Tuesday, 21 February 2017

MARK WILLIAMS THOMAS ON THIS MORNING

Shame on you ITV, you do a feature on the McCann case, and end it with no discussion allowed for 'Legal Reasons'.  And I don't blame Holly and Phillip, they looked as aghast as their viewers felt.  What are those Legal Reasons ITV, the threat of being sued by the UK's top lawyers?  Have the McCanns quite literally purchased silence with the money people donated for a search?  People can question the President of the United States, but they can't question Gerry and Kate.  Do you not know how unethical this one sided story was?  Have you completely forgotten the principles of Freedom of Speech, or even what your went into journalism for.

As for the 'expert' rolled out to put forward the continued fake abduction story, seriously?  Mark Williams-Thomas?  Just because someone claims to be an expert, doesn't mean they are.  Mr. M. WT, sat interviewing a murderer in his front room with the body of the victim directly above his head.  Deh!

With Mr. M. WT as spokesman on their behalf, they need no enemies.  His own pet theory that Madeleine wandered, flies directly in the face of the McCanns only 'proof' of abduction, that open window.  Does he honestly believe the tiny Madeleine jemmied open the window, lay the front door wide open, then wandered off down the stairs closing two childproof gates behind her?  If Mr. M. WT is an expert criminologist, then gawd 'elp us. 

Fortunately, as with every McCann counter attack these days, it has badly misfired.  Mark Williams Thomas had made many enemies during his career, and unlike mainstream journalists, anyone taking his word, would do a few rudimentary checks on the internet.  The truth is, MWT was probably all they had, but he has probably sent thousands rushing to the internet to find out what Goncalo Amaral's book is all about. 

Here's a link:  http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/   



Apologies for my lack of replies.  I have been very unwell and completely out of action.  Hopefully now on the mend, but meanwhile thank you to those who have kept the discussion going. 

224 comments:

  1. Mark Williams-Thomas has proven one very important thing today - that he's an intellectual pygmy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Mark Williams...an intellectual pygmy"

    The long and the short of it - he's neither.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mark Williams Thomas is nobody.

    I knew he'd be popping up soon on the idiot box.I watched his 'interview' with Schofield and his puppet,recently and i was scratching my head as to why it even occurred.He was 'discussing' re-opening the Dando murder case ( which the Police, Govt and Home Office moved mountains to close down and cover up).His reasons ? Hilarious. This is true by the way....He 'had a meeting with a hit man he knows but can't name'. It gets better.The unknown 'hit man' was shown a list of over 100 ( yes 100) names. The 'informant' said the killer was on the list but added that he 'couldn't name him because he( the unnamed hit man ) would be 'taken out'.So the dangerous 'hit man' on the 'list' is psychic too. So, based on MWT's un-named source pointing the finger at a nameless hitman on a list of people with secret identities, he suggests the enquiry should be re-opened. If a tabloid could talk, it would be his voice.He knows nothing about anything but likes making big headline noises.His function is to place dramatic headlines into the heads of gullible viewers and readers. There's no better showcase for him than Schofield the ventriloquist's dummy and his Barbie Doll.Nothing of value ever comes from the mouth of the three protagonists.They don't matter.Nor do their alleged theories and ideas.They're puppets.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Perhaps MWT should read Kate McCann’s book. His theory is insulting to the McCanns’ intelligence, according to Kate McCann (in ‘madeleine’):

    “At the police station that first afternoon, Guilhermino Encarnação had briefly mentioned three potential explanations for Madeleine’s disappearance: a burglary that had ‘changed direction’, abduction and the possibility that she had wandered off by herself.

    (...)

    However, I have always found the third suggestion insulting to our intelligence, frankly. Obviously, the police are obliged to consider all possible scenarios but there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are Fiona Payne and Kate McCann still friends?

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm

      1485
      What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that? [about Madeleine waking up]

      Reply
      She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh'.

      Delete
    2. ''snipped ........ there was no doubt in our minds that Madeleine had not left that apartment of her own accord.”

      I had long forgot from those early days, my take on that idea of not leaving on her own accord, particularly as she had done a runner down one of the walk ways previously (somewhere mentioned in all the readable online''

      So a child who is a an apartment with one door unlocked, but heavy & sliding and the front door which is also NOT DEADLOCKED (read Jane Tanner's Roggie interview on the subject)could Madeleine have left? Jane Tanner obviously thought it to be risk and took the precaution to deadlock, thus barring exit!
      Therefore why are the McCanns so sure, because she couldn't for some other reason
      >medicated
      >restraint
      >barricade of some kind
      She was days off four, believed to be bright. What happened just this last week to a two year old - drowned in a near by stream, or indeed Ben Needham in the split second eyes were taken off him.
      It happens.
      The only problem with the W&W theory, particularly now Jane Tanner's sighting has been squashed & everybody's alibi with it, puts the blamegame 100% back in the McCanns court, so really is abduction a better scenario for them?

      Delete
    3. I'm guessing W&W is wake and walk? Please do correct me if I am wrong.

      The biggest problem with MWT's theory is that open window 19:19 Whilst a small child could have opened the front or back doors, she could not have opened the window.

      Delete
  5. He also did a programme on the Carole Packman case which was unspeakably boring and didn't find out anything. Here's a link to the first part if you want to give it a go.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1sGb7tQUUc

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seems more than a couple of 'experts' had that tag- 'no doubt' close at hand from the get -go. Unusual considering there was nothing that could truly be ruled out with any confidence whatsoever at the early stage.In ten years, a lot of the 'no doubt' brigade still haven't made a positive difference in any way shape or form.They continue to receive a good salary though.That's definitely a 'no doubt' we can believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Harriet

      Watched the Packman thing. Can't you just tell Simon king-of-tack Cowell had his hands all over it.Lots of melodramatic intrusive 'atmospheric' music interfering with the dialogue. MWT trying to sound like he's pitching one of Hitchcock's best movies.All it needed was the occasional switched zoom in to David Walliams fighting back the tears.

      That's what happens when tabloid and TV get in bed together. Nothing :-)

      Delete
  7. I just listened to what the so called investigative journalist Mark Williams-Thomas had to say about Madeleine having left the apartment and walked off by herself and I'm inclined to believe what Ziggy says about him.

    Hasn’t this guy read anything in the p j files, or listened to the inconsistencies in the McCanns’ statements for almost 10 years?

    So, according to Mark Williams-Thomas, Madeleine telling her parents, that she had been crying and had wondered where they had been, made Kate and Gerry tell their daughter that they had been at the tapas bar.

    So after two nights of crying, Madeleine did not cry on the third night, because then she had learnt to control her fear, as she then knew that her parents were spending every night at the tapas bar, and therefore she went out looking for them. The reason as to why she woke up, according to MWT, was the heat in the night (wasn’t it unusual cold that night?), but actually not because she was scared.

    Moreover, what about the reason as to why Madeleine and possibly also the twins had been crying the two previous nights (one refers to Mrs Fenns’ witness statement and the other to Kate’s ”crying story”) Was it then, because of the heat as well? I didn’t quite get it.

    Neither Kate nor Gerry has, as far as I know, said anything about what they told Madeleine in the morning of that sinister day, only that they were a little confused and wondered what she might have meant, but, as Kate has said so many times; then, they understood it to be just a ”passing remark”, because Madeleine right away ” dropped it and moved on”.

    How come MWT believes that Madeleine learned about her parents’ tapas bar visits in the morning of that sinister day, despite the fact that Madeleine, according to Kate and Gerry, did not expect an answer, but, as they have said; ”just moved on”.

    Will there be yet another analysis of this crying story, which I believe is just a fabrication by the McCanns?




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The crying story was leaked to the press when Gerry and Kate were on another European tour, this time promoting Amber Alert. There is an interview with a mad as hell Clarence where he is threatening to sue the Portuguese police.

      The story may have been invented to pre-empt any reports of crying from 5A from the neighbours, Mrs. Fenn especially.

      The McCanns and Clarence were outraged that this 'detail' was released, at that time I don't think they knew the entire police file would be published and there was a lot more to come.

      The crying story was damning. The poor child told you they were crying and still you went out and left them again! Incredibly, they turned this negative into a positive. The crying the night before was evidence of the abductor doing a trial run!

      Delete
  8. What was highlighted to me was he said madeleine woke up IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT went looking for her parents & left the apartment. Really?! This doesn't even fit the timeline of them reporting her missing after the alleged 10pm check. Have no idea where he's going with this so called new theory he hashed out years ago or why he or ITV even bothered running with the story due to the "Huge legal restrictions"!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed Nuno. It was as if he hadn't even read the tabloid Madeleine stories let alone the police files!

      I saw Mr. M. WT at a meeting for CSA survivors at the House of Commons, where he was one of the speakers. Who knows what makes him an expert on historic child abuse, but I guess he was edging for a witchfinder position. He was just as shifty in the flesh, and he couldn't look me directly in the eye, I'm not the kind of 'survivor' he's used to. Jim Gamble was there too, another expert, but he was too overcome emotion to speak. Yeh, I know.

      Delete
  9. This is what happens when old theories and madness run around in circles due to 10 years of nothing.Out come the old reliable 'go to' halfwits that sing from the MSM hymn sheet and come up with any old bollocks to make it seem 'fresh'. Let's hope they give him enough time in front of the camera. It will be fun watching him looking and sounding ridiculous.The MSM shot themselves in the foot with this clown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps they know the abduction theory is going to be scrutinised very very closely from now on & they are lining up an abduction from outside the apartment.

      Delete
    2. Yes John,
      If the McCanns would keep quiet for some weeks now and if they don't publicly dismiss MWT:s ridiculous hypothesis, then I believe that it's possible that they may have something with this new approach to the case to do. Madeleine leaving the apartment by herself and not being found in the area close to it, implies of course, as you say, that she must have been abducted "from outside the apartment". Is that what is going to be discussed by the McCanns and their supporters on the 10th anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance.

      Delete
    3. Hi John, I thought that too, but I read the latest (fairy) story from Tracey Kandollar, about MWT's 'astonishing new' theory (seriously Tracey? - he's been trying to flog that old chestnut for years) - her narrative as usual makes everything as clear as mud.

      It seems the McCanns employed official spokesman Clarence to say 'no comment' accompanied by a few growls of indignation, while a family source scoffed at his expertise and 'criminologist' claims, but then said they didn't want to fall out with MWT. Should add, whilst using the brilliant quote 'it's a free country' with no irony alert whatsoever. As usual, why the McCanns can't speak for themselves remains bizarre.

      They article did make it clear however, that Mr. M WT is not part of the inner circle, though he would very much like to be. He flew out to PDL on day 3, yet he is still not pals with them. Hmmm.

      I suppose it is a 'free country' for MWT to purport a theory, because that theory supports the nonsense that Madeleine is alive. Ditto the Fund.

      It is not however a 'free country' for anyone who purports the theory that Madeleine might be dead. For Goncalo Amaral and the viewers of ITV's This Morning, Carter Ruck are hovering - no discussion allowed for legal reasons. The McCanns have taken over the network!

      MWT as you say John, might be one of the straws they are clutching too. They have got around the uncomfortable open window question before - by issuing a statement that 'it may have been a red herring'. They may well have the gall to change it again. They also got around Gerry's first statement where he said he entered the apartment with a key via the front door. Perhaps, under hypnosis, Kate might remember opening the window herself earlier in the day but was so traumatised she forgot!

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda/John100/Björn

      Info:

      Released 1st May 2009

      http://williams-thomas.co.uk/sites/default/files/Review%20of%20Madeleiene%20McCann%20Investigation.pdf

      “Conclusion
      It is acknowledged that no review about this particular case can be definitive, but based on the various documents which we have seen it is my opinion that the McCanns did not murder their daughter, or have anything to do with her disappearance. So too I would argue that Madeleine walked out of apartment 5a through an insecure rear patio door looking for her parents –she was then abducted.”

      Delete
    5. Björn 22 February 2017 at 10:39

      “Madeleine leaving the apartment by herself…”

      Through the window, having opened it and raised the shutter? (2011 KM in ‘madeleine’: (p1) “My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth.” (p72) “As I ran back into the children’s room the closed curtains flew up in a gust of wind. My heart lurched as I saw now that, behind them, the window was wide open and the shutters on the outside raised all the way up.”).

      And the cadaverine and blood odours indicated by Eddie and Keela?

      T

      Delete
    6. Hello.

      There is no problem with anyone in the UK stating that the child might be dead. It libels nobody and is therefore quite safe.

      If somebody claims that the McCanns were involved in some way with the death of the child then obviously they will have to provide evidence that they are speaking the truth. As I've said many times before there is no such evidence in the public domain and therefore no paper or broadcaster will lay themselves open to damages and costs.

      But try thinking about it another way. For many years internet warriors have been saying that the media are muzzled and cowardly while waiting for a media white knight to "break" the story of the McCanns criminality.

      Had any paper or broadcaster been stupid enough to listen to them then the McCanns, instead of facing critical financial limitations, would be better off by another quarter million or so in damages. Enough to finance another few years stalling via the ECR or other exotic ways of evading Amaral's grasp.

      Much as I hate and despise the MSM - thank God they didn't listen.

      Delete
    7. Strictly speaking you are right John (B), legally it is OK to suggest Madeleine might be dead, but not OK to accuse the parents. However, Gerry, Kate, Clarence etc, have made it taboo to speculate on Maddie not being alive. Not the done thing doncha know. Even DCI Redwood whispered it when he said 'she may not have been alive when she left the apartment'. The crux of all the McCanns legal battles is, that if people believe Madeleine is dead, they won't look for her.

      I'm not sure I agree the press were right to remain tight lipped, maybe a little bit, but grudgingly. Such are the antiquated libel laws in this country, the McCanns, could as you say, have continued their winning spree.

      Vexatious litigants are like compulsive gamblers, they won't stop until they have lost everything. I suspect with the Supreme Court ruling the McCanns have now reached that point. With all the fake news flying around, no-one in the know, has actually mentioned figures for the legal costs the parents now face. I am guessing it runs to millions. hence the quick message to Isabel to keep her trap shut!

      Delete
    8. To John Blacksmith
      Hi John,
      Yes, you have an interesting point here, yet I think that the MSM could have done a lot more to illuminate this case, without running any risk of being sued.

      The discussion in British MSM has unfortunately been a lot about whether the McCanns were irresponsible parents or not, when they left their children alone, which isn’t really anything to discuss, because it must be beyond doubt, that it is hardly possible for any parents to neglect their children during child-free parents’ evenings in a more obvious way, than they did, and it’s certainly not a question about culture differences.

      Media, in my opinion, should, clearly have taken a stand for the right of all children to avoid being left alone, but did not do so. Cowardice, I would say. Moreover, the McCann's ruthless pursuit of a faceless perpetrator, and their obtrusive intrusion into other people's lives (especially those of other ethnicities), who they suspect of having abducted their daughter are, to say the least, offensive. Moreover, a whole holiday resort has also because of them lost much of its charm and appeal. Yes, John, believing that Madeleine is dead cannot be libellous, yet MSM keep on quoting the McCanns’ ”belief” about Madeleine being alive, without asking them what they base their “belief” on. Third-rate journalism, I’d say. Common sense tells us that Madeleine is dead.

      To anonymous 22 February 2017 at 12:11

      Of course, it’s just as preposterous to suggest that Madeleine may have walked off by herself, as MWT does, as to fabricate a story about a door that slammed shut without the slightest draught in the apartment, and a kidnapper flying in or out of a small window, or just open it to confuse a subsequent investigation.

      Kate’s account of the truth begins with a big lie about the open(ed) window, which was just the beginning of the story about the invisible kidnapper, who sneaked into their apartment and hid behind a door, while the father of the daughter was in the bathroom, and then, just seconds after he had left the apartment, snatched her; and a lot more. Maybe that was Gerry’s version?

      Anyway, ghost stories are always in demand. Kate was successful indeed to sell her.

      Delete
    9. You have hit the nail on the head Bjorn. It was the way in which so many TV presenters and mainstream journalists normalised the reckless, child endangering form of 'responsible parenting'. So many rushed to say 'we do that too!'. Seriously? Who the fuck thinks leaving 3 toddlers on their own in a dark apartment they are not familiar with, will be safe? It was the normalising of this horribly dangerous practice that irked me, and I'm sure many, the most.

      As for Kate's book, it is completely without heart or substance, she comes across as an automaton. Mieow.

      Delete
    10. john blacksmith 22 February 2017 at 15:48

      “Enough to finance another few years stalling via the ECR or other exotic ways of evading Amaral's grasp.”

      ECR?

      T

      Delete
    11. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 22 February 2017 at 19:06

      “Who the fuck thinks leaving 3 toddlers on their own in a dark apartment they are not familiar with, will be safe? It was the normalising of this horribly dangerous practice that irked me, and I'm sure many, the most.”

      Concur.

      “Mieow.”

      The word of this blog! ;)

      T

      Delete
    12. "ECR?"

      Excellent Carter-Ruck. I thought you'd have known that.

      Delete
    13. john blacksmith 23 February 2017 at 00:00

      “"ECR?"

      Excellent Carter-Ruck. I thought you'd have known that.”

      I am flattered you thought of me while writing you post, john.

      And why would you think I’d have known “that”?

      Many thanks.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  10. Totally ridiculous.
    Once again, the findings of the dogs were not mentioned.
    Dogs can't lie.
    Eddie, identifying cadavarine on items of Kate's clothing , on Cuddlecat, and in various other places in the McCann's apartment.
    How they fear him !
    It's strange that MSM choose to conveniently ignore the dogs' findings.
    Keela locating blood and Eddie identifying cadavarine.
    Making these findings public would blow a hole in their abduction theory and point serious concerns towards the fraudulent fund !
    Sadly, the McCanns were allowed to have the last word in that they commented with the old chestnut we've heard so many times before.
    "There is no evidence to show that Madeleine has come to any harm!"
    This is what the watching public will remember and take away with them, the possibility that Madeleine is still alive.
    I think Eddie and Keela would have disagreed wholeheartedly with that !
    Time for this farce to end and for Madeleine to receive the justice she so deserves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's quite significant 07:43, thank you for pointing it out!

      The dogs of course. Mr. M. WT has completely discarded the alerts of the specialist dogs. A strange thing for a criminologist to say, especially as it changed the course of the official investigation. Ie. Case shelved and no more searching for a live child.

      The theory Mr. MWT has come up with bears no relation whatsoever to the evidence, yet he is paraded as an expert! I wonder what serving detectives think of him.

      Delete
  11. '' As usual, why the McCanns can't speak for themselves remains bizarre. ''

    They pay a spokesman that was put in place by the UK Government and pay him well.They follow, as they have since the UK big wigs hijacked it, orders.But we can go with 'bizarre' if it casts yet more doubt over the parents.That's fair and balanced.

    MWT is the tabloid moving,talking, lying picture.The same empty heads who sing the line ''it's true- i saw it in the Sun !'' are viewers of the tripe he turns up on via TV .MSM cover all bases ; if they can't feed you crap from a page they'll try and assault you via your TV.MWT made an apparent dramatic entrance into our living rooms with the Savile bullshit. Are we supposed to believe he, in some way, 'cracked' that case ?There were coppers onto Savile when MWT was still in short trousers.They were just on a 'not until the bastard's dead' order.

    AS for the old, old 'dogs don't lie' lines...

    It's true, they don't lie.Nor do they speak. They just bark.But detectives speak.It matters not if they're from the UK or Portugal.They shelved the dog's evidence-the dogs never, nor did the McCanns. Criticisms should be aimed at the police, as should accusations and questions.Things like ''Hey Mr Amaral-what happened to the dog's findings? Why haven't you criticised your bosses ?''
    It doesn't matter if the MSM mention them or not. It's either physical evidence of something or it isn't. The police make that call.

    If the fund is 'fraudulent' why is it ? Who has committed and gotten away with it ? Why hasn't anyone online reported it to the Fraud squad ? Is it because it isn't fraudulent but too many people need to rant and get the hate out ?

    ''the old chestnut we've heard so many times before.
    "There is no evidence to show that Madeleine has come to any harm!"

    The chestnut's old because it's still true, according to all police reports. The police say there's no evidence of any harm coming to Madeleine. Parents looking 'shifty' isn't as reliable as a corpse or blood.True story.

    ''Time for this farce to end and for Madeleine to receive the justice she so deserves.''

    Too right.But don't think that thousands of tabloid readers and social networkers can solve a case so expertly covered up by smart people who have power.And i don't mean the McCanns.If you want to know who i mean, ask Amaral.Ask Leicester police, ask Manchester police, ask 'the yard' or PJ.

    That's a lot of work and we all know it leads nowhere.It's easier to gang up on the parents.

    ReplyDelete
  12. People here "gang up" on the parents because they were the people responsible for safeguarding Madeleine at the time she disappeared. These parents have refused to cooperate with the police.
    We can all speculate about cover ups by "smart people who have power", but who are those people? The McCanns' responsibilities to Madeleine are very clear and - one way or another - they failed in those responsibilities while refusing to answer the questions of the investigating police. Frankly, given the circumstances, relatively little "ganging up" against the McCanns has taken place. The national press have proved themselves to be far more interested in "ganging up" on the police. Even policemen who have won in two courts against this pair.
    Why? Who knows. But since their first appeals for McCann "search" money using the famous No "Stone" Unturned line, they've stayed onside.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Thank god MSM didn't listen to the idiots otherwise the McCanns would have another load of libel damages." [paraphrased version]

    ROFL

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
  14. ''People here "gang up" on the parents because they were the people responsible for safeguarding Madeleine at the time she disappeared. These parents have refused to cooperate with the police. ''

    Yes, I know that people here 'gang up on the parents'- i said that. I've also said elsewhere that nobody denies that the parents were responsible for leaving the children vulnerable.I wouldn't defend them against a charge of negligence.But they haven't denied that they left the children.They may question the definition of neglect but the law's the law.They should have been charged with that. But that isn't murder.It isn't faking an abduction either.Don't take my word for that.Ask around.

    ''We can all speculate about cover ups by "smart people who have power", but who are those people''

    The case was discussed by the PMs of two countries.More than one UK politician( including two PMs) passed Team McCann their personal phone numbers.The UK Home Office .More than one Foreign or Home Secretary in the UK.A politician who doubled up as head of Media 'Control'. And then, the team of detectives who had been on the case from the actual night were 'removed' in favour of a police force from a different country- England.

    '' they failed in those responsibilities while refusing to answer the questions of the investigating police.''

    5 May 2007
    "At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.." ( KM)

    "The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed.'' (GM)

    ''he McCanns said Madeleine and younger brother were crying on their own the night before she was reported missing. Yet they left all three children on their own again the very next night.''

    The parents volunteered this information.

    The 48 questions Amaral asked later than this date and these statements ignored their content as he was thinking about murder and cover up and nothing else.Only 2 of the 48 mentioned an abduction-hence the 'no comment' answers.

    Whatever two cases police won 'against the pair' didn't include murder or manslaughter and subsequent covering up of such.

    This thread is about MWT. How long did it take to turn into a hate thread...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How long did it take for you to use the "hate" term against someone who disagreed with you? How pathetic.
      Your line: "But don't think that thousands of tabloid readers and social networkers can solve a case so expertly covered up by smart people who have power."
      I asked you who was performing this cover up. Your answer (to paraphrase) was that PMs and politicians from both countries had got involved. Are you suggesting that these PMs are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine? Because if you are, I'd like to know how exactly.
      Otherwise we're left with the situation that her parents are responsible for Madeleine's fate and that, to quote you, is why people "gang up" on them and not the PMs/politicians from two countries.
      If you think there's someone other than Madeleine's parents (and an "abductor" for whom nobody has ever discovered any evidence) who are responsible for her disappearance please name them and I'll be happy to "gang up" on them too. (That seems to be your preferred phrase for criticism of the McCanns. That and "hating").
      Yes the McCanns did answer some police questions during the course of the investigation. Nobody has ever denied this. Why else would they have needed to change their story to the police about which apartment doors they used the night Madeleine disappeared?
      They should also have answered the 48 questions. As innocent people, they would have been aware that there is no truthful answer they could possibly have given that would have incriminated them. They might even not now be in the rather uncomfortable situation of having the Portuguese courts point out that the case had been shelved due to lack of evidence against them and not because they were cleared. Had they addressed the police's suspicions head on, their wholehearted cooperation and truthful explanations would presumably have cleared them.
      For reasons best known to themselves, the McCanns seemed to believe their explanations would not be convincing.

      Delete
    2. Anon 22 Feb 18.08

      The politico's are not directly responsible for what happened to Madeleine, that was down to the parents. But the person responsible for the cover-up is John Reid, Scottish Labour MP and then Home Secretary.

      It was he who permitted the Leicestershire Police to break the law and allowed them to ignore the Portuguese jurisdiction.

      Everything from that day, May 4th, has been the cover up. Even Sky News altered the date of Lori Campbell's statement to assist the Leicestershire Police's dishonesty. (watch on Youtube for yourself).

      An honest OG would require them to arrest British Police officers and politicians for perverting the course of justice.

      It is not going to happen.

      Delete
    3. Hi JJ, ah, Baron Reid of Cardown. Looking at 3As it seems he may have had links to Gerry through Celtic Football club. He also appears to have been very keen on creating a national DNA database and the use of ID cards. You can see why Amber Alert and microchipping new would go hand in hand.

      There are plenty of BIG reasons for a cover up JJ, not least all the VIPs who could be charged with perverting the course of justice. But I just don't see how they can close Operation Grange without a result. Or even why they opened it in the first place.

      I take corruption in high office pretty much as a given these days JJ, but I find it impossible to believe that ALL those detectives who have worked on the Madeleine search, would go along with a cover up.

      The case might close through lack of evidence, but it has not achieved it's objective. It has brought no comfort to the family, nor has it compensated for the alleged inadequate investigation the first time around. They have taken it no further than the Portuguese police, and that's got to be kind of humiliating.

      There are so many McCann stories in the MSM at the moment, I do wonder if there is something in the air. The Libel trial in Lisbon is over. Goncalo Amaral has won fair and square, his honour is restored. At the same time, the funding for Operation Grange is coming to an end.

      I like to think that the police, both here and in Portugal, allowed their colleague to have his day in Court. A romantic notion I know - it could be that they are all at each other's throats, lol. And it could be said GA would have been equally vindicated had the parents been arrested. However, with that option, GA may not have got his money back.

      Delete
    4. JJ 22.2 @19:40

      "But the person responsible for the cover-up is John Reid, Scottish Labour MP and then Home Secretary.

      "It was he who permitted the Leicestershire Police to break the law and allowed them to ignore the Portuguese jurisdiction."

      Can you expand on this at all. The cover-up is blatant and there was indeed inappropriate 'rubber stamping' on the part of the Home Office, but does that necessarily mean JR was the instigator? He too might have been dancing to another's tune.

      I'm not seeking to exonerate Reid btw., just to clarify whether (and why) you think he might personally have instigated the process.

      Delete
    5. Anon 23 Feb 10:OO

      People are generally unaware of how rare it is for Family Liaison Officers (FLO's) to operate outside the UK and if they do how many assessments and evaluations MUST be completed before deployment.

      The Leics police ignored all of these protocols and that the required Section 26's have to signed by the Home Secretary in person.

      It is inconceivable, that Reid's Home Office officials did not inform him that without these evaluations and permissions, UK Police Officers would be committing criminal offences in both Portugal and the UK.

      So either the Leics police travelled without the Section 26's and other protocols, which makes them reckless beyond belief, or Reid, the Home Secretary, signed the Section 26's authorizations because he had total contempt for the Portuguese people and believed himself above the law.(LP state they were signed)

      It was Reid's home police force, Strathclyde, who first contacted Leicestershire Police on May 4th to suggest sending officers to Portugal.

      Of all the Police forces in the UK it just happened to be his!

      Another McCann coincidence.

      Delete
    6. JJ @11:29

      You're absolutely on the money here, although I might reserve judgement as to whether Reid acted on his own initiative, or in concert with a necessity more generally perceived within the ranks of the Blair cabinet.

      Thanks for pointing out the connection between Reid and the Strathclyde constabulary. I hadn't twigged that.

      This issue (and others), which may be distilled from a careful reading of the (2009) NPIA debriefing is IMO a VERY significant one and not just a 'backwater'.

      The facts as you outline them stand in direct contrast to the dismissive account offered on behalf of the police BY the police. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the 'debriefing' itself was deliberately misleading.

      Believe this if you will: "The command team of Leicestershire Constabulary first learned of the incident through media reports on the morning of 4 May." (p.14)

      So the first thing the commanders do on arrival at the station is turn on the Radio/TV?

      Here's the link if you haven't already picked it up elsewhere:

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

      Study it with care and it's as good as a confession!

      btw. Have you a link in relation to "LP state they were signed".

      If they were signed then I presume we are to understand the permissions were given in writing (on paper?) and not conveyed by telephone or e-mail, although I have read that a Constabulary can proceed with FLO deployment on being advised that permission will be forthcoming.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 21:59
      JJ @11:29

      I concur. Thank you both.

      T

      Delete
  15. PS
    ''The national press have proved themselves to be far more interested in "ganging up" on the police.''

    Would that be the PJ, Scotland Yard, Amaral , Amaral's replacement or Operation Grange ? Or are there even more who have done sweet 'F A' in ten years ?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Ziggy@07:43

    The police dogs are an extension of the investigation, hence why it's not admissable without further evidence. But what I will say is the McCanns never sued Martin Grimes who is a world renowned expert on sniffer dogs and their expertise and training. Also I can't ignore Gerry's off cuff remark on Spanish TV when asked about the dogs findings "why don't you ask the dogs"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John100

      His name is Martin Grime.

      Delete
  17. hi john

    The McCanns had no grounds to sue Martin Grime. Martin Grime said the findings of the dogs alone didn't constitute evidence unless corroborated by other evidence , such as DNA .That didn't materialise. Had it materialised, a case would have been made and the prosecution would have been able to proceed.What was left was no case, therefore, the constant questions fired at them on camera about the dog's findings were redundant and GM showed his frustration. What he probably wanted to say was probably not for pre-watershed viewing. Unfortunately, presenters of mainstream 'scandal and goss' tack don't let the facts or official findings interfere with the chance to hopefully make two people appear nervous or angry as it will get them discussed to death on social media and blogs. That's pretty good free advertising for the presenter and producers of drivel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Uh ha, you are not getting away with dismissing the alerts of the dogs so lightly Ziggy! The dog alerts, together with the samples taken, were enough to change the course of the police investigation.

      Who knows what kind of shenanigans went on at the British forensic centre, but after Martin Brunt declaring a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA, we then heard the samples were too diluted (with bleach) to use them as evidence. Samples taken from the areas indicated by the dogs btw. There were eough 'alleles' however to have brought a prosecution in other countries.

      The only people who have dismissed the dogs' alerts are the McCanns. How many experts do they have lined up to discredit the work of Eddie, Keela and all those other dogs so highly trained by Scotland Yard?

      The dogs' findings will never go away Ziggy. And remember, the specialist dogs were brought in on the advice of British search expert Mark Harrison who advised the Portuguese police to 'look at the parents'.

      Someone died in Apartment 5A Ziggy, and it is probably those dogs rather than Goncalo Amaral, that have kept SY and the PJ searching.

      Delete
  18. @ anon 18:08

    ''How long did it take for you to use the "hate" term against someone who disagreed with you? How pathetic.''

    I use the hate term to highlight hatred of the parents of a missing child as voiced by many, many people.I don't care who disagrees with me.I discuss evidence or lack of evidence that supports or destroys that opinion.

    '' Are you suggesting that these PMs are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine? Because if you are, I'd like to know how exactly.''

    If i was suggesting that, I would have said, 'politicians probably abducted Madeleine'.You asked about powerful people that interfered, I answered. Is there something wrong with you ?

    ''If you think there's someone other than Madeleine's parents (and an "abductor" for whom nobody has ever discovered any evidence) who are responsible for her disappearance please name them''

    Name them to some unhinged ranter on a blog.Of course, that would be useful. I think, If I knew who took her, I'd tell the police first.Do you think because nobody can find a kidnapper that a kidnap couldn't have happened ? In the same way that if police can't find a burglar then you must have made up a 'burgalry scenario'. Have a word with yourself.

    ''Why else would they have needed to change their story to the police about which apartment doors they used the night Madeleine disappeared?''

    They never.

    ''They should also have answered the 48 questions. As innocent people, they would have been aware that there is no truthful answer they could possibly have given that would have incriminated them''

    Their 'most expensive' legal advice was to say nothing as the questions were loaded to ignore their statements and concentrate on the lead Detective's unfounded allegations despite the DNA and sniffer dog's evidence having been declared void.

    ''For reasons best known to themselves, the McCanns seemed to believe their explanations would not be convincing.''

    They seemed ? I take it that's the 'coppers instinct' that you imagine you have after hanging around social networks exchanging imaginings.Nothing the McCanns say will convince the army of witch hunters.If they stay quiet, they're hiding something.If they speak, they're lying.Go figure...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gerry McCann, 4 May, 2007
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

      "...at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."


      Gerry McCann, 10 May, 2007
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm

      "He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.

      He adds that he never entered any other part of the residence [his bedroom or the kitchen] where he was for only two or three minutes, leaving yet again through the rear door that he closed but did not lock. He clarifies that he returned without seeing the children of any other family because he had not been asked to by them."

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust 22 February 2017 at 19:39

      “@ anon 18:08

      “…(… an "abductor" for whom nobody has ever discovered any evidence)…””

      “Do you think because nobody can find a kidnapper that a kidnap couldn't have happened ? In the same way that if police can't find a burglar then you must have made up a 'burgalry scenario'.”

      ??? Perhaps you might have a word with yourself and tell what you hear, Ziggy.

      May I humbly suggest that in the absence of evidence of an abduction (“an “abductor””) and not forgetting the converging indicia of non-abduction, it is unREASONABLE (as in ‘REASONABLE doubt’) to maintain that an abduction took place.

      T

      Delete
    3. oh dear Ziggy, looks like you have tripped up again. Your defense of the indefensible has become wearisome.You seem to think that by waffling on you can win an argument, and as anon at 20.15 just proved, you cant.Your defence of KM not answering the 48 questions is also pathetic, you quite clearly have not even read the questions yourself, they are in no way loaded as you put it. And remeber KMs answer to question 49...and I qoute " yes, if thats what the investigation thinks". Jeeez, i hope yu would be a little more helpful to the police if you were in the same circumstances Ziggy!!!Ros may well be happy to entertain you and your ramblings and lies but I think Ros is doing a dis-service to her blog by keeping you on here. You and chez are obviously here just to disrupt and confuse, and if Ros lets you stay, then I imagine a lot of people will move on. Im all for debate, but not with people like you two...sorry.

      Delete
  19. Hi Rosalinda
    A little bit off the topic we're discussing now, but I felt I had to say it.
    I really hope that you’ll keep on following and writing about the Madeleine case.
    I’m now beginning to see the beginning of the end of the McCann farce, but unlike Kate Hopkins, I believe this case will soon be solved. Anyway, some journalists obviously now dare to speak out. Kate Hopkins does, whom I suppose is an established British journalist, who now (MailOnline) questions more than just the McCanns' irresponsible and careless treatment of their children on the day she disappeared.
    If her last sentence would be libelous, in the McCanns’ opinion, she’s still telling the truth, if we are to believe what the McCanns themselves have said in their witness statements, and if the McCanns have lied about having left their children alone, then they must have been actively involved in her disappearance.

    A quote here from this paper, which refers to Kate Hopkin’s last line; “Maddie wasn’t lost because someone took her. She was lost because she was left to be found”





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with much that Ziggy just said Bjorn, but to put it in a nutshell, she is a Trump supporter.

      Given her character, I would not put too much faith into her motives. She gets her jollies demanding ethnic minorities and non conformists be caste out of society and ostracised.

      I fear she has placed herself at the head of an army of 'haters', that is those OTT loons who's bitterness and anger goes beyond logic. She has a malicious nature so her involvement could have a reverse effect - that is people will sympathise with the McCanns.

      Delete
  20. @Bjorn 20:10

    Your being in Sweden can be forgiven for confusing Kate Hopkins with a journalist, as you know her crap appears in a newspaper.But, she's merely a 'columnist'. She was some clown chasing fame and fortune by appearing on The Apprentice and basically pretending to be 'larger than life'. It succeeded. She's done the celebrity route on TV and now has a lot to say about whatever will sound controversial. She says whatever will provoke people and keep her 'looked at' and listened to. She's basically a loud fool. Getting her to write a column in a tacky tabloid was quite the 'coup' for the paper.Not because she has anything to say, but you can count on her to upset as many people as possible and give thousands of people something to waste their time talking about.It's business.

    ''if we are to believe what the McCanns themselves have said in their witness statements, and if the McCanns have lied about having left their children alone, then they must have been actively involved in her disappearance.''

    'If' is a big word. If you read what they said in their statements and also that they admitted that they left their children alone even though they'd cried the previous night away without being prompted to answer that question,then your conclusion should therefore be '' they must not have been actively involved in her disappearance after all ''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "if we are to believe what the McCanns themselves have said in their witness statements, and if the McCanns have lied about having left their children alone, then they must have been actively involved in her disappearance."

      If we are to believe M, and if M lied, then M are guilty.

      I'm confused - have I misunderstood?

      Chez

      Delete
    2. Yes Chez, Sorry
      I'm confused myself, probably too tired yesterday. I just meant, as I've explained to Ziggy that the McCanns may be lying about how carelessly they looked after their children and a lot more just to make an abduction seem possible. Something else may have happened while they were together with their children in the apartment.

      Delete
  21. Hi Ziggy
    thanks for info and comment.
    What I meant was, if we are to believe that they left their children alone, then Madeleine could theoretically have been abducted, but if they are lying about that as well as about the ludicrous door that slammed shut and the open window, which I believe they are, then something else must have happened to Madeleine, in which they must have been involved.
    I wrote something else, can't see why. Tired perhaps.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Ros 22:10

    ''Who knows what kind of shenanigans went on at the British forensic centre, but after Martin Brunt declaring a 100% match to Madeleine's DNA, we then heard the samples were too diluted (with bleach) to use them as evidence''

    He gets about, that Martin Brunt. Did Sky finally ditch him ;-)

    If 'shenanigans' did go on at the forensics lab, you're insinuating skullduggery undertaken by people and not actually a McCann.Like it or not, you're suggesting a cover up by people apart from the accused.Who and why ?

    ''There were eough 'alleles' however to have brought a prosecution in other countries.''

    That's no good in Portugal.

    ''The only people who have dismissed the dogs' alerts are the McCanns''

    So, If i was accused of burglary in Portugal and they found my finger prints, I could dismiss them and the case would be dropped ?I doubt it somehow.. Only the forensics team have the call on what's evidence and what isn't.Again, if you think they made that call dishonestly, why would they and on whose behalf ?

    It doesn't matter how many dogs have had success and for which force. I know the success rate is really high.But they only have to concentrate on the two dogs used here.

    ''The dogs' findings will never go away Ziggy. And remember, the specialist dogs were brought in on the advice of British search expert Mark Harrison who advised the Portuguese police to 'look at the parents' ''

    It's gone away. That's why no arrests or charges have been made. The parents have been more than just 'looked at'. They've been under a public microscope as well as that of the detective who was removed from the case.They continue to be looked at. If that 'evidence' of the dogs is still good, why doesn't someone bring it out ?

    We both know a defence would cite 'mistakes' made by cadaver dogs elsewhere.I think it was you that noted elsewhere that briefs often play the 'may i refer you to such and such' line.

    ''Someone died in Apartment 5A Ziggy, and it is probably those dogs rather than Goncalo Amaral, that have kept SY and the PJ searching''

    I don't argue that . I can't say with confidence whether there was a death there or not. If there was, then it most likely could be Madeleine.If the questionable forensic evidence was allowed to support it, it still wouldn't say who caused it.An abductor could have if Madeleine was crying or shouting too loud.Murat could have done it.One of the T9 could have done it. An abductor might be a killer. I doubt it would have been his or her first foray into the field.He or she could have the scent of death on their person from recent exploits. I didn't read any record of Eddie barking Madeleine's name.

    Either way. the McCanns could still have returned to the apartment and found an empty bed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ros..

      ''I take corruption in high office pretty much as a given these days JJ, but I find it impossible to believe that ALL those detectives who have worked on the Madeleine search, would go along with a cover up. ''

      You may find it impossible to believe but that doesn't mean it isn't true. You could fill Wembley Stadium if you sat every member of a police force that's covered up abduction, trafficking, paedophilia and perversion in the last 30 plus years.That doesn't mean they all wanted to do it, it often means they were under orders and /or threat. Research it.

      I think the 'working model' for high level cover ups is the Dutroux affair, Belgium. Dig into that and do a body count.It's not pleasant.It's actually pretty horrendous.But it shows you that these freaks play for big stakes and nobody is bullet-proof.

      '' Connerotte testified that the investigation was seriously hampered by protection of suspects by people in the government. “Rarely … has so much energy been spent opposing an inquiry.”

      That's the tip of the iceberg.

      I know the coincidence( or rumour) of the release of Michel Nihoul ( 'the beast') being allegedly released on May 4 2007 raised an eyebrow or two. He was pivotal to so much of the Belgian operation.I think we're being encouraged to 'join the dots' on his release and Madeleine's disappearance.I can't find anything substantial Re his actual release though.

      The cover ups involved at the highest level in the affair and the occasional 'removal' either professionally or by bullet of important people must surely have sent shock waves throughout all the high level diplomatic halls who were fond of the occasional perverse practice or blackmail. I'm reminded of a spell during the McCann investigation that is an echo of it all :

      On 5 March, 2008, the UK police email was sent by John Shord of the Met’s CO14 vice intelligence unit, to police in the McCanns' home county of Leicestershire.

      On 21 April, John Hughes of Leicestershire Police then apparently sent the e-mail to Portugal.

      That means a six-week delay.

      On 28 April, Insp Ricardo Paiva sent the e-mail to Lisbon Interpol.

      On 23 May, Interpol replied.

      In other words, the top police were apparently trying to frustrate the inquiry

      Read this :
      https://infrakshun.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/the-eurocrats-and-marc-dutroux-ii-a-judge-a-king-a-psychopath-and-his-lover/

      and dig for this

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent_europe/1951064.stm

      Delete
    2. 23:11, Ziggy,

      I find it odd that there was a 100% match then there wasn't, don't you?

      The dogs' evidence hasn't gone away Ziggy. The parents may not have been charged, but they are not off the hook either.

      In a Court room, both the prosecution and the defence would put forward experts. Martin Grime was called to give evidence in a missing child case in the US, the father was convicted.

      As for your penultimate paragraph, the timescale doesn't allow for murder by an intruder Ziggy. Cadaverine takes at least 90 minutes to develop. Gerry claims to have seen Madeleine alive at 9.00p.m

      As to why there have been no arrests, I refer you to JJ's post above.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 08.29

      You probably find it odd that there was a 100% match because there never was a 100% match!

      Delete
    4. Hi Rosalinda and others.
      What I find strange is, that this forensic laboratory in Birmingham did not save/freeze the DNA for further analysis in the future, because there are certainly better methods today than 10 years ago. I've never understood the reason as to why the didn't.

      Delete
    5. Imagine if those dogs had not alerted to anything in 5A, the clothes, cuddle cat, the wardrobe, behind the sofa, the Renault car.
      The McCanns and supporters wouldn't have wasted any time telling everyone how great and accurate those dogs were in a done-and-dusted fashion.

      'There, see, those dogs don't lie. They haven't signalled anything. No blood, no cadaver. So Madeleine is still alive.'

      The dogs alerts are certainly not null and void.

      They 'alerted.' They didn't 'not alert.'

      And as for MWT ...... a clown without the make-up.

      Gary Sweeney.

      Delete
  23. I see bennett has a new heroine - none other than the investigative, bright, fact finding "journalist" - Jodie Marsh.

    I do believe he is in luuurrve.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It must be that six-pack, the muscles, and all those tattoos - and as for Jodie Marsh's body ......

      Delete
  24. @anon 23:57

    Jodie Marsh is a model who found fame when the 'bimbo' era happened.

    A remarkable woman, she could tie her laces without any assistance by the time she was 23.She has some deep thoughts on perfume, makeup and boy bands.Sometimes she lifts weights . She has psychic ability too.Those close to her say she can smell a red carpet from three streets away. She has a degree in counting up to 12 and can colour in.She aspires to the intellectual heights reached by author, Katie Price, who found fame as a model with pretend tits.

    Marsh has over 500,000 Twitter followers. So she holds influence over the masses of great thinkers who place faith in nothing of any worth and celebrity 'goss'.What she says must be heard - or read. If Jodie thinks it, it must be of importance and worth our attention.If it makes her ponder, let's hope we can grasp the great and lofty concepts that have moved her to pass comment. If she's impressed the king of all hate blogs, it must be life-changing.I can hardly wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I am quite bemused by Bennett's new luuuve, lol. In any other circumstances Bennett would be demanding she be caste out of society and/or stoned, but not in a fun way.

      Jodie has made the error of watching the Richard Hall videos, that is, Tony Bennett's barmy theory involving Robert Murat and a paedophile ring that goes right to the heart of the establishment.

      Should add here, I am familiar with the Marc Dutroux case Ziggy, and it bears no resemblance to the case of Madeleine whatsoever.

      I do hope Jodie is aware that Tony Bennett is a creationist. That is, he believes the world was made in 7 days by God, and evolution is a lie. And that his co-conspirator Richard Hall, is a fully fledged tin foil hat wearer. I do hope she has the sense to check the pair of them out before she joins them in muddying the waters.

      Delete
    2. "I do hope Jodie is aware that Tony Bennett is a creationist."

      I doubt that she is familiar with that word.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. ''The dogs' evidence hasn't gone away Ziggy. The parents may not have been charged, but they are not off the hook either''

      ''In a Court room, both the prosecution and the defence would put forward experts.''

      ''As for your penultimate paragraph, the timescale doesn't allow for murder by an intruder Ziggy. Cadaverine takes at least 90 minutes to develop''

      I don't actually think that she was killed in the apartment.I only included it as a possibility if there won't be any evidence to say that she was.If the parents are not off the hook and a court room would allow opposing experts to debate the dog's evidence( as I actually stated anyway) what's the story ? It's been ten years now and none of the above has transpired. That looks suspiciously like 'off the hook' to me even allowing for the denial that has consumed the McCann haters.

      If it takes 90 minutes for cadaverine to develop and GM saw Madeleine alive at 9.00 pm, what about after 9 pm ? Is it the position of the McCanns witch hunters that GM and anyone who checked on the children after him may have seen her but she only appeared asleep but was really dead ? No tweaking there then(much).

      the JJ post you refer me to states the opinion of a cover up by the UK Police and politicians.A conspiracy. I've said there was, and still is, a cover up by people in influential positions who have tried to put the lid on the case without arrests.I question why and still do.We're talking about two British doctors, not the royal family or prime minister.This much effort and so many instances of interference on top of the funding thrown around doesn't make any sense if it's merely to protect two British holiday makers. Hate the McCanns until you've pulled out your last hair- it still won't look any different to discerning eyes.

      Delete
  25. In The Sun yesterday
    ”BIG-HEARTED Kate McCann has put aside her own anguish over snatched daughter Madeleine to help a pal raise money for charity”.
    Yes, we all know how generous and kind Kate is.
    And also this; ”At a time when two ex cops have continued to heap more misery on her family, she has spared time to consider other missing children and adults” I suppose this is satire, and that one of these cops must be Gonzalo Amaral, but does anybody know who the other cop might be?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ros

    The vast majority of Police Officers working on the Maddie case are no doubt honest and hard working.

    But it matters not what a lowly officer discovers if his superiors wish it covered up.

    This is the Maccann case in a nutshell.

    The CC of Leics (Baggott) should have been charged with perverting the course of justice instead he was rewarded with the CBE, a Knightbood and a massive pension as head of NI Police.

    John Reid, authorised perverting the course of justice and within 8 weeks he was gone from the Home Office and has been rewarded as Baron Reid of Cardowan and the list goes on.

    Today Cressida Dick should show you the contempt in which the public are held.

    Ask yourself, you are a low paid police officer who believes his line boss is corrupt, his Chief Constable is dishonest and the CC's boss, the Home Secretary has authorised it all, who would you turn to?

    Cover-up is an English disease.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cristobell,believing in the bible (creationism) has nothing to do with this!bennet is a tit I agree but leave god out of it.great blog by the way.jodie means well she isn't stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'm sure if that's Jodie Marsh's foot in the door( Richard Hall, ergo only the McCanns could have done it) and she has a vast amount of twitter followers, it will do no end of good in recruiting more haters and fomenting more poisonous theorising that excludes everyone apart from the parents.It's a luuurve based on hate- a disturbing paradox shared by all of that ilk.

    The Dutroux case bears 'no resemblance' to the Madeleine McCann case because the McCann case is of one missing child. It's riddled with interference of investigations, removal of anyone getting close to the truth and high level members of parliament involving themselves where only police forces are needed.Much of the investigated crime takes place in places with a recent history of child abuse or trafficking.You don't think there are similarities ? Or are there other cases with all these red flags.A lot of open minded observers note the similarities.Genuinely open minded observers i suppose i should add- not those who say they are but never seem anything near to open minded beyond lip service.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The problem is it's all so vague.
    Only the McCanns' word to say Madeleine was abducted and she definitely didn't wake and wander.
    Heresay when Madeleine asked why Kate and Gerry didn't come when she and her brother cried.
    Kate's many different accounts on how she found the apartment, windows open, shutters broken, doors hanging off and Madeleine gone.
    Peculiar behaviour, no searching because of the dark but Gerry able to sleep; a bit like the twins.
    Colour co-ordinated outfits, hair and make up just so. Photographs of a laughing, happy couple coming out of church days later fairly dancing through the crowd. Bizzarly going for runs and clocking their times.
    Sadly few photos of ~Madeleine and the twins having fun at the beach, having fun with their friends' kids, having fun with the childrens' club at high tea or even having ..fun.
    Zilch. Strange.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 23 February 2017 at 15:05

      “Sadly few photos…”

      Of which only one, ‘the last’, (delivered by the father on his return from a trip home) has so far been publicly acknowledged to have the date and time of capture in its EXIF data.

      T

      Delete
  30. Anonymous 22 February 11:26 refers to MWT:s review of the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann, released 1st May 2009.

    This seems to be a report ordered by the McCanns, as he expresses his full support for their claims about an abduction, but with the only difference, that he believes it happened outside the apartment.

    As the McCanns have managed to establish the even more unlikely version of a kidnapper taking Madeleine inside the apartment as a fact, at least in the world of MSM, Mark Williams Thomas now reminding them about what he may have discussed with them 8 years ago, must be very embarrassing.

    He’ll either persuade them to alter their version, so that they don’t have to defend the incredible ridiculous hypothesis about a ”burglary -gone-wrong” or that of a ”paedophile-hiding-in-the apartment” , in case they should have to do so in a future investigation.

    However, I believe that they realise, that it’s far too late for them to change their story. So, the question is now whether MWT will remain a friend of the McCanns, or be labelled troll and then sued by them.




    ReplyDelete
  31. Emotions versus Intellect and Jodie Marsh

    Stephen Birch, according to his reporting of his own private criminal investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine used a Swedish Malå ground penetrating radar equipment to search for voids or other deformities beneath the surface in the garden of Jenny Murat’s Casa Liliana in PDL.

    He found a void under, what he labels an unusable driveway in that garden, which he says was constructed in 2008.

    What’s interesting here isn’t really whether Birch is making up a story or telling the truth, but instead the McCann’s and the British society's reactions to Birch’s finds. Even though I don’t have so much confidence in Birch, and I suppose the S Y and the Portuguese P J think he’s a lunatic, I cannot see any reason as to why the spot in question indicated by Birch shouldn’t be dug up as soon as possible, before it becomes too late.

    I’ve no theory whatsoever as to why Madeleine’s remains might/could have ended up in Murat’s garden, but who can prove they haven’t without looking? Do people, like those in Missing People, who are physically searching for a missing person, need evidence substantiated by facts for every stone they wish to turn or look behind?

    What Jodie Marsh, Sonia Poulton and other women in the U K have said is, that they would go to PDL and dig with their bare hands, had it been their child, which, I guess, would be a very natural emotional reaction and expression of most parents, except for the McCanns.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't give any credence to Birch whatsoever Bjorn, he is another chancer.

      I dismissed anything said by him when he dismissed the evidence of the dogs. And of course significantly, the dogs did not alert at Murat's property.

      I think most mothers and fathers would have dug with their bare hands Bjorn, the McCanns failure to search is probably one of the main reasons people are so suspicious of them.

      Delete
    2. Ros @ 19.59

      You really should read the files and the archiving report and move away from basing everything you say on the dogs. You should read what Grime says about the evidential value of the dogs and realise that they proved nothing - they were only an indication (and not very accurate - I can prove that).

      Read about the experts view about whether or not parents should search for a missing child and then post your finding.

      But if you don't want to do that then please tell me and you readers exactly where the Mccanns should have "dug with there bare hands" in PDL to dig up the body of their daughter?

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 23.2 @22:24

      "not very accurate - I can prove that"

      Please do.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 21:19

      Anonymous 23.2 @22:24

      “Please do.”

      Please do, Anonymous 23.2 @22:24, I’m also interested.

      T

      Delete
    5. dont worry, they wont, your request will be ignored like Ziggy ignores facts handed to him...ie, changed statements.

      Delete
    6. @16:26

      "Ziggy ignores facts handed to him"

      I'd noticed that too.

      Delete
  32. @ Bjorn

    The police dug with spades and failed to turn anything up. Poulton's hands, or anyone elses wouldn't be more effective than actual spades.But it got them headlines saying it.

    I agree about the Birch theory. Using Amaral's air tight theory to secure a search warrant, it would then take less than an hour for a couple of men to dig the area up. Birch didn't state categorically that he thought it was Madeleine or that he even believed she was dead. All he said was that he detected something there. It could have been a buried dog-anything.The parents missed an opportunity in their not suggesting that it was dug up. If nothing turned up, they would have the perfect incident to point to when they wanted, in future, to silence 'theorists and trolls'.

    Birch invested a lot of his own money into his project.He wanted to help solve the case, nothing more.He didn't get 'funding' either. But, despite nothing being looked for in the place he pointed at, he is almost universally dismissed as ' a crank' by cranks who have psychic powers of deduction all over the internet.

    I'm surprised nothing much is said about Murat's sudden decision to start re-arranging his back garden and path so soon after the disappearance. But that would point the finger of suspicion at him - and away from the parents. Let's face it, his witness statement has only one thing in it that rings 100 % true - his name.

    One hour digging and a theory could be laid to rest -or Madeleine could. There's a lot of hours in ten years.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The cesspit has been complaining about being called trolls:

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13617-complaint-correspondence-to-independent-press-standards-organisation-re-mail-and-sun-and-their-use-of-the-word-trolls-for-describing-mccann-sceptics#357962

    Would anyone like to guess who "Mr REDACTED" is?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hi Bjorn,Ros & Ziggy

    The dogs didn't sniff anything at RM's house. They only alerted at 5a, the rented villa and most damming of all in my eyes the rented car they used. Was this the South African the McCanns insisted on using?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John
      The South African that the McCanns "persuaded" the P J to use in their search Madeleine was Daniel Krugel. It's not quite clear who paid him. This was a very suspicious person, who said he cold have found this mysteriously vanished pink blanket, which belonged to Madeleine, but for some reason this blanket disappeared a second time. Birch, on the other hand, did the search without being asked to do so by anyone.

      Delete
    2. Kate McCann (‘madeleine’):

      “So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine’s. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa.”

      Delete
  35. Hi Ziggy and Rosalinda
    Yes, Ziggy, you're quite right in that "the parents missed an opportunity in their not suggesting that it was dug up". I just cannot get it into my head why they didn't suggest that. I know Murat's garden was searched in 2007 by the P J, when he was a suspect, but Madeleine's body/remains could have been moved around many times after that. As for Birch's hypothesis about the P J having contaminated the McCanns' car with Madeleine's DNA, it's of course absurd, which I guess was what you were hinting at Rosalinda. Anyway, I've always suspected that the McCanns fear that Madeleine's remains could be somewhere in Murat's garden, which doesn't necessarily mean that they or Murat have put it there.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @John100, Bjorn,Ros...

    Why dismiss anything anyone says ? Ten years and people are still quoting tabloids and MSM who lie or 'create'.It's business.The tabloids were all over Islington paedophiles and cover ups in '82 but Lord Havers threatened to 'put out of business' anyone reporting on it ( we know why don't we Havers..and your weird sister).

    The McCanns dismissed Birch and his ideas out of hand. That's why i say they missed a trick. had they ridiculed the theory they would have ridiculed him and any other would -be sleuths. To dismiss it out of hand because of the dogs makes no sense. And no 'scent' in Murat's house makes none. Imagine..I break into your house, i kill your kid. I then take her to a shallow grave( i prepared earlier) outside my own property.No scent would be in my property.None would be anywhere around my property. And those wonder dogs wouldn't detect anything that's buried under soil and gravel.Murat's subsequent decision to do a spot of landscape gardening looks almost too suspicious.Red herring for theorists ? Either way he landed a nice little amount in damages without a search and despite his witness statement being a work of fiction.

    As for the 'cesspit'. Expressing shock that the media haven't printed all those suspicions and allegations says it all.That's some place that...

    ReplyDelete
  37. ''McCanns failure to search is probably one of the main reasons people are so suspicious of them''

    Not KMs evil expressions or attitude then. Not GMs stuck up arrogance. Not their changed statements( which weren't changed).Not the body language and 'embedded confessions' the online detective agency are clinging to . Not their smiling happy faces as they jogged in the sun.Not their making fortunes from a 'fraudulent' fund.Not their dry eyes. None of that...just that they didn't prostrate themselves in various locations screaming and digging with broken nails and bloodied fingers. I see. I've obviously misunderstood the mountain of other contrived scenarios as designed by Twitter's finest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @21:05

      Is your surname Walker by any chance?

      "Not their changed statements(which weren't changed)."

      "at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked" (Gerry McCann witness statement 4.5.07)

      "At 21H05 MATHEW returned, the time at which the deponent left the table to go to check how his children were.
      ----- He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge" (Gerry McCann witness statement 10.5.07)

      Some change wouldn't you say?

      Delete
    2. YUP, Ziggy is sure doing a good walker impression, next he will be telling us the Mccanns DID search and that theres more evidence of abduction in Tate,Payne and Needham cases.

      Delete
  38. All the myths that have been discussed and dismissed with sense and reason are being raised again here.

    Anything that people can think of they can just post it on here as if it has value. It comes under the freedom of speech/expression that Ros says she supports (unless it is against her).

    This is just a pure hate forum where anything is accepted as long as it is against the Mccanns.

    For God's sake - even Ros has spouted the old 100% DNA match.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:08

      "Anything that people can think of they can just post it on here as if it has value."

      Oh, the irony!

      Delete
    2. Indeed. The nutters are everywhere.

      Chez

      Delete
    3. Ros gave the game away when she posted "I suspect that the word 'Charity' will protect them, just as it did with Jimmy Saville and Lance Armstrong."

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 23 February 21:08
      Hi
      May I ask what the myths are, that have been dismissed and by whom? The dogs’ detection of scent of death both in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car. The “myth” about the McCanns’ not searching physically for their daughter the first 48 hours? The “myth” about the inconsistencies in their witness statements? The “myth” about Kate’s refusal to answer any of the 48 questions she was asked as a suspect?

      As for the DNA in their car, it was a direct transfer and 15 markers out of 19 matched Madeleine’s DNA profile, but conclusive, in that it contained DNA from other persons. Either the DNA profile matched that of Madeleine’s by pure chance or it was in fact Madeleine’s.

      Anyway, it didn’t match the profile of any other within the McCann family or any other person, known to the McCanns or to the Police. The chance for it not to be Madeleine’s is somewhere between 1% and 10%, at least that’s how I read the report of the forensic analysis. So, it wouldn’t be wrong to say, that it’s more likely to be Madeleine’s DNA than that of a stranger.

      If you or any other, who comment on Rosalinda’s blog could just find the slightest indication of an abduction in the released P J files or elsewhere, I’d reconsider my conviction about the McCanns’ guilt. “Tannerman” is long ago gone and the open window hasn’t been seen by anyone but a former suspect, so what else is there to support the preposterous fairy tale about the “naughty man”, as the McCanns label the shadow man, who snatched Madeleine, when they talk to their surviving children

      Delete
    5. Re; my comment 23 Feb. 23:12
      I meant of course inclusive, and not conclusive, in that it contained DNA from other persons.

      Delete
  39. I assume that those you say "oh Birch might be correct" understand that he has contacted the Mccann twins school and harassed the twins with threats that he will contact them directly to "inform" them of what he says happened to Madeleine so they will hate their parents. He posts photos of the twins on his bloody facebook for God's sake!

    The man (and I use that term loosely) should be shut up and locked away for a long time - unfortunately people posting here will say he has freedom of speech/expression.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just don't care who has spread the rumor about there being a void in the ground of Murat's garden, which is said to be big enough to contain the remains of a dog or a small child, yet I cannot understand why the indicated place shouldn't be dug up, just because Birch has tried to contact the McCanns' twins in an attempt to tell them his version of the truth.

      It is the S Y:s and the P J:s duty to first of all go into Murat's garden, to see whether there's a void or not and if there is, they should of course dig to see what's in it.

      Not digging is what Kate insisted upon. "There's no credibility to it", she said, when asked to comment on the possibility of Madeleine being buried in Murat's garden, and then she added, by referring to Birch "Who is this person at the end of the day"
      Doing what the McCanns want will never take this case an inch further. They even consulted their lawyers, before they reached the conclusion not to dig.
      Imagine your child is gone, could be alive, but is more likely to be dead and you take advice from your lawyer if it's worth looking for your child in a specific place, in other words, you ask if it pays, if it could help you to sue somebody in case she would not be there or what the chances would be to make something profitable out of it if she would be found dead.
      There is evil and cruelty beyond comprehension in this crime case.

      Delete
  40. @anon 21:08

    I tend to agree. It seems to have mad e a strong diversion into Bennett territory of late. I don't get how Bennett and Hall are often quoted as 'loons' and 'haters'. They won't be deterred from their determined crusade against the McCanns either. It's the same hymn sheet.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I made a post about the nutter birch and the twins - why has it not appeared here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you mean comment 23 February 2017 at 21:15?

      Delete
  42. "The McCann source added: 'With no disrespect to this investigative reporter he is forever trying to latch himself onto the Maddie case. He's said this all before and he once stood outside Apartment 5a reporting his same old belief.

    'Allowing him on This Morning to air his views won't help the show get in Kate and Gerry's good books. But they're not going to fall out with him over this. It's all based on speculation and it's a free country and they've got enough to be dealing with.'"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4254466/British-gran-buys-apartment-Maddie-disappeared-from.html

    "it's a free country" - lol

    ReplyDelete
  43. Amarals documentary

    32.58 – Professor Corte-Real, who met with the FSS experts, and saw the British scientists’ reports and work notes, explains this issue.

    Dr Francisco Corte-Real
    Vice President, National Forensics Institute

    33.09 – When those 15 alleles are included in a mix, where beyond those 15 we can have another 30 or 40 alleles, that means that it includes biological material from several persons. And there it can be much more difficult, much more inconclusive, because we may have a mixture from several persons, including hypothetically, if that happens, we may have several persons from the same family, and that may even give us the idea, in a way, that a certain missing person may be included, and that is not conclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @anon 08:51

    ''"The McCann source added: 'With no disrespect to this investigative reporter he is forever trying to latch himself onto the Maddie case. He's said this all before and he once stood outside Apartment 5a reporting his same old belief.''

    I wonder who the McCann 'source' was this time.Strange how Clarence and Co don't mind Davinia Beckham and the likes 'latching on' but not a scientist.Free country, free speech yada yada yada. They could have ridiculed him by digging. Murat looks more suspect than the McCanns.But they eliminated him based on his apparent total amnesia regarding his whereabouts on the evening of 3 May, who he'd been with and at what times. Brilliant police work.And he made a bundle out of it. Nice work if you can get it, as they say.

    @anon 11:58

    It seems unanimous doesn't it. No mention of bleach contamination-just unreliable 'evidence' that couldn't implicate the parents to the exclusion of persons unknown.Persons unknown being a possible abductor.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous23 February 2017 at 21:15

    I assume that those you say "oh Birch might be correct" understand that he has contacted the Mccann twins school and harassed the twins with threats that he will contact them directly to "inform" them of what he says happened to Madeleine so they will hate their parents.

    And not one Police force has acted on this ? How come ?

    Björn23 February 2017 at 15:12

    ''This seems to be a report ordered by the McCanns''

    That's your suspicion.Nothing more.

    ''As the McCanns have managed to establish the even more unlikely version of a kidnapper taking Madeleine inside the apartment as a fact''

    Why is it more unlikely ?Leaving to one side a suspicious mind.

    ''However, I believe that they realise, that it’s far too late for them to change their story.''

    If their 'story' is the truth-why would they ? I see no evidence to support the theory that they were lying.Your belief and suspicion doesn't destroy their version of events, it only echoes the desire of haters.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It always amuses me that people who state that there is no evidence that MM was abducted then go on to conclude that she couldn't possibly have been abducted!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15:23

      "It always amuses me that people who state that there is no evidence that MM was abducted then go on to conclude that she couldn't possibly have been abducted!"

      I go on to conclude that her body could have been abducted.

      Delete
    2. Bodies can't be abducted.

      Delete
    3. The mortal remains of Charlie Chaplin were abducted.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 24 February 2017 at 21:19

      “The mortal remains of Charlie Chaplin were abducted.”

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

      noun

      mass noun

      1The action of forcibly taking someone away against their will.

      1.1 (in legal use) the illegal removal of a child from its parents or guardians.

      T

      Delete
    5. To carry off illegally and in secret.

      Delete
    6. Like Burke and Hare d'you mean?

      Delete
  47. @ Björn23 February 2017 at 23:12

    Bjorn :

    ''The chance for it not to be Madeleine’s is somewhere between 1% and 10%, at least that’s how I read the report of the forensic analysis. So, it wouldn’t be wrong to say, that it’s more likely to be Madeleine’s DNA than that of a stranger. ''

    Sir Alec Jeffreys(the scientist who invented DNA fingerprinting ):

    '' DNA matches alone did not establish guilt and all Madeleine's genetic characters would be found in at least one family member. Gerry and Kate McCann, suspects in their daughter's disappearance, are considering commissioning independent tests on a Portuguese hire car''

    "DNA testing seeks to establish whether DNA sample A from a crime scene, came or did not come from individual B," he said. "So if you get a match there's very strong evidence that it did come from B''.

    ''“It is then up to investigators, the courts and all the rest of it to work out whether that connection is relevant or not. DNA doesn't have the words innocence or guilt in it - that is a legal concept. What it seeks to establish is connections and identifications''.

    (Question : Would a guilty party want to consider an independent test or be scared of that prospect even being discussed?)


    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Björn24 February 2017 at 16:12

    '' I just don't care who has spread the rumor about there being a void in the ground of Murat's garden''

    It wasn't /isn't a rumour. It was Birch informing us that he found it and suggested that it could be worth digging up.He didn't suggest Madeleine was dead or had been killed. All he said was that something or someone could be there and, as Police were searching all over PDL it would be something to look at and possibly eliminate.

    ''Not digging is what Kate insisted upon''

    Again, the McCanns did NOT have charge of an enquiry in which they were 'suspects'. Suspects aren't allowed to tell the police that they can't check their DNA, fingerprints or anything else. It's up to the police to investigate their own way.The last person or person's they ask permission from is the suspect(s).

    ''Doing what the McCanns want will never take this case an inch further''

    If Amaral allowed that, he shouldn't have been demoted, he should have been fired and then charged with perverting the course of justice. Do you seriously believe that he, or any other detective subsequently, let the suspects wishes dictate his investigation ?

    ''Imagine your child is gone, could be alive, but is more likely to be dead and you take advice from your lawyer if it's worth looking for your child in a specific place, in other words, you ask if it pays, if it could help you to sue somebody in case she would not be there or what the chances would be to make something profitable out of it if she would be found dead. ''

    Is there any proof of this ? A source ? The picture that you're painting, although you seem blissfully unaware , is of the parents desperately trying to protect Murat. Your determination to twist it into a scenario that portrays the McCanns as money -grabbing murderers has knocked your vision sideways.

    ''There is evil and cruelty beyond comprehension in this crime case. ''

    It's obviously beyond the comprehension of haters. We knew there was evil the day Madeleine disappeared.Whoever took her for whatever reason is where the evil began. Whoever has fought and funded the cause to keep her fate covered up ever since is where it gathered momentum.The internet is where it's grown into a monster.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 24 February 2017 at 20:12

      “@ Björn24 February 2017 at 16:12”

      “''Not digging is what Kate insisted upon''

      Again, the McCanns did NOT have charge of an enquiry in which they were 'suspects'. Suspects aren't allowed to tell the police that they can't check their DNA, fingerprints or anything else. It's up to the police to investigate their own way.The last person or person's they ask permission from is the suspect(s).”

      Björn did not say the McCanns had charge of the enquiry in which they were 'suspects' , Ziggy. Actually, the whole of the above paragraph is nonsense. Have you had one too many before writing it?

      “If Amaral allowed that, he shouldn't have been demoted, he should have been fired and then charged with perverting the course of justice. Do you seriously believe that he, or any other detective subsequently, let the suspects wishes dictate his investigation ?”

      “…demoted…”? A link will do.

      Do you seriously doubt that he, or another detective, would let the suspects wishes dictate his investigation? I don’t: by proxy, when the suspects’ wishes coincide with the wishes of those in a position to dictate to the investigation.

      “…The picture that you're painting, although you seem blissfully unaware , is of the parents desperately trying to protect Murat.”

      It seems to me that that Björn is painting no such picture.

      “ Your determination to twist it into a scenario that portrays the McCanns as money -grabbing murderers has knocked your vision sideways.”

      “…murderers…”

      I beg your pardon? Your continued use of this word makes you sound more and more like an agent provocateur…

      “Whoever took her…” Is there any proof of this ? A source ?

      Abduction… Is there any proof of this ? A source ?

      Perhaps you should stop inhaling…?

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    2. @ZiggySawdust 24 February 2017 at 20:12

      "The internet is where it's grown into a monster."

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-girl-idUKL102275520070810

      Aug 10, 2007

      "Tens of millions of people use YouTube. There are over 229 videos of Madeleine on it already, so it's incredible."

      Karma is a bitch.

      Delete
  49. Spot on, Ziggy.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hi Ziggy
    Just a short answer.
    When Kate was asked (the clip can be found on You Tube, I think it was on BBC, and anyone can find it) what she thought about Birch's finds. She said the following( I hope I remember correctly now;)"Yes the Met let us know before it hit the newspapers ... there's no credibility to it" I was shocked. Why does the S Y/Met call a former suspect just to tell her, what they have heard about what Birch has told them, obviously doing so without checking whether Birch is telling the truth or not, thus giving the McCanns, if they are/were involved, to make a move in order to sabotage a possible subsequent search in Murat's garden. To me it looks almost as though the S Y asks Kate if she wishes them to dig or not. At least she must have had a say. Why was it important at all to inform Kate about what Birch had said when the S Y then and still, I suppose, don't know more than Kate now knows/then knew, given that she's innocent.
    WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN KATE AND THE S Y AND WHY? I cannot help being suspicious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Björn @22:51

      For information purposes only:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGwvY6whtds

      Delete
  51. Björn24 February 2017 at 22:51

    Birch invested £50,000 into his own private way of investigating so he wasn't lying.He had no reason to lie or throw money away. He publicised his own venture and it was swiftly taken up by the internet( shock) and news hounds. Taking into account the speed in which rumours and actual news spreads, it was only a matter of hours before somebody, somewhere, would either phone, text or call upon the McCanns and they too would eventually be made aware of it. It was the Met's duty to investigate all new leads and any 'leaks' and keep the McCanns informed.That's what they get paid for.Plus, let's remember, the parents were suspects( formerly of the PJ and ever since amongst the internet gangs), but they were still the parents of a missing child.I'm sure anyone in their position would prefer to hear about it all first hand rather than through the internet and tabloids and, as such, SY were no doubt keeping them up to scratch and making sure they were not being kept in the dark about it. Had they heard about it from SY after everybody else, they would have grounds to complain( ''why are we last to be told ?'').

    Had the McCanns, who were now under the global microscope and who had been interviewed by any amount of police officers from two countries, 'made a move to sabotage' anything, as you suggest, I think it's a safe bet that it would have been seen.Why would they want to defend another suspect( Murat)?

    '' To me it looks almost as though the S Y asks Kate if she wishes them to dig or not. At least she must have had a say. ''

    The Police would be dismissed from the force if they allowed former suspects( who were allegedly 'not cleared of any crime' incidentally) to sabotage a search or any other area of the investigation.It may look like that to you, but test the probability of that actually happening.

    ''Why was it important at all to inform Kate about what Birch had said ''

    Because it was her baby that had gone missing and that was being searched for.

    ''WHAT WAS DISCUSSED BETWEEN KATE AND THE S Y AND WHY?''

    The latest developments and rumours because her daughter had gone missing from an area close by.

    ''I cannot help being suspicious.''

    You should try harder.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Bjorn 23:39

    KM : '' The Met let us know in advance of it hitting newspaper, I guess there was no credibility to it '' I'd say that's her telling us what happened, how it was reported and a reason why Birch wasn't taken seriously.

    She added ''I mean, who is this person at the end of the day''.

    That's questioning his credentials, not making a slight. If the forensic teams of the PJ and SY were studying evidence and getting nowhere, what could a property developer add to it all ? That's what Birch does for a living-he's not qualified in forensics or police work. His challenging of Portugal for stopping him digging is a strange one.I wonder why he thinks they won't let someone from overseas turn up at a strangers house and begin digging his path or garden up.

    I still, in spite of my defence of KM ( sorry, internet)think they could have made the dig.As i said elsewhere on here, it would silence Birch and his fans, or turn something up.It probably isn't Madeleine but who knows who or what's there ?It could bring Murat back under the spotlight too. If nothing's found of any worth to anything, Murat can collect another cheque and we can move on to the next red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  53. T 23:54

    ''Björn did not say the McCanns had charge of the enquiry in which they were 'suspects' , Ziggy. Actually, the whole of the above paragraph is nonsense. Have you had one too many before writing it?''

    Nope, T- i don't partake of the liquid madness. But statements such as “''Not digging is what Kate insisted upon'' is implying that KM had the power to 'insist' on certain aspects of an investigation.Anyone who supposes that they can do that supposes that they have the authority to to do it.

    ''“…demoted…”? A link will do.''
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/03/ukcrime.uknews4

    ''It seems to me that that Björn is painting no such picture.''

    Bjorn's opinions of the McCanns are all over the last few threads that have been posted on this blog.Peppering opinions with 'it seems to me' and ' i suspect' without offering anything to support the position is nothing more than a strong bias if all the statements are aimed in one direction and any opposing view is dismissed without offering a reason for the dismissal.

    ''I beg your pardon? Your continued use of this word makes you sound more and more like an agent provocateur…''

    In it's truest definition it isn't me that is an agent provocateur. I'm not trying to incite or persuade anyone to break a law such as making libellous statements or defaming anyone. The parents are irrationally hated by the vast majority despite being cleared of wrong doing.They claim they came back to an apartment and discovered an empty cot that previously had their child in it.No evidence exists that says otherwise.They say she was abducted, I believe them.I counter the arguments that refuse to accept the ongoing state of affairs and cite endless 'tells' that the McCanns apparently show.I point the finger at people above the PJ and SY who interfered in the case because it's never discussed or condemned.Instead, the accusations fly in the direction of the parents' faking an abduction. We're not discussing semantics here. The insinuation is clearly that they think that they faked an abduction for a reason.The only logical reason being to cover her death up.Adding the alleged 'evidence' of dogs, DNA and 'changed statements' you don't have to be Columbo to understand that they are suggesting one or both killed the child and hid her.Until a judge says 'manslaughter', that's an accusation of murder that those who continue to pillory the parents are advancing.

    “Whoever took her…” Is there any proof of this ? A source ?
    Abduction… Is there any proof of this ? A source ?''

    There is no proof of an abduction other than the child disappeared from the apartment.That 'appears' like an abduction.There is no proof of death either accidental or deliberate.These are the two opposing views.I take the view that she was abducted but, as i've stated before, I couldn't swear in a court because it's only an opinion.I don't insist that she was, I suggest it and i support my views with what i consider reasoned argument that takes in the opposing views too. As things stand in the case, the abduction holds more water.Ten years now.

    Namsate


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 25 February 2017 at 00:47

      Thanks for your reply. I’ve taken note frying pan in hand. Till later.

      Namaste.

      T

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust @00:57

      "They claim they came back to an apartment and discovered an empty cot that previously had their child in it."

      They made no such claim. You need to go back to basics before you attempt to convince the world and its neighbour to adopt your point of view.

      "They say she was abducted"

      And that is the sum total of 'evidence' for abduction.

      "I believe them."

      We grown ups are less gullible.

      "There is no proof of an abduction other than the child disappeared from the apartment. That 'appears' like an abduction."

      There is no proof of an abduction other than the child REPORTEDLY disappeared from the apartment. That 'appears' unusual. The rest is speculation (it was a while before the concept of abduction was 'firmed up')

      "As things stand in the case, the abduction holds more water"

      You need a bigger bucket.

      Delete
    3. Ziggy Sawdust @00:47

      "The parents are irrationally hated by the vast majority despite being cleared of wrong doing."

      You obviously haven't been paying attention.

      Delete
    4. Sorry but Ziggy is starting to look like a paid shill, and he is putting in far far to much effort on this blog with his efforts to discredit. I would like to bet that since hes arrived here hes typed more words than Ros !!!!

      Delete
    5. @17:01

      Paid or otherwise, judging from the sum of his efforts to date he is insincere.

      Delete
  54. Hi Ziggy
    "The parents are irrationally hated by the vast majority despite being cleared of wrong doing", you say. My humble question; Who has cleared them? The Supreme Court? I don't think the parents are hated, but the S Y are, at least in PDL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy wont answer this re who cleared them, hes walker from twitter

      Delete
    2. Whatever one may think of Ziggy's views, Ziggy is not Walker. Ziggy has a sense of humour, Walker is as dull as ditchwater.

      He did answer @16:22

      Delete
    3. @17:06

      Taking the opportunity to alleviate his frustration by writing more than his character allowance elsewhere then.

      Delete
  55. Some witnesses are never questioned again in Portugal, like the Smith family.

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P11/11_VOLUME_XIa_Page_2875.jpg

    "On this date I state for the files that at about 12.12 I had telephone contact with the witness Martin Smith, by means of phone number ********* who referred to the communication he made on 20-09-2007 to the British authorities, that confirms his sighting and showing his full availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of making statements and collaborating with this police in all the diligences that could be considered necessary concerning these events."

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

    ReplyDelete
  56. JJ

    Thanks for your contributions regarding John Reid, Strathclyde and Section 26.

    Please see comment up-thread yesterday @21:59 (in case you missed it).

    ReplyDelete
  57. http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2011/01/blair-war-iraq-secretary-prime

    "I remember being dressed down in the reception of the BBC's White City headquarters, as a young BBC researcher in February 2003, by Reid, who told me he knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "But what about Robin Cook's doubts?" I countered. "I don't know why Cookie's saying what he's saying, as he's seen the same intelligence as the rest of us," Reid replied. Cook died in 2005, having been vindicated over Iraq. Reid went on to be defence secretary, home secretary, a peer and chairman of Celtic FC."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Par for the course. Unused headline:

      "Previous cock-ups see Dick promoted"

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous25 February 2017 at 13:58

      what on earth has that got to do with MARK WILLIAMS THOMAS ON THIS MORNING?

      Are you sure you are on the right blog?

      Delete
    3. @15:49

      All roads lead to Rome.

      Delete
  58. "23.02.17 23:56 by Tony Bennett
    Since January, we have attracted 231 new members - 10 more a day - bringing our membership up, a few minutes ago, to 6,905."

    Pull the other one bennett it's got bells on it.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 11:13
    Ziggy Sawdust @00:47

    "The parents are irrationally hated by the vast majority despite being cleared of wrong doing."
    You obviously haven't been paying attention.

    Haven't I ? I thought they were getting on with their lives back home.What have I missed ?

    Björn25 February 2017 at 08:53

    Hi Ziggy
    "The parents are irrationally hated by the vast majority despite being cleared of wrong doing", you say. My humble question; Who has cleared them? The Supreme Court? I don't think the parents are hated, but the S Y are, at least in PDL.

    My question to you - who has charged them in the last ten years ?

    Anonymous25 February 2017 at 13:58

    "I remember being dressed down in the reception of the BBC's White City headquarters, as a young BBC researcher in February 2003, by Reid, who told me he knew that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. "But what about Robin Cook's doubts?" I countered. "I don't know why Cookie's saying what he's saying, as he's seen the same intelligence as the rest of us," Reid replied. Cook died in 2005, having been vindicated over Iraq. Reid went on to be defence secretary, home secretary, a peer and chairman of Celtic FC."
    Well said.And RIP Robin Cook and David Kelly. F**k you Blair and Bush and every puppet under you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy, or should I say walker? they have not been charged by anyone for anythinng...HENCE NOT CLEARED. Stop saying they have been cleared, THEY HAVE NOT !!!!!

      Delete
    2. "And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.

      (...)

      Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence."

      http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#70

      Delete
  60. @Anonymous25 February 2017 at 11:02

    "They claim they came back to an apartment and discovered an empty cot that previously had their child in it."

    They made no such claim. You need to go back to basics before you attempt to convince the world and its neighbour to adopt your point of view.

    ( how would you interpret 'they've taken her' ?)

    "They say she was abducted"
    And that is the sum total of 'evidence' for abduction.

    ( Yes- a missing child that had previously been in her cot.What is the sum total of an alternative situation ?)

    ''We grown ups are less gullible.''

    ( Less gullible, or more suspiciously minded ?I believe all detectives on the case, both here and Portugal, were all 'grown ups' )

    ''There is no proof of an abduction other than the child REPORTEDLY disappeared from the apartment. That 'appears' unusual. The rest is speculation (it was a while before the concept of abduction was 'firmed up')''

    ( again, is there proof of an alternative ? No charges have been made as far as I know.What alternative theories have been 'firmed up' ? The abduction scenario is speculation, yes. What are the alternative theories- facts ?)

    "As things stand in the case, the abduction holds more water"

    You need a bigger bucket.''

    You need to demonstrate why i need a bigger bucket.You're speculating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @17:18

      "You need to demonstrate why i need a bigger bucket."

      That's where you're wrong. You have already done the demonstrating.

      According to you, Madeleine was abducted from her cot, the McCanns never changed their statements, and they have since been cleared.

      "all detectives on the case, both here and Portugal, were all 'grown ups'"

      They certainly were. Have you read the archiving despatch? If you had you'd know it does not arrive at the conclusion, 'Madeleine McCann was abducted'. Their actual determination was indeed supported by both Portuguese and UK detective work.

      You have written pages of comment here, apparently extolling even-handedness, while recommending readers focus on the role of the authorities in covering up a crime. That might be considered laudable, except you employ it as a distraction from WHAT crime was being covered up, and who might have committed it in the first place.

      In reality you are a filibusterer par excellence. Unfortunately, for your purposes at least, myopia is not contagious. Nelson may have taken advantage of his impaired vision, but he was the Admiral, you're very much below decks.

      Delete
  61. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 17:21

    Ziggy, or should I say walker? they have not been charged by anyone for anythinng...HENCE NOT CLEARED. Stop saying they have been cleared, THEY HAVE NOT !!!!!

    No, you shouldn't say 'walker'( see the 'get ziggy' thread).I don't know why you keep doing so-are you still paranoid ?

    My complex point(apparently) is that they have not been charged with anything.If the police( either force) considered that the parents were guilty of anything untoward involving their daughter and the subsequent conspiracy to conceal her whereabouts, I think they would have been charged by now.They were, once upon a time, 'official suspects'.If they are 'out on bail' then fair enough- they can be called suspects.Ten years is a long time to be out on bail though- even by internet standards.

    I believe they're innocent until proven guilty.To prove guilt, arrests have to be made first of all, then a court case( not over a book by the way) would ensue involving a prosecution with it's 'exhibits A, B, C ' etc. Should those exhibits convince a jury-they're(finally) guilty of whatever the prosecution allege.

    As I type this, I'm guessing the family McCann are eating and getting ready to watch some telly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @18:39

      Enough of the bullshit already. Who are you trying to kid? (your readers obviously)

      'Not charged' does NOT EQUATE to 'Cleared'.

      If a process is not begun it cannot be referred to as concluded, whatever solids your verbal diarrhoea contains (and they ain't too many)

      Delete
  62. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 17:01

    ''Sorry but Ziggy is starting to look like a paid shill, and he is putting in far far to much effort on this blog with his efforts to discredit. I would like to bet that since hes arrived here hes typed more words than Ros !!!!''

    Thank you for that odd little spasm.I can't help what I or anything or anyone else 'looks like' in your eyes-that's up to your powers of perception( or lack of).But I understand why you are kicking and screaming in your own little way.I feel like I've shown up with a crucifix wrapped in garlic and disturbed a nest of vampires. All I'm doing is trying to address both sides of an argument.That is, 'reality test' them in turn. There's a lack of evidence or anything reliable enough to take things to a court.After ten years even you must admit that it isn't usual. I didn't fail in my investigation-the PJ and SY did. Why can't the haters rally together to bully them and not the parents ?

    I question why there's no admissible evidence. I question why Amaral hasn't challenged the decision to demote and discredit him. I question why so many have 'nailed' the case tight against the parents, yet no police can.Why can't you( and the rest) tackle the police ?I question why it's so outrageous to accept that a child was taken from her room when the apartment had no adults in it.I question all the 'proof' offered as 'evidence' by the vast army of social networkers who live on Twitter and have their tea breaks on youtube in between hanging on every lie insinuated by the MSM.

    I also question why the parents left the children unguarded and think it was wrong and that it was dangerous. I question why they were never charged with negligence alone. I question why they missed the trick over the Birch debacle.I question why the unprecedented interest of two Governments and four PMs ( Blair, Brown, Cameron,Socrates) was so intense.

    This is a 'paid shill' is it ? I don't think so. I'm just spoiling a party.Sorry etc.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are not going to answer the question then Ziggy just as i said you would not...bbecause you cant!!!

      Lets try once more shall we...

      WHO CLEARED THE MCCANNS?????

      Delete
  63. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 17:06
    ''Ziggy wont answer this re who cleared them, hes walker from twitter''

    ''Anonymous25 February 2017 at 17:06
    Ziggy wont answer this re who cleared them, hes walker from twitter''

    Another paranoid.

    I can only type on a blog.I wish i could draw pictures for this kind of net lunatic.

    1- i have no interest whatsoever of joining Twitter, Fakebook or any other sewing circle.They're a waste of web space and, for the most, nothing more than vast spaces for amassed groups of lost or bored people 'reaching out' for attention. I have them as a distant 3rd and 4th behind watching paint dry, or grass grow.

    2- I keep seeing the name 'Walker' thrown in my direction.I have no idea why.This post hints that he must be one of your online nomads that spends too much time on Twitter- am I right ? I'm also guessing that he must be against unfounded or irrational suspicion or hatred levelled at the parents of Madeleine McCann-am i getting warm ?

    3- There's a thread on this blog also bizarrely dedicated to unmasking me because i refuse to hate.I've answered questions on that. I didn't have to.I chose to.I could, of course, have made the answers up.I could have treated the whole thing with ignorance or contempt.But I answered. If this spoils your paranoid fantasy all I can do is offer you an apology and recommend that you try to secure at least one of your hands back on reality and claim back your life.

    This blog isn't about me.It isn't about anyone.It's a blog that Ros has decided to create and it's content is what she is interested in. That's not too difficult to understand, surely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. again ziggy,,

      So you are not going to answer the question then Ziggy just as i said you would not...because you cant!!!

      Lets try once more shall we...

      WHO CLEARED THE MCCANNS?????

      Delete
    2. I've got a lot of catching up to do and I'll start with this one!

      .........because I refuse to hate.... Good heavens, no-one on here is asking you to hate the McCanns. And I would point out, you are using the word 'hate' completely out of context.

      Not believing someone is not the same as hating them! There is quite a significant difference. None of us, or most of us, do not hate the McCanns, we simply won't accept their lies.

      I'm sure in your life you have encountered people who have lied to you. Do you not challenge them? I don't those little white tactful lies, I mean the great big whoppers? If you don't believe them, does it mean you hate them? Are you a hater for not buying into their lies, or just not an idiot?

      I hate what Gerry and Kate have done to Goncalo Amaral and to all those ordinary people who have had the gall to say the abduction story is bollox. And they say that, because it is.

      Gerry and Kate are not likeable people. Actually, I've never met a likeable vexatious litigant and the reason they are not liked is because they are treating everyone around them (yourself included)like idiots.

      You cannot infer hatred because someone doesn't believe you. And actually, it sounds kind of bratty - the sort of thing a spoilt 6 year old would say when made to eat his greens. You are making me eat these because you hate me. It's both childish and nonsensical.

      That's not to say this case is without 'haters'. In fact, this case was my first encounter with the word hater. Sadly the world, not just the internet, is filled with malevolent people who spend their entire lives blaming everyone else for their woes. It can be anyone from Jeremy Corbyn, to the neighbours, to the kid who wouldn't share their pencil case. I would add Donald Trump, but it would be insane not to hate him.

      Their first thoughts begin with 'if only...' followed by dastardly plans to make others more miserable than themselves. They often select their targets randomly, hide behind mischievous phone calls, or as nasty anonymous trolls on social media.

      I'm sure they come from all walks of life, people with secret malevolent desires they have to hide from all those around them. In my opinion they are more to be pitied than despised, and they are certainly nothing to be afraid of. They are too scared to use their names, so courage wouldn't top the list, lol.

      In this case, most have long since moved on, people like Jayelles who first latched onto the Jonbenet case, then Madeleine. Bennett too has a long line of high profile anti gay and fascist causes behind him too - though he doesn't move on, his hatred is with him for eternity - and then some.

      For most followers of this case however, rightly or wrongly it is a 'who dunnit' reality show. And that's mostly down to Gerry and Kate who have provided regular updates and television appearances.

      Most of us are too distanced from the McCanns and all the subplots, that we are not emotionally involved. And besides which, we have other interests!

      Using the word 'hater' to myself and to my readers is crass, as words used out of context always are. It's also insulting, think about it. Is it the sort of thing you would say in a social situation to regular people? I like to treat people on social media in the same way as I would in person. Which is why I have never had to delete anything or hide who I am. A little bit of decorum if you don't mind! ;)

      Delete
    3. Never say never Ziggy! Even an old fogey like me uses social media for all my news. I haven't bought a newspaper for several years now. It's great to dive straight into articles of interest, I'm now a regular reader of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and the wittiest most up to the minute political commentators like Seth Myers, and Bill Maher (who I am currently in love with)etc, etc.

      But I digress, for up to the minute news, I go to Twitter. I have long lost faith in MS newspapersspecially, real people, real opinion, real images, real news. It's a whole new world!

      Delete
  64. If MWT thinks he is correct, then Jeremy Wilkins should be asked more questions

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. MWT might just as well have said it was an alien abduction 20:51, how on earth does a passionless twerp like that get his own TV show? Thank heavens for the Americans!

      On second thoughts, perhaps I should patent the alien idea in case he joins Team Bonkers, Bennett and Hall. If you do look in here Jodie, you gotta know, you have kind of latched onto a cult with the Hall videos.

      Delete
  65. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 20:17
    @17:01

    Paid or otherwise, judging from the sum of his efforts to date he is insincere.

    One short comment about me.Nothing about anything else.Pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Anonymous25 February 2017 at 21:16
    @17:06

    Taking the opportunity to alleviate his frustration by writing more than his character allowance elsewhere then.

    Has Twitter crashed tonight ? What is it with you quarterwits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not impressed with quarterwits Ziggy, the original was just begging for a bitchy witty one liner. So you are obviously not gay or female.

      Delete
  67. (1 )

    @Anonymous25 February 2017 at 20:59

    ( at least this post wasn't just about me)

    '' According to you, Madeleine was abducted from her cot, the McCanns never changed their statements, and they have since been cleared.''

    It's also according to the parents. They concluded , because she was no longer in her cot, that somebody had taken( abducted, kidnapped) her. Is that such an outrageous conclusion to jump to ?Ten years later, nobody has been arrested for an abduction.Nobody has been arrested for murder.No evidence has been discovered of anything violent or physical force.

    Re statements not changing

    Witness statement of Kate Marie Healy, 2007/05/04 at 14:20hrs

    "At around 10pm, the witness came to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed, but unlocked, as already said, and immediately noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did.."


    Witness statement of Gerald Patrick McCann, 2007/05/04 at 11:15

    "The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed....

    ...When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the blinds and window in the room''

    When questioned, he says that on that night he made several phone calls, including calls to two sisters,and a couple of Kate's uncles..''





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy @22:23
      "Re statements not changing"
      "The side door that opens into the living room, which as said earlier, was never locked, was closed...."

      That's about 'doors'. Statements changing concerns 'entering'.

      Gerry McCann, 4 May, 2007
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm

      "...at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine."

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust 25.2 @22:23

      "the parents...concluded, because she was no longer in her cot, that somebody had taken( abducted, kidnapped) her"

      Point of information 1:

      Madeleine was supposedly asleep in her bed. A BED is not a COT (that's for even smaller children)

      "Re statements not changing"

      Point of information 2:

      Kate and Gerry McCann are TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE. If someone changes a statement they don't first change their identity.

      Delete
  68. (2)

    @Anonymous25 February 2017 at 20:59

    ''you'd know it does not arrive at the conclusion, 'Madeleine McCann was abducted'. Their actual determination was indeed supported by both Portuguese and UK detective work.''

    If the combined failure of the forces in question arrived at the conclusion that Madeleine McCann was not abducted, apart from vanishing into thin air as if by magic, what conclusions are left ? I can only think of murder.Have they announced that they have officially concluded that it is a murder case and not told the McCanns ?


    ''That might be considered laudable, except you employ it as a distraction from WHAT crime was being covered up, and who might have committed it in the first place.''

    I have stated I believe Madeleine was abducted and not for anything other than an unthinkable fate.I also state that it's only what I believe- I'm not trying to persuade any observers of it all that I 'know' and it's 'fact'.If I go with the abduction theory and that she may have been procured then yes, I'm questioning how high up it goes and treating the response of diplomats with what i consider well founded suspicion.Nobody has stated categorically what crime was committed or who committed it or how or why.In ten years that's been the state of play.How can i distract anyone from something if that something hasn't been identified by anyone.

    ''In reality you are a filibusterer par excellence. Unfortunately, for your purposes at least, myopia is not contagious''

    I have no purpose beyond opening the door for debate wider than slightly ajar.I'm not distracting anyone from anything.I'm doing the opposite by attempting to encourage eyes to look around and not down a tunnel.That's the opposite of myopia.

    ''Nelson may have taken advantage of his impaired vision, but he was the Admiral, you're very much below decks.''

    That might be nice and 'Oscar Wilde' and i dare say you amused yourself in coming up with it.But behind the pompous tone it's only a personal dig worthy of no less contempt than the many online school playground insults.I don't care what advantage Admiral Nelson took of his impaired vision.It didn't help him spot the assassin in the rigging did it. My vision is fine.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy, I notice that you keep saying that the Mccanns have been cleared, but will not answer WHO BY?

      Why is this?
      The only other person who I have come across who does this is walkercan10000 on twitter.


      He is forever saying (a bit like you) that they have been cleared, but will not say by who. Im afraid you are making ALL your other points invalid by changing the subject, or ignoring the questions that you have been asked on numerous occasions.

      So...Who cleared them Ziggy, and remember ...not being charged,is NOT the same as being cleared.

      As you are struggling to understand this simple premise, i shall do you the kind service of referring you to Textusa who explains this perfectly.

      link. http://textusa.blogspot.com.es/2017/02/mccanns-not-cleared.html


      also see more recent posts.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust 25.2 @22:27

      "If the combined failure of the forces in question arrived at the conclusion that Madeleine McCann was not abducted, apart from vanishing into thin air as if by magic, what conclusions are left? I can only think of murder"

      'What conclusions are left?'

      You sound like someone else we know:

      "Where...where...where is the child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here" (Gerry McCann, 10.2.2010)

      You seem to be lacking in imagination if you 'can only think of murder' Doesn't 'accidental death' suggest itself at all?

      "Nobody has stated categorically what crime was committed or who committed it..."

      Oh yes they have. Read the archiving despatch.

      "I have no purpose beyond opening the door for debate wider than slightly ajar..."

      If you see yourself as on a mission then you'd better make sure you have sufficient information at your disposal to be convincing. As things stand you're falling way short of the mark.

      "I'm...attempting to encourage eyes to look around and not down a tunnel. That's the opposite of myopia."

      Don't flatter yourself. And don't underestimate your readers' intelligence.

      "My vision is fine" ("I believe Madeleine was abducted")

      About as clear a vision as Gerry McCann's then.

      Delete
    3. Ziggy Sawdust

      Re the above @12:47

      "Nobody has stated categorically what crime was committed or who committed it..."

      In answer I referred you to the Archiving Despatch. Apologies. I should have said the PJ interim report.

      Delete
  69. Cristobell I have just watched the looking for Madeline documentary. I have watched bits and pieces of it before but never the whole lot. It really is no wonder why people who have done little or no research on the case are so blinkered to the thought that the McCanns could have possibly had anything to do with their daughters disappearance. Consequently they would have no bother considering what MWT said as a possibility. The both of them are in a league of their own, I know there was probably hours and hours of film shot to be able to produce the "perfect" family image that the program portrayed but really what sort of people where able to talk and put their energies into something they knew to be a lie especially when that lie involved the death of their daughter. It beggars belief and it was because of that and other contrived situations that the ordinary uk public got hooked on the little girl lost story and not because they listened to the likes of MWT or reading people like ziggysawdust here. Most people if not all who read here have a very good handle on the case so ziggysawdust comments while annoying and frustrating or not likely to persuade people here to change their mind. If her/his motives are to convince as many people as possible that the McCanns are innocence Twitter is probably the right place for him/her because there might be people there who havent researched the case.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Researching the case should start with reading the PJ files. But I can imagine not everyone will have the time nor the courage to go through that amount of paper. This is no written 'script'. It's wat it is: hundreds of interviews, statements and at least ... a preliminary conclusion. Mr. and Mrs. McCann have not be found guilty, because there's no proof of that. At the same time they are not considered as innocent. For the same reason. The PJ has reopened the investigation and is peeling the onion starting from the doubt(s) it did write down as a conclusion.

    ReplyDelete

  71. Edit
    Anonymous said...

    Ziggy, I notice that you keep saying that the Mccanns have been cleared, but will not answer WHO BY?

    Why is this?
    The only other person who I have come across who does this is walkercan10000 on twitter.


    He is forever saying (a bit like you) that they have been cleared, but will not say by who. Im afraid you are making ALL your other points invalid by changing the subject, or ignoring the questions that you have been asked on numerous occasions.

    So...Who cleared them Ziggy, and remember ...not being charged,is NOT the same as being cleared.

    As you are struggling to understand this simple premise, i shall do you the kind service of referring you to Textusa who explains this perfectly.

    link. http://textusa.blogspot.com.es/2017/02/mccanns-not-cleared.html


    also see more recent posts

    ReplyDelete
  72. If those stating the McCanns haven't been cleared defined what they mean by 'cleared', it might help...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15:18

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inocentados
      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inocentar#Portuguese

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/acquit#English

      http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#70

      E não se diga, também, que os recorrentes foram inocentados por via do despacho de arquivamento do processo-crime.

      Delete
    2. anon @ 15.18

      I think you are taking the p1ss.

      It is the pros who keep saying the mccanns have been cleared...ASK THEM !!!

      Delete
  73. I don't think I've ver found myself in the company of so much bitterness and bile in one place in my life as i find myself on this blog. Poison has become lifeblood.The thought of losing it is terrifying.Anyone opposing the views of the 'in crowd' is seen as a threat . Equilibrium is seen as a dangerous state.

    I've tolerated the crap.I've smiled at so many 'detectives' who claim to investigate files and that have arrived at 'the obvious' that ten years of policing have failed to do.These same 'sleuths' who have named me about 6 times and not come close.But why would that deter them ?They know everything. Maybe I am John, Jon, Hugh, Gerry or Walker and whoever else they unanimously want to believe.More 'research' will probably 'prove' that I'm all of them.No wonder you all run in the same circles.

    The responses to my efforts in trying to open adult debate demonstrate nothing but desperation.The personal, juvenile 'digs' are embarrassing.You should really have a bit more dignity.If you can't debate or discuss, say nothing.That's a better option.
    It doesn't bother me that the crew on here hate me trying to 'discredit' the prevailing thoughts and theories( which if you're honest, is only one- the McCanns did it, the kid's dead, they hid her) as my 'witnesses' are several detectives and the liberty that the McCanns are enjoying.They're doing ok for two suspects of ten years.

    The more lucid of you that offer up endless 'evidence' to shoot my logic down should really have the courage of your misguided convictions and direct them toward the PJ and SY. Why don't you ? It's no good telling me - I can't arrest them can I ?You're all so sure- do it. Why not get some little petition organised online and take your inane battle to the enemy( those who refuse to arrest your suspects). Or is it just a hobby now; a kind of online social club that are too angry to take up train spotting.It certainly seems that way.

    Your opinions, your theories, your rants, and your 'evidence' mean nothing.They mean nothing to me, and nothing to the investigators of the case. It's been 472 weeks now.All that time with two 'stand-out' suspects. You could all be( stand back) -wrong.But, as long as you all echo each other and pat each other on the back you can all feel good.It's a sign of the times I suppose.It's another tragedy. People just don't seem to want to hide their ugliness inside.The internet isn't that good at hiding yourself.

    When you all go on Twitter or other blogs to spread the good word, remember, the prevailing state of affairs is evidence that you're getting nowhere and doing nothing about it.Nothing constructive, just hissing at your chosen 'pantomime baddies'. I've posted enough on the blog. It stands. It's there- shoot it down and enjoy the same success that shooting down your suspects has brought you so often.Don't let facts or unproven theories stop you.Enjoy :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. show me one example of where someone says they hate you ziggy. your childishness and your penchant for ignoring direct questions are equalled only by your failure to change one single persons view on this thread.

      Delete
    2. You self-righteous SOB.

      "Don't let facts or unproven theories stop you"

      They didn't in your case, did they.

      "the McCanns are...doing ok for two suspects of ten years."

      Aren't they just. I wonder why? (that's a rhetorical question btw.)

      "Your opinions, your theories, your rants, and your 'evidence' mean nothing. They mean nothing to me"

      That's perfectly evident.

      "the prevailing state of affairs is evidence that you're getting nowhere"

      After 10 years and even more £millions. Is it any wonder there is growing discontent among the general public?(that's rhetorical also)

      "If you can't debate or discuss, say nothing"

      If you can't debate or discuss TRUTHFULLY, say nothing, or expect to be exposed.

      "I've posted enough on the blog"

      More than enough in fact.

      Delete
    3. Well said ziggy.

      Delete
    4. @ anon @ 16.48
      i wholeheartedly concur sir, especially on the last point.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're wrong on both points.

      Delete
  75. The Mccanns were "cleared" from arguido status by I believe, two Portuguese Magistrates leading to the archiving report.

    As they have never been charged with anything (including parking tickets) in Portugal I really do not understand what this "the Mccanns have not been cleared" argument is. No-one in the World - including Ros, has been "cleared" from involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Not cleared ... by the lifting of their arguido status".

      Delete
    2. Nicely put.

      Chez

      Delete
  76. The Myths are back. And David Bowie is not dead, as can be assumed by the content of his latest songs. I'm amused by the looooong, repetitive and not at all badly written reactions of the Ziggyman/woman. This case really has become a circus.
    A voice from the other side (of the canal), with respect for the clowns, the illusionists and the acrobats.
    My opinion? The girl is dead and the parents are in the know of that. You simply don't write a book and talk about anniversaries when there's 1 chance that the girl can be found before 'the publication of your requiem' and the 'anniversary of her vanishing'.
    My gut feeling. And now ... up to the next attractions!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @16:52

      "The Myths are back - A voice from the other side (of the canal), with respect for the clowns, the illusionists and the acrobats."

      You're not wrong. He even had the chutzpah to end his last chapter on the previous topic with a link to 'madleinemythsexposed'.

      As to your 'gut feeling', common sense is often the more reliable compass. It's also not as widely available as we might suppose.

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous 26 Febr. 16:52
      Agree to what you're saying. Here more of the same kind.
      Kate, as explanation as to why she began to keep a diary just days after Madelene had gone missing said; "so the twins would/will have an account of the truth" I've always wondered, how she then could have known that Madeleine were not going be found before her two year old twins had learnt to read, and of course also; how could she then have known that there would be an alternative truth, namely that about their involvement. No one had at that point of time, just days after the tragedy implied that she and Gerry were involved.

      Delete
  77. Rosalinda, get well soon! Thank you for publishing comments. NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rosalinda
      I,too wish that you'll get well soon. Just wondered why we haven't heard from you lately.

      Delete
  78. Hello everybody including Ziggy
    Since we're discussing whether the McCanns are cleared or not,here are some thoughts from me.

    The McCanns, as expected, now disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling and especially with its statement, that the lifting of their arguido status in 2008 doesn’t equate with their being innocent.

    One conclusion, that could be drawn from the complaint, which the McCanns have now lodged, is of course, that they must have thought, that they were not going to be further investigated in the re-opened investigation, and that they have never, since the shelving of the case in 2008, been asked any embarrassing questions implying, that they’re not telling the whole truth, otherwise they would have known that they had never been officially cleared.

    If they have been secretly investigated all these years, something about that ought to have leaked from the Portuguese-British investigation, but nothing has, as far as I know. So, taking the Supreme Court’s wording and also that of the Portuguese Prosecutors’ final report in 2008 into consideration, it seems as though the McCanns in practice, in the actual re-opened police investigation, which came about 2011/2013, so far have been treated as being innocent, but still in purely legal terms, yet not entirely freed from suspicion of a crime. Rather confusing, isn’t it?






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous26 February 2017 at 16:22

      ''show me one example of where someone says they hate you ziggy. your childishness and your penchant for ignoring direct questions are equalled only by your failure to change one single persons view on this thread.''

      In your eagerness to get to the insult, you didn't think that out did you ? Par for the course I suppose here...
      Nobody(unless I've missed it) has said that they hate me.Then, I haven't said that anyone as either.Have I ? Hating me and hating what i suggest or disagree with are two completely different animals. Incidentally, I try to reply /answer all direct questions addressed to me.Sometimes Ros posts things up that can appear out of synch.I tend to scroll down automatically as that's the pattern of continuous writing or discussing.As such, i might sometimes pass something that appears above what's already been said.As for changing anyone's view, I don't really expect much success in that area.But then again all I've said( many times) is that I'm weighing up BOTH sides ( pros and cons) of the argument.That's not trying to change anyone's view, it's suggesting looking at more than one view. It's possible to strengthen your convictions after examining alternatives rather than 'change sides'. But failing to examine all sides doesn't really add any weight to your argument.It's not rocket science .

      Anonymous26 February 2017 at 16:48

      ''You self-righteous SOB.
      "Don't let facts or unproven theories stop you"
      ''They didn't in your case, did they.''

      You again.You're right for a change.I didn't let unproven theories stop me.I carried on looking into the case with an open mind and opened eyes. S O B ? Save it.It's no good getting 'tough' online.it's safer, obviously.

      Anonymous26 February 2017 at 17:14

      ''Well said ziggy.''

      Is right my friend.Your eyes are opened.Others have theirs wide shut here.

      Anonymous26 February 2017 at 17:38

      "Not cleared ... by the lifting of their arguido status"

      That's fighting talk on here.Well said.

      I don't need lessons in 'context' . I'm no fool.I use the the word 'hate' and 'haters' loosely maybe, but not innaccurately.The majority of written words, their tone and the implied personal 'knowledge' of the McCanns all point in one direction.Every word about them is intended to imply dishonesty, arrogance, cruelty and smugness .That's putting it mildly. These are two parents who took a bad gamble one night and have now lost a 3 year old daughter.To corner them for abuse is pretty disgusting.

      Far more than 'we just know' and 'you can just tell' is needed to even arrest 'suspects', let alone put them on trial and find them guilty.If you can't resist calling somebody a liar it's dangerous unless you have the proof.When you have that proof, you can call them a liar as long as you feel the need to.Without the proof, you're just making a noise. I repeat- don't tell each other about this knowledge-tell the police.They obviously need this.

      Delete
  79. @ Anonymous26 February 2017 at 16:52

    "The girl" !!!!! - try and have some respect - her name is Madeleine. The parents name is Mccann.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Hi Bjorn@18:54

    The Scottish legal system has 3 unique verdicts Not Guilty, Not Proven & Guilty. If the McCanns thought they were in the clear when the case was archived, they should seek better legal advice. With the Scottish system Not Proven means your neither innocent or guilty it's just The Procurator Fiscal hasn't proved their case and can bring you back to court if further evidence becomes available. To me the McCanns are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John 20.47

      "What is the not proven verdict?

      Scotland, unlike most of the world's legal systems, has three possible verdicts in criminal cases - guilty, not guilty and not proven.

      The legal implications of a not proven verdict are the same as with a not guilty verdict: the accused is acquitted and is innocent in the eyes of the law."

      Maybe you should try telling the truth and not spread lies.

      Delete
  81. So basically in Portugal if you have been made arguido you can never ever be "cleared". If someone else is found, tried and convicted of the offence - anyone else that was made arguido can never be cleared - because they have not been charged, taken to trial and found not guilty!

    Is Murat in exactly the same position as the Mccanns or not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Supreme Court Judges could not have made it any clearer 21:09. No charges were brought because of lack of evidence. That does not equate to cleared.

      You are confusing public opinion with statutes 21:09. In order to be cleared of a crime, it would have to be tried in a Court before a jury. No such trial has taken place. But you are right, until the truth is known about what happened to Madeleine, no-one has been cleared. The problem some people are under a lot more suspicion than others.

      The McCanns are looking for a declaration of innocence from an official body. Basically, another one of their unattainable dreams.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 21.35

      At this time the Mccanns are innocent in the eyes of any law in the civilised world. If you twist that into something else then you and others are wrong and could stand accused of defamation/libel. It is of course your choice to publish falsehoods as long as you are prepared to take on the consequences (which for someone with little or no money doesn't mean a lot).

      Delete
  82. Has Z Sawdust made it through to China yet?
    He's that boring.

    ReplyDelete