarantee they'll never be charged.They're scapegoats.The state of play right now suggests that.They were never going to find anyone else.The 'sightings' were all different acts in the tragedy.Nobody believes they will lead anywhere if they're honest-and that includes the police and the politicians.There are people who know what happened that night.We don't-and we won't, not unless a loose canon fires it from his death bed.I believe this is the bigger picture. Unfortunately I don't know where the McCanns fit in apart from being the suspects chosen for purposes of misdirection.The money passed their way, in my opinion, is blood money from the guilty. The 'protection' of them by the same people is for the same reason-guilt.There is much to be seen in the subtext of this story.Far more than is to be seen in reading faces and words.Those who scream and shout about the 'evil' McCanns have been duped.Is it up his sleeve?Behind his ear ?In the top hat ? Who knows. When the magician's good it's hard to guess.When the magician has other magicians who are just as good, you'll never guess.Or, should I say- you'll never guess correctly.

      Delete
    2. "I don't know where the McCanns fit in apart from being the suspects chosen for purposes of misdirection.The money passed their way, in my opinion, is blood money from the guilty. The 'protection' of them by the same people is for the same reason-guilt.There is much to be seen in the subtext of this story."

      Oh dear. Right re the McCanns but ultimately just another conspiracist. I'm saddened.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. The paedophile cases in Portugal were over 20 years old and no different to the abuse that went on in children's homes here in the UK. The case of Marc Dutroux in Belgium is also over 20 years old and involved kids being abducted from the street. It wasn't a one off stranger abduction, the people of Belgium were on high alert. Oh, and name one child taken in the spate of abductions that preceded Madeleine's disappearance.

      The myth that the Algarve is a haven for paedophiles is just that, a myth. In their efforts to save themselves, the McCanns have disrupted the Portuguese tourist industry and cost a lot of good people (who helped them) their jobs.

      The idea that the McCann were specially selected for some intricate VIP plot is right up there with cloning and anything Bennett comes out with Ziggy.

      My advice to those who are new to the case or who haven't read the statements or the books, is to Keep it Simple Stupid (KISS). Whilst thinking outside of the box and drawing up plotlines in the head is good exercise for the brain, you need a clear line between fact and fiction. You have at some to ask yourself 'what would be most likely'.

      You are, we agree, an older man. Ergo, you have much experience of life. Going through all the people you know and have ever known, have you ever come across devil worshippers or members of paedo rings? Or indeed, even swingers?

      I've led a pretty racy life myself, with as much partying as I could fit in, but even in the strangest experiences, and there were a few, it's something I have never encountered. All the party folk I have ever known wanted the kids out of the way, myself included.

      I do wonder if those making paedophile accusations have any experience whatsoever of toddler time. Small children are a pain in the arse, and I speak as a doting mother! When you are getting drunk and/or high you want adult company, not a never ending game of pee bo! But let me sum it all up with as few words as possible. Ambitious adults sleep UP. Toddlers have no sway in the boardroom.

      In the 60's, 70's, 80's, children's homes were rich pickings for sadists, paedophiles, and malignant narcissists. They were filled with vulnerable children who's word would never be believed over those who had care of them. Then, as now, it is vulnerable children who are at risk. Those seized and taken into care.

      Delete
    4. @18:01

      "I don't know where the McCanns fit in apart from being the suspects chosen for purposes of misdirection. The money passed their way, in my opinion, is blood money from the guilty. The 'protection' of them by the same people is for the same reason-guilt.There is much to be seen in the subtext of this story."

      So what is it the McCanns did not do that the PTB were/are desperate to keep under wraps?

      (A sentence or so will suffice)

      Delete
  70. Anonymous3 March 2017 at 17:53
    @09:32

    ''"i state what i believe is the more probable scenario of May 3 2007 and state that it's an opinion I hold after looking at the events as reported and everything since..." (ZS 1.3 @22:17)''

    ''"I believe Madeleine was procured." (ZS, 1.3 @18:11)''

    ''"I doubt she was alive much later than May 3, personally" (ZS 2.3 @17:34)''

    Obviously the procurers didn't get their contract renewed.''

    As much as i appreciate another 'fan' obsessively scrutinising my posts in the hope it makes me look foolish, I'd advise you to fill your time more productively.Even if you just kick back and watch some TV. Plus of course, you're actually making yourself come across as odd by obsessing.

    To your 'point'....

    When a child is procured for somebody, what do you think they are procured for ? Employment ? Marriage ? Don't be naive. It is rarely for anything other than something depraved.What do you think happens to them after the 'contractor' has had his needs sated. I didn't state the obvious due to it being too graphic and unnecessary.I was of the opinion that readers of what i said could be counted on to realise that. I'll be more careful in future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Don't be naive"

      And don't try to be clever. My 'point' is not even addressed by your condescending paragraph let alone countered.

      Read your statements again, then come back with a suggestion as to what Madeleine (abducted on 3 May and dead not much later) was procured for.

      Oh wait, I know - necrophilia.

      Delete
  71. Why do you need Summers and Swan when Ziggy Shawdust writes your story for free?

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 3 March 2017 at 08:43 wrote:

    "When a child disappears hardly anyone thinks 'stranger abduction'"

    Oh really? A 3-year old is reported missing in circumstances, apparently, of her being unsupervised. And you don't consider it a serious possibility the child was taken? You're wrong.

    "Some might say, the McCanns took charge of the investigation. They were certainly going all out to establish Madeleine was abducted"

    Ridiculous. The McCanns knew that Madeleine was missing and assumed she must have been taken (as against having wandered off). They didn't / couldn't take charge of the investigation. The McCanns' behaviour and actions simply reflected what they imagined to be the reality.

    Chez


    ReplyDelete
  73. It's a bit like Twitter.com/#McCann here but I hadn't previously heard the one about the McCanns wishing for a review but not really wanting one!

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well ya see they could control a 'review' to ensure they didn't appear in the headlights, but feared their name mentioned in an 'investigation'
      ROF



      Delete
  74. Hi Anonymous@19:48

    To be honest when a child is in bed unsupervised, whilst the parents are what approx 300 feet away and not in line of sight of the apartment. Stranger abduction?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Hi Chez@19:48

    Sorry I put my previous to you as Anonymous. What I will say is there is no evidence the Madeleine was abducted. The parents themselves have admitted the left three kids, now let's not play with semantics. Madeleine was 3 years old & the twins were 1 year. They weren't toddlers full stop, one of the parents should have been in the apartment all the time. Whilst I agree there is no evidence against the parents, it's their actions from my point of view that had to be questioned. Unlike Ziggy I have read both sides of the argument and only subscribe to this blog. I enjoy yours and Ziggy's views as well.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Anonymous3 March 2017 at 19:19

    ''Why do you need Summers and Swan when Ziggy Shawdust writes your story for free?''

    get a grip

    ReplyDelete
  77. @19:48

    "The McCanns' behaviour and actions simply reflected what they imagined to be the reality."

    Absolutely right. (Under the circumstances they couldn't have behaved otherwise).

    "The McCanns knew that Madeleine was missing and assumed she must have been taken (as against having wandered off)."

    But they 'knew' she hadn't wandered off because they 'knew' she could not have done (GM: "There's no way she... she could have got out on her own.")

    That being so they must also have 'known' their daughter had been, 'er, taken'.

    ReplyDelete
  78. John 100

    I've said they shouldn't have been let off lightly over neglect or reckless endangerment. They didn't try to hide that or that Madeleine had cried the previous night.That situation left the kids vulnerable to anything.They all could have been taken;they all could have been assaulted.Anything.Something happened to one of them.Proving what happened, how it happened, why it happened and who was responsible is a whole different case. As such, many theories abound.None can be proven right.Even those who consider a 'majority' is all you need to decide which is the more likely scenario have no more than anyone else.They just have more frustration and anger and a far narrower view of things.

    ReplyDelete
  79. "Amaral wasn’t even there on May 3, by which time the officers on the scene had already decided that the McCanns were, literally, unbelievable."

    What an incredibly stupid statement - Madeleine was found to have gone missing at around 22.00 - the first police (GNR) arrived at around 23.00 and by midnight the non English speaking Police had "decided that the McCanns were, literally, unbelievable."

    What an amazing Police force Portugal has - they solved the case within the first hour - and that was without Amaral's help!

    Oh hold on though - it is blacksmith.

    ReplyDelete
  80. @Ros 19:52

    ''Oh, and name one child taken in the spate of abductions that preceded Madeleine's disappearance. ''

    http://metro.co.uk/2014/04/23/madeleine-mccann-british-girl-was-assaulted-in-the-same-portuguese-resort-two-years-earlier-4707144/

    I think you know what my post was about.Politicians have been involved in PIE for decades. What about Elm House ? What about Leicester Police covering up for 'Lord' Janner and the Met for Leon Brittain? What about Lord Havers in the 80s ?Just because the Dutroux affair was in the interim( 90s) means nothing.That case was evidence of high level depravity and the reach of it's net.

    ''The idea that the McCann were specially selected for some intricate VIP plot is right up there with cloning and anything Bennett comes out with Ziggy. ''

    I agree. Who suggested it ?I suggested Madeleine was specially selected-not the McCanns.I explained that.I suggested a 'plot' if that's what you call it followed to protect someone.take your mind off Bennett for a while and concentrate.

    ''You have at some to ask yourself 'what would be most likely'.''

    You have two culprits in mind.Nothing and nobody will deter you.You close your eyes and ears to anything else.

    ''You are, we agree, an older man''

    Great, Cracker's in the building again.'We' ? That's you and ?

    ''Going through all the people you know and have ever known, have you ever come across devil worshippers or members of paedo rings? Or indeed, even swingers?''

    Yes, yes, and yes.And a group who called themselves 'vampires'( in Sefton, not Liverpool).But I'm not saying it's everywhere.It just exists.And if you think paedophile rings don't exist and at the higher level you need to research it.Not 'theories'. Try ones that have convictions and witnesses that are still alive.

    ''I do wonder if those making paedophile accusations have any experience whatsoever of toddler time''

    Connection ?

    ''In the 60's, 70's, 80's, children's homes were rich pickings for sadists, paedophiles, and malignant narcissists. They were filled with vulnerable children who's word would never be believed over those who had care of them. Then, as now, it is vulnerable children who are at risk. Those seized and taken into care.''

    No. Those are just easier to get.Mostly by the paedophile rings you don't think are out there.By your reasoning, all we have to do to cure paedophilia and rid society of them is to close the homes.If there are no 'sweet shops' there'll be no market.That's taking naivety to a new level.

    ''The McCanns have disrupted the Portuguese tourist industry and cost a lot of good people (who helped them) their jobs. ''

    That's right.The McCanns( evil bastards) caused the austerity in Portugal.Maybe even Spain too.Nothing to do with the European economy collapsing.




    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous3 March 2017 at 21:27

    What can you be suggesting lol

    ReplyDelete
  82. Anonymous3 March 2017 at 11:38

    ''Just a few of your own 'prime cuts' then:
    Madeleine was abducted from her COT.

    The McCanns NEVER changed their statements.

    The McCanns have been ‘cleared’.

    There were Portuguese detectives on the case after half an hour.''

    Really ? Is that it ? That's desperate.

    Hands up anyone who is a parent who ever had an exchange like this :
    '' I'ts me.i'm on my way home..kids ok ?''

    ''yeah they're shattered-i just put them to cot''

    jesus aitch...

    I posted the source for the McCanns unchanged statement.
    The McCanns are not suspects . Anyone questioned in the case is out there- free.

    Accounts differ from people who were actually at the scene regarding the time of arrival of the police.I said 40 mins. I've read accounts from 15 mins to over an hour.I doubt everyone checked their watch as they arrived.Why would they.

    No more bananas for you.You're hyper.

    Anonymous3 March 2017 at 19:32

    exactly anon 11.38 !!

    ''And we have not even mentioned blood and cadaver odour, chez and ziggy will bust a bloodvessel if we do.
    There was NO NEGLECT...hence NO ABDUCTION. all the theorizing above re bus driver confesses is merely distraction and diversion by ziggy.
    I fear ziggy is tirig now and will not have the endurance of chez on this blog.''

    Great, it's got a straight man..

    Blood and cadaver- I don't think Chez shelved that and I know for a fact I never. Ask the PJ who did.And why. Regarding 'NO NEGLECT'- are you screaming that as a claim or implying i said there was no neglect? If you want to remain my fan-do the work.I'm not tirig( or tiring).I doubt Chez is.So, let your fears subside old chum.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @21:27

    "What an amazing Police force Portugal has - they solved the case within the first hour - and that was without Amaral's help!"

    "What an incredibly stupid statement" - of yours.

    Blacksmith makes no reference whatsoever to solving the case, only that the first responders found the McCanns unbelievable.

    Oh hold on though - jumping to conclusions is exciting, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous3 March 2017 at 21:59

      So - the Police "had already decided that the McCanns were, literally, unbelievable."

      That rules out the Mccanns claim of abduction - leaving what in your clever eyes? Oh yes - it must be the Mccanns that dunnit. Without an abduction there is no other explanation other than the Mccanns - is that too difficult for you to understand?.

      So simple isn't it when someone posts a lie and other people believe it.

      Delete
  84. Anonymous3 March 2017 at 21:59

    ''Blacksmith makes no reference whatsoever to solving the case, only that the first responders found the McCanns unbelievable.

    Oh hold on though - jumping to conclusions is exciting, isn't it.''

    Well, it seems that the first responders enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @Ros

    ''Consider for one minute, the position of the police Ziggy. When they arrived at the scene, there was chaos, the apartment was full of people and the parents were hysterical. Have you read the police statements?''

    I recall i said, practically word for word a month ago, that the apartment was full of people and chaos.I said it to point out that it wasn't just the Tapas crew setting about contaminating evidence.Nobody needs police statements for this.It would happen any where if a child had gone.I considered the police position and it's simple.One child gone, 2 unconscious.Diplomacy goes out of the window.As it should.

    ''When a child disappears hardly anyone thinks 'stranger abduction' because it hardly ever happens. In 99.9% of cases, there is another explanation''

    You keep showing that statistic.What about a meta analysis ? Within that 99% how many were from a holiday resort in a foreign country ?Everyone's a stranger in a foreign country.

    '' It is not unreasonable therefore, that the apartment wasn't immediately declared a crime scene.''

    It wasn't 'immediate'. It should have been though.

    ''The McCanns insistence that it was a stranger abduction, was one of the first red flags. Victims of crime rarely know who done it and how and why they did it, before the police arrive.''

    As I said, everyone's a stranger in a foreign country.It was natural to say it was a stranger abduction.How do you twist that into them knowing who did it ? 'Stranger' isn't an identity.

    '' It was an abductor, through the window, who specially wanted a 3 year old girl - now go put up road blocks and close the borders. ''

    Putting words and thoughts into the mouths and heads of someone is speculation.An abductor or procurer wanted a little girl-the birth certificate wasn't important.The Police had nothing to lose by ordering roadblocks right away- have you heard of what detectives call 'the golden hour' ?

    ''And kudos, abduction worked well''

    Maybe because there had been one. Unless there's evidence to the contrary.

    ''As for your final dig at Goncalo Amaral, 'writing all kinds of possible scenarios in his head' - lol, he's a detective, that's his job!''

    Have you read the scenarios he was considering ? Very 'creative' to say the least.But, that's his new job.All's well, as they say...

    ReplyDelete