Wednesday, 8 February 2017

TURNS OUT GONCALO AMARAL WASN'T THE BAD GUY AFTER ALL

Among the many reasons I have  been tied to this interminable case this past 10 years, is the issue of Freedom of Speech.  For me it is a passion that would begin with banning the word 'ban'.  I despise not only those who burn books, but those who are sucking the joy, beauty and passion out of language, those so easily offended by words, that they demand laws to criminalise them. Female labour MPs especially.

Goncalo Amaral's victory, is a victory for Freedom of Speech, and his victory will reverberate throughout the libel courts in Europe, including the 74 page verdict, and all the damning (for the parents) conclusions of the Supreme Court.  It is wrong on every level that the parents, and former suspects, in this still unsolved crime, should profit financially from the former detective who investigated their daughter's disappearance!  And make no mistake, it was all about the money.  The grieving parents wanted GA's family home, all his assets, and all the profits from his book.  And it should be noted, that his book was on sale and accumulating profits for a year, before they took legal action. 

This is a ruling, not just for Goncalo Amaral, but for police and detectives worldwide.  Had the Portuguese Supreme Court granted the McCanns the £1m+ they demanded, it would have opened floodgates for former suspects to take personal revenge on the police.  I suspect the officers currently dealing with the Madeleine investigation have been watching the libel proceedings carefully.  Any one of them could be selected as the parents' next scapegoat, that is, the media could turn on them, they could be 'papped' looking their worst or drinking a glass of wine.  They could have their domestic problems splattered all over the front pages, have any future employers 'warned' about them. They could be a labelled a drunk, a wife beater, incompetent and personally responsible for the loss of the McCanns' child.  As for explaining their side, forget it.  The British courts are far more accommodating to the fragrant McCanns, best sign the family home over to the other half pronto.  It is hardly surprising that Officers from the Met donated to Goncalo's fighting fund. 

I didn't intend to rub the McCanns' nose in it, but once again they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending they were victors.  It's like Donald Trump studied them!  They have 'ruled' The Truth of the Lie cannot be sold in the UK.  I'm with 90% of the comments, 'who the f*ck do they think they are'!  Since when is it up to them what books can or can't be sold in the UK, using high price lawyers as a threat.  From an economic perspective, why shouldn't an enterprising publisher go ahead and publish in the UK?  The demand is already there, and this time round, the demand is for the truth.

The confrontational article comes across as someone having a Trump moment. That is, the opposite of how to win friends and people.  Whichever friend of the family Tracey Kandohla spoke to was as mad as hell and sounding very like one of the posters on the dossier site Stop The Myths.  Someone who likes to throw her/his weight around.  Clarence as usual sounds like a headmaster demanding respect from the school assembly whilst his toupee is slipping off. 

The article by Tracey Kandohla is bizarre on many levels.  It doesn't do the McCanns any favours, the opposite in fact.  Friend Tracey has revealed the parents use Madeleine's Fund to keep top lawyers Carter Ruck, constantly on watch.  No wonder they have got through £4million+.  Tracey even adds, the Fund is made up of donations, etc.  Ouch!  Does she not know the McCanns have gone out of their way to convince the public that their donations are not used for legal actions?  If and when the McCanns launch another appeal for cash for their Madeleine Fund, with those few words, it has sunk before it's begun.
 

Hey McCanns you lost.  Not only your 8 years of nonsense in Lisbon that was based on greed, but also in the Court of public opinion.  Nobody wants your draconian libel laws and protection for the rich and famous.  Not in Portugal, and not here.  Nobody wants to see criminals protected because they have got enough money to silence anyone who criticises them.  Citing your use of Carter Ruck will not win anyone over your cause.  It demolishes your claim to be ordinary people victimised by the press.  Most will be asking why you are using the Madeleine Fund to employ the UK's top libel lawyers.  And, err, why aren't you using it to find the child you claim is still alive?

As  for the bidding war.  I would be very surprised if Clarence Mitchell has been inundated with bids for the 10 year 'exclusive'.  At some point, the media moguls and newspaper editors must ask themselves 'why do we keep giving money to these people who use it to sue us again?'.  Whilst it is true the Madeleine mystery is still 'news', it is old, and it is a human interest story, that is one of thousands with anniversaries, the world has moved on.  And the truth is, they have nothing new to say.  Yes we still miss her, no, we haven't given up, yes her bedroom's still the same, etc, etc'.  And of course, with Clarence still on board, all the questions will have to be pre-approved.  I can't see any queues forming for that. 

What irked me most with the TK article was the sheer arrogance of Gerry, Kate and their hand puppet.  Despite the fact that none of the 'gagging the press causes' they have taken up has been successful, they are still trying to exert the power they had over the media when the coffers were full, the public still liked them and they still shifted newspapers.  If a week in politics is a long time, 10 years of social media is a complete shift in the paradigm.  Anyone with access to the internet (almost the entire globe) only has to google Madeleine McCann, to see that the truth, has completely overtaken the fake news.  I'm about number 4 down :) 

Despite the truth being out there, Clarence is still talking with that authoritative tone that makes him sound like a pompous twat, and Gerry and Kate are continuing with Plan A on their whiteboard as if they proved their case in Lisbon, and the paps will be back with the champagne and offers of private jets.  They truly believe that the secrets they hold will be safe if they destroy Goncalo Amaral.  Those are not sane motives.  And they are not motives the decent ones among their remaining sponsors (if they have any) should support. 

At the moment Team McCann appear to have lost touch with reality.  It is quite likely that some newspaper editors will read the verdict very carefully over the next few days.  It could be that they have many stories they have been held back while awaiting the outcome.  From a financial perspective, the publishing business is struggling, but Truth of the Lie has bestseller all over it.  There are already thousands onine who have read the 'illegal' translation, but who can't wait to buy the hardback first edition!  I would advise him to update it with 'his side of the trials' and the verdict, and start negotiating! 

It is of course Goncalo Amaral who won that 8 year long bloody and destructive battle.  And it cannot be stressed enough, he was the Defendant!  He was not the instigator, all he did was write a book.  Goncalo was fighting the McCanns not only for the right to tell his side of the story, but also for the right to hang onto his family home and the money he earned from his book.  But principally, he was fighting for the little girl, the one he, as a detective, was assigned to find.   

Despite all the efforts of Gerry, Kate, Clarence, and all their highly paid staff, the truth is now out there.  And quite legally.  The McCanns voluntarily gave away their rights to privacy, NO, they were not cleared, and so it goes it goes on.  Not only did they lose, but it appears the Judges are highlighting every dastardly deed and suggesting the parents should be questioned further! 

Their underplaying of this devastating result is understandable, and kudos to them, that mad EastEnders actress had to be carried out of the Court on a stretcher.  They are no longer claiming to have billionaire financers, according to TK, they are quite openly dipping into Madeleine's Fund to sue anyone who criticizes them (who's side is she on?).  Even, as a mere former legal secretary, I would estimate costs will run to millions.  Top lawyers cost in excess of £500ph, even those watching social media on the McCanns' behalf, will be in the £200ph range.  Now imagine 4 firms of lawyers for 8 years?  It's a total wipeout.  But it should be borne in mind, Gerry and Kate could have pulled out at any time.  That is, they could have withdrawn their demands for all of Goncalo's worldly goods.  Their claim was based on malice.  They were demanding their reputations be protected, whilst destroying his. 

Unfortunately, too many mainstream commentators like Tony Parsons and Carole Malone can't see beyond the trough their noses are stuck in. With this article, the ghastly Tracey, who normally resides within Gerry's rectum, appears to be having something of a 'see me momma, I'm King of the world' moment*, believing the more she stresses Gerry and Kate's seething, and Clarence's delusional authority, she can make all those nasty policemen with guns go away.  The fake news and the false hate she has created, is coming right back at her.  Turns out Goncalo Amaral wasn't the bad guy after all. 






*Cagney 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4193808/Kate-Gerry-McCann-warn-Portuguese-policeman-book.html



181 comments:

  1. What the flurry of stories is more likely to be about is the fact that no-one really knows what Amaral proposes to do next.

    http://portugalresident.com/tabloid-scramble-cranks-up-pressure-on-%E2%80%9Csecond-maddie-book%E2%80%9D

    ReplyDelete
  2. https://joana-morais.blogspot.pt/2017/02/judges-demolish-mccanns-innocence.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good old Tracey Kandohla (or should that be Can dollar).

    With friends like her, who needs an enema?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1

      I thought I'd wandered into Bennett's brotherhood of the deluded then.Apologies in advance, but in the interest of opening up a balanced debate, I'm about to go on a bit.


      '' sucking the joy, beauty and passion out of language, those so easily offended by words, that they demand laws to criminalise them''

      I think there's a little more than that to freedom of speech.Like guns, words can cause a lot of damage. Mr and Mrs Average may have guns for hunting or to defend their family at home.Many have guns to kill or use to gain power and dishonest gain. Do we recall all guns because of the latter and not consider the former ?No, we have laws . By all means, have a gun and use it , but not to harm, threaten or kill . If you want to exercise your freedom of speech, go ahead and say whatever you want, about whatever you like, to whoever you choose, in any form you prefer.But, if you exercise it with the intention of defaming, slandering, libelling or persecuting somebody- especially when you know the law doesn't allow that, you can't cry if it comes down on you. There's no beauty or passion in hate speech or persecution. The 'victory' for Amaral is as much a victory for freedom of speech as it is a license to accuse and slander whoever you like without legal foundation or proof that your words have genuine or legal merit. Any foundation Amaral's fan club perceive he may have had, ceased to exist when his superiors, NOT the McCanns, removed the DNA evidence and eye witness testimony due to it being unreliable. All that was left, was his suspicion. Then, displaying early signs of a budding author, he painted the picture of who did what to the invisible corpse, where they hid it and for how long and why, and what they later did with it. By the time Amaral voiced Question No.1 of the now infamous 48, he'd been informed there was no physical evidence - just his suspicion. He had, in the meantime, voiced his annoyance at the interference of UK police and diplomats ( where's the book about that Mr Amaral ?)

      '' Defamation of character consists of any intentional communication, either in verbal or written form, which is made with the intention to damage a person's reputation; decrease the regard, respect or confidence in which a person is held; or to induce negative, disparaging or hostile opinions against a person or organisation.''

      And that's without taking into consideration the placing of those on the receiving end at the mercy of a world wide web of stone throwers and halfwits with too much time on their hands and too much bile in the gut.



      tbc

      Delete
    2. 2.


      Negligent or Incompetent Testimony.

      '' negligent or incompetent testimony made on the part of an expert witness in a civil or criminal matter may be grounds for civil suit if it can be shown to have harmed the victim's reputation or standing in the community ..the victim may sue for lost wages, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages, as permitted under law''.

      The McCanns didn't decide on the sum, the court did. I haven't read much criticism of how the judge arrived at the sum. I've read mountains of how the McCanns wanted his home, his money, his job and so on . Well they would wouldn't they, they're all kinds of evil. Amaral said so.

      '' Hey McCanns you lost. Not only your 8 years of nonsense in Lisbon that was based on greed, but also in the Court of public opinion. ''

      Some might say it was based on justice as they'd been libelled, slandered and defamed and placed in danger in that wonderful 'court of public opinion'. It was another set of opinions at the crux - Mr Amaral's . Unfortunately, as a detective, he should have been more than aware of the need for strong evidence to support strong claims. He knew that had been removed before he opened his mouth or picked up his pen.

      ''Nobody wants to see criminals protected because they have got enough money to silence anyone who criticises them''.

      True. But nobody wants to see people convicted of serious crimes without evidence. They weren't protected, they were defended. Or do the McCanns have to waive their right to a solicitor as well - because the internet said so ? Had Amaral's 'evidence' been used as the prosecutions case, he'd have been ridiculed, as would the prosecution. The reasons for the ridiculing are the reasons written in his book, and that's why it was only allowed into the public domain as a 'literary work'. The McCanns wouldn't have needed to pay top dollar for protection if they hadn't been attacked. They told Amaral to 'put up or shut up'. He decided to put up. But he only put up his opinions and theory.He would have been wiser to shut up, and maybe go about investigating why those above had colluded with the UK to remove him.

      '' Anyone with access to the internet (almost the entire globe) only has to google Madeleine McCann, to see that the truth, has completely overtaken the fake news.''

      I've done that .Most of what I've seen is vitriolic unfounded spite aimed at the parents of Madeleine McCann .I've seen obsessives obsessing over a few pictures of a little girl, which is disturbing enough in itself, but then they use their 'expertise' to explain how and why they were faked ( well they would be wouldn't they?) and then call in guitar tutors to read their words and find hidden confessions. Add to the mix, body language 'experts' interpreting every blink and look and there you go, case cracked. There's little mention of David Canter's reading of it all, I notice. The most prominent and highly respected forensic psychologist in the UK and beyond is of a mind that it was an abduction, and also, that Amaral, unfortunately, seems to have had a theory and then set about trying to fit the evidence into it, thus losing vital time. If something is true, it's easy to prove isn't it ?

      The collective opinion of the internet masses who cant think until they've consulted what's 'trending' online is what passes for 'truth' now ? I daren't ask what 'fake' is.

      ( by the way, as this is about free speech, i won't mention any reporter or the rag they work for- it would be too ironic)

      I think the McCanns will appeal this. I think the two barrels will be as follows :

      http://portugalresident.com/the-rule-of-secrecy-of-justice-explained

      http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/5




      Delete
    3. Ziggy I suggest you apply the penultimate paragraph of your first post to Goncalo Amaral. Doesn't he too not have the right not have his name and reputation trashed? Something the McCanns started in May 2007, two years before he published his book.

      The same criteria you apply to defending the McCanns applies also to the former detective. And there is no doubt that the attacks on GA were intended to ....damage a person's reputation etc, Kate even stated she wanted GA to feel misery and fear.

      Goncalo Amaral had no option but to write a book, are you saying he should have no right to reply to all the accusations that have been hurled at him? He too has a family, and children who have been hurt by the McCanns malicious campaign.

      The McCanns demand that only their side of the story is heard and kudos, they have got away with it for a very long time. But it was never sustainable. GA was only the first in a long line of detectives who have investigated this case. Are they going to sue DCI Redwood for saying Madeleine may not have been alive when taken from the apartment? Wouldn't that stop people searching for a live child? Are they going to sue every cop who doesn't believe them?

      Delete
    4. "Most of what I've seen is vitriolic unfounded spite aimed at the parents of Madeleine McCann .I've seen obsessives obsessing over a few pictures of a little girl, which is disturbing enough in itself, but then they use their 'expertise' to explain how and why they were faked ( well they would be wouldn't they?) and then call in guitar tutors to read their words and find hidden confessions. Add to the mix, body language 'experts' interpreting every blink and look and there you go, case cracked. There's little mention of David Canter's reading of it all, I notice. The most prominent and highly respected forensic psychologist in the UK and beyond is of a mind that it was an abduction, and also, that Amaral, unfortunately, seems to have had a theory and then set about trying to fit the evidence into it, thus losing vital time. If something is true, it's easy to prove isn't it ?

      The collective opinion of the internet masses who cant think until they've consulted what's 'trending' online is what passes for 'truth' now ? I daren't ask what 'fake' is. "

      Nicely put and exactly so.

      ...Chez

      Delete
    5. The McCanns didn't set the sum, the Court did, lol. Nice try Ziggy, but you forget I spent 30+ years as a legal secretary. Courts don't set sums, claimants do, and in this case the Claimants were Gerry, Kate, the twins and Madeleine. Yes, they were claiming damages for Madeleine too.

      Delete
    6. The difference being that this man has wrongly accused the McCanns of a heinous crime!

      Delete
    7. LOL, Tracey Can Dollar with that article has wrecked any future fundraising for the McCanns. If, by some miracle, they do get a 10 year exclusive I suspect their pleas for cash for Madeleine's 'search' Fund will fall on stony ground. The world now knows the parents are using their daughter's Fund to silence anyone who questions the abduction story.

      Delete
    8. Ziggy Sawdust 8.2 @22:07

      "If something is true, it's easy to prove isn't it?"

      Not necessarily, Fermat's Last Theorem being an extreme case in point.

      Delete
    9. Echoing Anonymous 9 February 2017 at 09:49

      “Ziggy Sawdust 8.2 @22:07

      "If something is true, it's easy to prove isn't it?"”

      Another extreme case in point is Goldbach's conjecture. Very simple to state and easy to grasp, it has been waiting for a proof for just under 300 years.

      T

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 8 February 2017 at 23:24

      Wrong

      T

      Delete
    11. Anonymous 8 February 2017 at 10:56

      Nice one. You know whereof you speak, you must.

      :)

      T

      Delete
    12. Anonymous @14:07

      If Goldbach's conjecture remains unproven can it really be described as 'true'?

      Delete
    13. Anonymous 9 February 2017 at 16:55

      “If Goldbach's conjecture remains unproven can it really be described as 'true'?”
      It can not. I apologise, perhaps I should have said more than I did.

      I posted in support of the proposition that the statement “"If something is true, it's easy to prove isn't it?" is not necessarily true.

      The consensus is that the GC is most likely true. However, a proof either way (GC is true or it is false) has been beyond the reach of the best mathematicians for a very long time starting with Euler, to whom Goldbach initially communicated his conjecture.

      If you are interested, I would suggest that you can do no better than to post your questions re GC on Prof Terence (Terry) Tao’s blog at https://terrytao.wordpress.com/

      See also:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture

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

      https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/the-parity-problem-obstruction-for-the-binary-goldbach-problem-with-bounded-error/#comments.

      Best wishes.

      T

      Delete
  4. Hi Rosalinda
    I appreciate your text.

    Apparently, things aren’t going the McCanns’ way, but still their threats become worse and worse. A clear symptom of psychopathy, in my opinion. The best I can hope for is that "They're Coming to Take Them Away, Ha-Haaa!"

    I quote MailOnline; “Mr Mitchell said: 'If Mr Amaral's current book about Madeleine or any new one he may be planning to write is published here in the UK Kate and Gerry's lawyers will take immediate action. He needs to know lawyers are watching.”

    What the McCanns are trying to tell us through their spokesman is, that anyone who, in the U K, now intends to exercise his/her freedom of expression by just planning to write something about the Madeleine case, without talking to them first, run the risk of being sued, and should know that “lawyers are watching.” Kim Jong-un couldn’t have said it better.

    They’re just not opposing the Portugal’ Supreme Court’s ruling, but they are also implying, that an English court, if Amaral's book would be sold in the U K, will, unlike the Portuguese Supreme court, restrict freedom of expression, so they don’t have to become so distraught and devastated, in case there would be a similar lawsuit in the U K.

    If people in common have become less interested in looking for Madeleine, I believe it to be so, it hasn’t really so much with the book in question to do, but rather with how the McCanns have treated its author all those years. I really wish that people could now clearly see who the McCanns really are.




    ReplyDelete
  5. Crikey. Talk about getting carried away! Just a few observations:

    1. "...and his victory will reverberate throughout the libel courts in Europe"

    Bollocks.

    2. "This is a ruling, not just for Goncalo Amaral, but for police and detectives worldwide"

    Bollocks.

    3. "Since when is it up to them what books can or can't be sold in the UK, using high price lawyers as a threat."

    They can't. What they can do is to say that if you publish claims you're unable to prove, you will pay a heavy price.

    4. "Anyone with access to the internet (almost the entire globe) only has to google Madeleine McCann, to see that the truth, has completely overtaken the fake news. I'm about number 4 down :) "

    The truth? I think you mean opinion!

    5. "It could be that they have many stories they have been held back while awaiting the outcome."

    LOL! See 3. above.

    6. "Despite all the efforts of Gerry, Kate, Clarence, and all their highly paid staff, the truth is now out there."

    LOL! See 4. above.

    Your post is garbage. You're backing the wrong horse. Don't you also back Corbyn?

    ...Chez







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The threats are meaningless Chez, given the amount of money they now owe in legal costs, it is unlikely they will have anything left to start any new legal actions.

      Why should UK publishers and distributors give up a potential bestseller to protect the McCanns feelings? And why should all those who want to buy GA's book be forbidden from doing so?

      Carter Ruck can issue all the Writs they like but no 'heavy price' will be forthcoming until they win a UK Court hearing. Their arguments for a ban on GA's book have been tried and failed in Portugal, there is no reason why they would succeed in the UK.

      And seriously Chez, Carter Ruck must have an inkling of how much the McCanns now owe in legal fees. It would be completely reckless of them to start issuing Writs without at least £500k up front. The tenacious Goncalo Amaral has spent 8 years fighting for his right to freedom of speech, he is not going to roll over because of a Writ from Carter Ruck.

      Delete
    2. Publish in the UK and be subject to UK libel laws? If the claims can't be backed up - and they can't - Amaral can't win on a FOS ticket!

      It's not about protecting the McCann's feelings but protecting their reputation from malicious lies. Have you forgotten that several papers paid huge sums to the McCanns and others for printing unsubstantiated and unprovable bollocks.

      ...Chez

      Delete
    3. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since the McCanns legal winning streak Chez. Not least, 10 years on, there is still no sign of Madeleine and no evidence of an abductor, and the alerts of the cadaver and blood dogs, are frozen in time.

      In addition 8 years has been spent on all the legal arguments surrounding the publication of Goncalo's book. The McCanns lost their case in the highest Court in Portugal and there is a 76 page verdict spelling out exactly why they lost. You might like to think this will be ignored in the UK, but it won't. All those newspapers who paid the McCanns demands will be holding grudges and they will be referring to the words of the Supreme Court Judges. Gerry and Kate are now on very dodgy ground, not just from GA's book, but from all the powerful enemies they have made in the media.

      Delete
    4. Chez is right - UK libel laws are much more protective of those perceived to be subject to the libel than most of the rest of the world - there is a requirement to be able to prove accusations - so I think that you will find that Amaral would have a much harder time getting his book published in the UK.

      Delete
    5. I'm looking forward to hearing why Chez is right.

      However, the UK is no different to Portugal, a Civil Court is not the place for a criminal trial, it's a separate matter for a separate (Criminal) Court.

      Though some might like to think we are a small island with laws unto ourselves, we are not. Libel Lawyers, especially the top ones, here in the UK will have been watching McCann .v. Amaral & 2 others all the way through and the wording of the 76 page Judgement very carefully. Law is all about citing famous cases, most lawyers use the words 'I refer you to ......' - even in general conversation.

      Much as I am beginning to hate the word Brexit, libel laws are pretty standard across Europe. I know London is the libel capital of the world, but it is unlikely British Law would take an opposite stance to fellow EU members (yes, yes, I know). That is, rule against the highest Court in Portugal. Unlike Mr. Trump and Mr. Farage, we don't actually want to go to war with our neighbours.

      Getting his book published in the UK is as simple as a spin of a coin. I have no doubt there are publishers chomping at the bit for the UK Rights. The answer will always be money. Once there is a profit in it, the publishers will swoop.

      At the moment it is a waiting game. It is still taboo for public figures to criticise Gerry and Kate - look at the backlash against Sharon Osborne.

      But that's not say, they won't fight back when the tide turns. I see several of the tabloids have run with the words of the Portuguese Judges. They have used the 'can't be sued for reporting on a court case' clause to publish possibly the most damning statement from the 76 page Verdict. This wasn't a Team McCann press release.

      The tabloids however, are in a precarious position, the last thing they want to do is turn (more of) the public against them. 'The parents were cleared' is one of those lies that said often enough, become the truth. But, it has been a long, long time since the tabloids have been critical of the McCanns, breaking that lie may be the beginning.

      Right now, the McCanns have nothing to be cocky, or even threatening about, they are in their weakest position yet. Faced with a massive bill for their 8 year vendetta against Goncalo Amaral and a growing loss of support from the public, they are facing financial ruin. What they wished on the former detective, has happened to them.

      And before anyone accuses me of lacking compassion, let me again stress, Gerry and Kate are the authors of their own misfortune. They have blown £4million+ on protecting their own egos using the money they amassed to search for their daughter.

      I have performed contortions to find the good in these people, but every time I hit on something, they prove me wrong. Still they badmouth Goncalo Amaral, still they claim to have the might of the British Empire behind them, and still they bully people trying to make a living.

      continues

      Delete
    6. How bloody minded must they be to have blown all that money and screwed up so many lives, in order to get vengeance on the detective who searched for their daughter?

      But even now I feel pity for them. Alcoholics, drug addicts and gamblers usually have people around them begging them to stop. I went through 5 years of hell in my own legal battle against the Catholic Church. 5 of the most years of my life, and 5 years I will never get back. It was something I vowed never to get involved in again.

      I am sure many could weep at the money Gerry and Kate have spent on defending their honour. Anyone who thinks that is normal should get their head tested.

      Again and again, they could have made a dignified exit from this court battle they couldn't win. Even in defeat there is no dignity. All they had to say was they were going to focus on their kids from now on, and everyone would have understood and even applauded them.

      Instead they have come out fighting. Well kudos to them for that, but again it highights how misplaced their priorities are. A quick scan of newspaper comments, shows there is little if any sympathy for them left. Suing former detectives is not a cause anyone is going to donate to.

      Delete
    7. If you did some legal research you'd see how the libel laws are different in the UK to other countries - that's why the UK is the preferred jurisdiction for libel cases by those who believe they have been subject to libel, if they can have their case heard by UK courts

      Delete
  6. Ziggy your posts are that long and drawn I can never figure out whether you are for against the macs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @bjorn 22:43
      '' Apparently, things aren’t going the McCanns’ way, but still their threats become worse and worse. A clear symptom of psychopathy, in my opinion. The best I can hope for is that "They're Coming to Take Them Away, Ha-Haa''

      A court has ruled that a book of unfounded allegations against them is being allowed to hit the shelves . This, despite Amaral's superiors and successor contradicting his theory and opinions. The court of public opinion are refusing to accept that this is wrong because they can't face the thought of a future in which they can no longer sit at keyboards firing off bullets laced with hatred at two people who have yet to be charged . They've spent hundreds of thousands from a fund on fraudsters and liars and even G4 clowns. This was (apparently) because they had no interest in finding Madeleine. Your idea of psychopathy is pretty ropey. If people get pissed off because they're being accused of the ultimate crime without any proof, and getting support from millions of unseen haters, it's normal to react a bit aggressively. That doesn't make you a psychopath, it makes you human.

      @anonymous 23@08

      I take your point and agree. That's why I apologise in advance. I like to cover points fairly thoroughly and anticipate any counter argument so i don't get into text-tennis. As for 'for and against', I'm for justice. If the McCanns are guilty may they face the full weight of the law. The same goes for anyone else who may be guilty.

      A lot of blogs and the like rant under the banner of 'wanting justice' when all they want is revenge on the McCann parents. I used to think , at face value, they were in on it in some way or possibly behind it. Then i looked at the rest of the game and thought differently. I charge the McCanns with leaving their kids vulnerable.That wasn't a cause of- or the proof of- death.I want plausible explanations regarding the panic and involvement of people in high places. The McCanns being in every ones cross hairs ensures that won't happen. They don't mind that at all. Cheap at half the price in my opinion.And theirs.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous8 February 2017 at 23:08

      Scroll or swipe passed - I do.

      Delete
    3. To Ziggy 8 Feb 23:59
      I quote what you have said;

      "They’ve spent hundreds of thousands from a fund on fraudsters and liars and even G4 clowns. This (apparently) because they had no interest in finding Madeleine.” Your irony is just as feeble as Kate’s “… and we have hidden her so well that nobody can find her”

      Yes Ziggy, that’s what they had to do in order to fool a whole society. It’s actually an amazing achievement. As for the G4 clowns, Andy Redwood was paid by the S Y and Clarence was sent by the Government, though they eventually had to pay the latter by using money, that kind-hearted people had donated to their fraud-fund, none of whom will now give them a penny for any further useless search for Madeleine.

      Delete
  7. '' The tenacious Goncalo Amaral has spent 8 years fighting for his right to freedom of speech, he is not going to roll over because of a Writ from Carter Ruck.''

    He might not have to roll over, he'll probably be rolled.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I reckon he wrote the book for money. He then had to defend his right to publish to avoid facing dire financial consequences. It worked out good for him, but justice for the McCanns suffered.

      ..Chez

      Delete
  8. ''Ziggy I suggest you apply the penultimate paragraph of your first post to Goncalo Amaral. Doesn't he too not have the right not have his name and reputation trashed?''

    ''Kate even stated she wanted GA to feel misery and fear. ''

    His name and reputation were in the hands of his superiors.Their thumbs pointed downwards, not up. The McCanns didn't remove him and his decision to resign was his own.His successor didn't help his reputation either by coming to conclusions that didn't even resemble Amaral's. I hate to use the word 'empathy' so often on an anti mcann blog as i know it's a red rag, but, if you imagine you were missing a 4 yr old daughter in a foreign country and you genuinely had no idea what had happened, you'd feel fear like you couldn't imagine. The misery following that would be as incalculable. And then, you have a 'lone wolf' officer with a hunch bigger than Quasimodo's and twice as ugly, telling the world you did it, hid the body, then disposed of it. What would you want him to feel ?

    ''are you saying he should have no right to reply to all the accusations that have been hurled at him?''

    Not at all.If unfounded allegations have been made about him he too can use the law and sue.He could even sue his former bosses under the same or similar law for firing him now.But the key word for both parties is 'unfounded'.

    ''Are they going to sue DCI Redwood for saying Madeleine may not have been alive when taken from the apartment?''

    No.Because he was speculating, not stating it as a fact, and speculating that she may not have been alive isn't naming a killer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As for Kate's misery and fear whilst she, her husband and both their families enjoyed their extended vacation, there really wasn't much sign of it. Gerry and Kate looked like the picture of health and vitality, that they didn't join in the searches wasn't down to debility.

      And this is where I have the biggest problem Ziggy. The parents and their friends didn't search.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ziggy
      A lot make sense of what you say, some not. The following does, but needs to be further discussed.

      “Defamation of character consists of any intentional communication either in verbal or written form, which is made with the intention to damage a person’s reputation; decrease the regard, respect or confidence in which a person is held; or to induce negative, disparaging or hostile opinions against a person or an organisation”

      As for the law you refer to, it was probably what Martin Brunt referred to as well, when he spoke to Brenda Leyland.

      This law can be used to make vulnerable people feel quilt, that they shouldn’t have to feel. This law made Brenda Leyland feel like a real criminal, made her fear what the McCanns’ lawyers were capable of, which finally led to her suicide. In fact, the McCanns made an example of Brenda Leyland, by using this law to intimidate her.

      Even worse, with regard to this law, British MSM deliberately after her death damaged her reputation, decreased the respect in which she was held by her family and expressed hostile opinion against her. A number of journalists did so and the McCanns were very pleased, I suppose.

      Talking about defamation and libel in the context of the Madeleine case, we should not forget all the people that the McCanns have persecuted and insulted without being sued by anyone. Gonzalo Amaral, Robert Murat, the late Mrs Fenn, the staff at the Ocean Club, the Portuguese Police, all the nasty people on social media, whose twitter or blog comments were gathered by them in a death dossier, in an attempt, not just to silence them, but with the intention to destroy as many lives as possible, are just a few of all the people who have been humiliated and vilified by the McCanns, none of whom has been protected by any defamation law, as far as I’m concerned.





      Delete
    3. Ziggy Sawdust @00:28

      We are broadly in agreement as to the whereabouts of McCann HQ, metaphorically speaking, and it isn't Rothley. Hence I should not wish you to interpret the following comments as hostile. They are not.

      Your effort at playing with a straight bat is commendable. Contradicting extremists as you do at least resets the 'clapometer' to a more impartial position, from which the evidence alone should displace it.

      That said we must all, yourself included, guard against those moments when our personal convictions cause us to introduce assumptions in support of our particular beliefs, as you accuse GA of having done.

      As I understand it Goncalo Amaral's contentious book summarizes the officially published conclusions of the investigation that preceded it. No one has ventured to sue Portugal as far as I am aware. Except, of course, that the Portuguese Justice Ministry simply released information to the public in accordance with their own statutes, whereas Amaral's was a publication for personal gain, irrespective of other motives.

      Ironically, if Amaral's observations are indeed libellous then they represent a repeated libel, not one for which he is originally responsible.

      But to return to my earlier caution concerning supposition...

      "...if you imagine you were missing a 4 yr old daughter in a foreign country and you genuinely had no idea what had happened, you'd feel fear like you couldn't imagine. The misery following that would be as incalculable. And then, you have a 'lone wolf' officer with a hunch bigger than Quasimodo's and twice as ugly, telling the world you did it, hid the body, then disposed of it. What would you want him to feel?"

      Playing 'Devil's Advocate' is all very well, and you do so to good effect if I may say so, but what you ask us to imagine here is simply unreasonable.

      Your point, and indeed much of your spirited defence of the McCann parents, turns on their "missing a 4 yr old daughter in a foreign country" and their genuinely having "no idea what had happened".

      If that were a true state of affairs, then we should all need to take a step back and reflect. Furthermore, being true it should be easy to prove, shouldn't it?

      Unfortunately for your case in the round, it is far easier to prove the contrary, i.e. that the parents had a very clear idea of what happened. In fact they have literally told us so over the years.

      That may make them collaborators. It doesn't make them principles to the farrago that followed though.



      Delete
    4. Sorry. Last sentence above should read 'principals'

      (Homophones are such a nuisance. Or maybe I can blame it on MS spelling checker?)

      Delete
    5. From Ziggy,


      ''Are they going to sue DCI Redwood for saying Madeleine may not have been alive when taken from the apartment?''

      No.Because he was speculating, not stating it as a fact, and speculating that she may not have been alive isn't naming a killer.

      Ziggy, so are you saying DCI redwood speculated on tv WITHOUT having thought that if MBM died in the apartment then she must have been murdered or had a terrible accident, which leads us back to eddie and keela. Now, start denying the dogs findings Ziggy, but be careful how you do it as you may give the game away to your identity. Now be honest for a change Ziggy, you know that the dogs are not liars, you have seen the footage and you know the dogs indicated NO ONE else, just the Mccs, their things, their hire car and 5a. Dci redwood knows this too, hence the "speculation" as you like to call it. You and I both know he was not speculating when he said this or he may just as well have said the wicked witch of the east took her. EVIDENCE pointed him to say that and we all know it. Your twisting of the truth Ziggy is becoming impossible to swallow im afraid.

      Delete
  9. Goncalo Amaral was not a lone wolf Ziggy. He was head and coordinator of the investigation team, all of whom reached the same conclusion.

    You say his right of reply should have been to sue. A ridiculous suggestion quite frankly as he was unemployed and the McCanns had completely trashed his reputation. The McCanns ability to sue people was based on the fact that they had multimillion Fund donated by the public.

    Goncalo did what anyone in his position would have, that is he wrote a book telling his side of the story. The McCanns could have countered this with a book of their own, and indeed they did in 2011. Thus we have the ridiculous situation where only one side of this story is allowed to be published. Can you not see that is wrong?

    Further down you refer to DCI Redwood as speculating, not naming a killer. This is where it is clear that you haven't read Goncalo's book - there are no direct accusations, nor is there any libel. All of which you would know, had you read it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Question for Ziggy "defender of the faith "
    can you try and explain to me why Kate Mccans first account of why she knew her child had been abducted changed so radicaly
    and if you dont mind , i will ask you to remind us what that first account was . and as a bonus for the readers i may tell you what was paid to Mrs Mccan (No relative ) to gain acces to Photograph in appartment 5a Oh and that Kates Mother very hard faced you know where Kate gets it from , met her at a fund raiser turn milk sour that one !!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol, though I think the need of Kate's mother to keep up appearances, has had repercussions she never could have dreamed of.

      Delete
  11. I accept Amaral wasn't literally a lone wolf, he was the leader of a pack. But he was the only one of the pack to voice his opinion regarding the McCanns guilt, commit it to print and then film. It came to a point of no return for him and for the McCanns. It was a collision course.

    But....

    '' The couple had their status as "arguidos" removed in July 2008, 10 months after being named formal suspects. Portugal's chief prosecutor said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's abduction.''


    '' Portugal’s attorney general officially cleared the McCanns as suspects ''

    Who trashed his reputation ? A joint vote of no confidence from Portugal's chief prosecutor and attorney general didn't exactly give him a strong hand to then embark on his crusade to clear his name and reputation by merely repeating the ideas that had landed him in the brown stuff in 2008, a year before the libel case.If he wanted to put his side of the story out, he should have given it more thought.Even if he still clung to his theory, he should have realised that the removal of him from the case, and the removal of the McCanns as official suspects constituted a wall he couldn't knock down. He might have offered explanations of how he arrived at his conclusions ( pressure,lack of obvious evidence, the chaos around him and conflicting eye witness reports etc). But he didn't. In effect, he's saying the chief prosecutor and attorney general are wrong as well as the Mcanns being liars.

    so.. in 2009

    '' Mr Amaral, 49, published a book called The Truth of the Lie last year in which he alleged that the McCanns covered up Madeleine's death, even though they have been formally cleared by the Portuguese authorities. He has repeated his claims in a television documentary and a recent newspaper article....he will be accused of peddling distressing lies about them. ''

    I think naming the parents as 'official suspects' then saying that they're also liars and going on to suggest Madeleine had died in their apartment is close as you can get to accusing them of being guilty of killing her-don't you ?

    I referred to Redwood speculating by quoting you :

    ''Are they going to sue DCI Redwood for saying Madeleine may not have been alive when taken from the apartment?''

    ''May not'' isn't the same as 'didn't' or 'did'. it covers both possibilities.Therefore-speculating.I suggested that if he was speculating that she may have( not was) dead, he couldn't,logically, name a killer.



    ReplyDelete
  12. "Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.

    But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.

    'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.

    'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.

    'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.

    'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'"

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that and the link 7:34, much appreciated. Goes to show just how lazy (or corrupt) the MSM is. Clearly none of them took the time to read the archiving report properly. It seems they went straight with the McCann press release without checking. How many times have we seen the BBC, ITV, SKY, etc, include the words 'the McCanns were cleared'. That's not a little Oops, that is straight in yer face FAKE NEWS that has had serious consequences, eg. the death of Brenda Leyland.

      And what of Scotland Yard? Did they too overlook the little fact that the parents were never cleared? Were their top notch lawyers also fooled by Clarence's handout? As the honourable Judges pointed out, there is a world of difference between a suspect being cleared, and the police not having enough evidence to bring charges.

      Whoever spun the wording of the archiving report to read as a pronouncement of innocence, has much to answer for. So too all those who couldn't be arsed to read it themselves.

      I am hoping in the case of the British police, that they cannot possibly be that stupid. However, the fact that they flew out to Portugal and pulled random misfits in for questioning, doesn't inspire me.

      Delete
  13. "As for Kate's misery and fear whilst she, her husband and both their families enjoyed their extended vacation"

    This astonishing remark rather gives your game away.

    "...it is clear that you haven't read Goncalo's book - there are no direct accusations, nor is there any libel."

    You sure about that? What about:

    "The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
    2. There was simulation of abduction.
    3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body."

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Chez
      A conclusion reached by police investigators in a criminal investigation can never be libelous, unless there is some sort of conspiracy, but only right or wrong

      Delete
    2. No apologies for my astonishing remark Chez. I find it astonishing and somewhat unseemly, that the McCanns, the Healys, all their extended families, their priest, bridesmaids etc, took advantage of Warners hospitality without ever once joining in the search for the missing child.

      In running their own investigation alongside the police, the McCanns and their entourage were working against the police. That is they were creating such a big circus, they were hampering the official police investigation. Some might say, perverting the course of justice. I think the only thing truthful Sir. BHH has uttered, was at the start of the Scotland Yard investigation when he said there were 130 suspects. Should this case ever reach a courtroom, a lot of people will face a lot of serious criminal charges.

      Delete
  14. Correct crisrobell!great post great blog keep up the good work

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks John :) I am like a big kid with words of encouragement, they really do buoy me on, especially when I'm weary. I'm feeling a little sorry for myself at the moment because I am blacklisted by the MSM for being an anti, and blacklisted by the antis for pointing out the weirder myths surrounding this case are just plain bonkers. Ah well, ce la vie and chin chin! :)

      Delete
  15. Reality check people.

    "Portugal's chief prosecutor said the police had found no evidence linking the McCanns, or fellow suspect Robert Murat, to Madeleine's abduction."

    But Madeleine McCann was not abducted. Indeed evidence (in the sum of sworn statements to police) indicates that she could not have been so.

    Hence the McCanns are exonerated in respect of a crime that was not committed.

    And?

    All those aboard the good ship 'Gamble' remain wilfully blind to the alternative, which would of course require the McCanns to have been privy to their daughter's fate, whatever that may have been.

    But that's just the key to the door and only Black Rod can succeed in opening it simply by knocking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah Black Rod indeed, unfortunately I doubt there is a single MP, from any party, willing to raise questions about the McCann case in Parliament. It still carries a whiff of persecuting grieving parents. This case still rides on the tide of public opinion, we've only just reached the stage of 'the McCanns WEREN'T cleared, wtf?'. The tide is turning, as seen by the way in which the MS papers have reported the verdict of the Supreme Court. They could have buried it away in the middle pages, but they didn't.

      Delete
  16. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

    D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the occultation of the cadaver of their child Madeleine McCann;

    Occultation, being hidden from view. That doesn't imply 'finishing touch'.

    ReplyDelete
  17. “I'm for justice.”

    Yes, so you say.

    “A lot of blogs and the like rant under the banner of 'wanting justice' when all they want is revenge on the McCann parents.”

    And the crucial difference between your rants and those of “A lot of blogs…” is…?

    “I charge the McCanns with leaving their kids vulnerable.”

    Does your charge amounts to, at least, a failure in the duty of care?

    “I want plausible explanations regarding the panic and involvement of people in high places.”

    “…panic…”?

    A plausible explanation had been put forward already and you have commented on it.

    Do you know enough about the relevant English laws to justify the hypothetical view that the McCans would have succeed had they filed their claim for damages against Dr Amaral in England?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  18. My previous post at about 13:30 is for ZiggySawdust 8 February 2017 at 23:59

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ T 13:29

      A plausible explanation had been put forward already and you have commented on it.''

      I haven't seen one that i consider plausible.

      At first I thought it was just a case of outgoing and incoming PMs doing a little bit of grandstanding . But the PM of two different countries having meetings, more than one British politician offering up a direct line of communication to them personally, and Clarence Mitchell being called from Whitehall to don his PR controller's hat in order to field all of the public Q n A session and sign gagging orders, looks pretty much like panic to me.

      Influencing an investigation of a crime in Portugal was a sign of panic too. Prisons abroad have plenty of Brits in them. They may have had contact with a British Embassy but not with any current, former, or future PM . The diplomatic involvement alone makes this case look very different to any other crime abroad. Unless, of course, there's one I'm not aware of, in which case, I retract my claim.What did Mr Amaral think when he saw officials buzzing around, other than policemen from the UK ? Did he say ?

      ''Do you know enough about the relevant English laws to justify the hypothetical view that the McCans would have succeed had they filed their claim for damages against Dr Amaral in England?''

      I didn't have to consider that as it didn't take place . But I believe the laws of libel, slander and defamation here would uphold their claim against Amaral.The book being allowed for retail aside, the defamation and libel claim is the same. Unless, of course, Mr Amaral's legal people could convince a court here that he was merely exercising his right to free speech regardless of what damage it could potentially cause to the subjects on the receiving end of his speculation.

      Delete
  19. @ anon 07:34

    'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.'"

    Human rights act 1998 :

    ''Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.''

    @Bjorn 12 :30

    '' Hi Chez
    A conclusion reached by police investigators in a criminal investigation can never be libelous, unless there is some sort of conspiracy, but only right or wrong''

    That would be an 'official' conclusion. The search for Madeleine McCann is ongoing.As such, no official conclusion has been reached. The conclusion of Mr Amaral was just his own( and his team's) opinion.

    @Ros 14@13

    '' In running their own investigation alongside the police, the McCanns and their entourage were working against the police. That is they were creating such a big circus, they were hampering the official police investigation''

    One of the complaints made against Amaral by the McCanns was that he was working against any search by claiming that Madeleine was dead.That's a better way of hampering a search than any other. The 'circus' , in my opinion, was built by the 'Team McCann' - ie Mitchell and Co. He took over operations to earn his 'fee'. It was the 'team' that saw wisdom in funding dubious private detectives, Oakland International and G4 security . On the face of it, it was a way of spreading the net further and wider than PDL and making it more of a global search. Wouldn't you accept that if it was your child missing ? Leaving it to top dollar 'experts' to work in concert with two police forces ? They had no reason to believe that huge amounts of cash from a fund was being wasted. Why doesn't this constitute the McCanns 'searching' ? There were literally hundreds of cops in a town with a population of under 4,000. What could they have added ?. They handed out pictures and posters in public as the rest worked in the background.The only mention of them searching and panicking we read concerns the night of May 3. But that isolated effort is posted online ad nauseam as 'they ran around contaminating the crime scene'. Lose, lose.Again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumed innocent doesn't equal proven innocent.

      Delete
    2. I see you are still trying to offload everything on Clarence, Ziggy. Lol. Whilst I agree he was probably the Grand Master in the fake news department, he is, to use his own words 'only a medium level consul'. Not anyone with real power Ziggy.

      I don't for one moment believe Bennett's bonkers notion that Clarence was MI6. Clarence likes the cut and thrust of the media industry, not to mention seeing his mug on TV. The opposite in fact to the attributes of a secret agent.

      Clarence is also an opportunist. He was embarrassingly quick to ditch his 'safe' Government job to leap into the rapidly expanding Madeleine industry. As Madeleine could have been found a any time that was quite a leap of faith.

      I personally think someone in Westminster made the wrong judgement call when news of Madeleine's disappearance broke and they've all spent 10 years trying to cover it up.

      The complaint against Goncalo Amaral is ridiculous. The PJ launched the biggest missing child search in Portugal's history. GA and his team were working day and day, sleeping in the office for days and weeks on end. That's why they looked scruffy!

      The pretendy detectives? Kate and Gerry are far too canny to take their eyes off the money, so I don't buy for one moment, the money was spent without their knowledge. These are parents who appointed top lawyers within hours of Maddie's disappearance, they take no risks when it comes to defending themselves.

      It is absolutely absurd that suspects should employ top notch experts to assist the police who are investigating them. Do you not see that? There is a slight conflict of interest!

      Handing out pictures and posters is the glamorous side Ziggy, no dirty hands and blisters, but good photo opportunities. How could there ever be enough people to search for your lost child? Then, as now, the most likely place to find Madeleine is within the vicinity of where she vanished. The 'abductor' was on foot! He didn't even have a car let alone a private jet.

      Can you also not see that you are contradicting yourself. You begin by saying that GA was hampering the search, then towards the end you say there were 'literally hundreds of cops in town.

      And by the way, he wasn't saying Madeleine was dead. None of the police were. They were all acting under judicial secrecy, it's been leitmotif throughout this case. The police were not holding press conferences as they do in the UK.

      All the press conferences were called by Gerry and Kate. As the official investigation was underway, they released pictures of 'Tannerman' and random suspects drawn from their own 'investigation'. Not to mention of course, encouraging the whole world and its' dog to phone the Portuguese police with Madeleine sightings.

      The use of the word 'isolated' was unfortunate there Ziggy. It highlights the fact that they only searched for Madeleine on one occasion.

      Delete
  20. Ziggy Sawdust @14:26

    T: "A plausible explanation had been put forward already and you have commented on it."

    Z: "I haven't seen one that I consider plausible."

    Oh, you are a tease!

    And I thought you were serious when last you opened with:

    “That's a pretty complex explanation but worth the hard work in my opinion.”

    And closed with:

    “I've entertained a similar idea Re McCanns being drawn in by darker forces. Or that said forces did what they did and it was made known to the McCanns, but something, or someone, has put them in an untenable position. It's the only rational theory that would explain how it became a national incident."

    Surely you wouldn't have entertained 'a similar idea' if you didn't think it plausible (rational, as you say). Similarity ought then of course to confer plausibility on my own notion also. Perhaps not.

    Well there you go. Always better to learn the truth before walking up the aisle I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @15:47

    I apologise . I stand by what i said and that which you have quoted. I should have been more clear with my statement in my recent post. I mean't that I haven't heard a plausible explanation advanced by anybody involved with the case, from the McCanns, The 'Yard', the MSM, or politicians...

    The 'darker forces' explanation still looks like the only plausible one for me. This explanation, however, as you and I both know, comes with a built in explosive.It's a ( stand back) 'conspiracy theory' . As such, it's ready to be pounced upon by haters and establishment figures as unfounded nonsense as it has no evidence. And, let's face it, they thrive on evidence and truth. They've solved the mystery based on it.Even the Daily Mail -the fount of all knowledge - wouldn't entertain such notions of political skullduggery. Even though they cite Madeleine as disappearing on May 12 2003 earlier today. How many times has she disappeared ? They kept that one under wraps ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I haven't heard a plausible explanation advanced by anybody involved with the case, from the McCanns, The 'Yard', the MSM, or politicians..."

      Eh? They've only ever had one explanation and it's the only plausible one!

      "The 'darker forces' explanation still looks like the only plausible one for me."

      Oh dear.

      Chez

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @19:20

      "They've only ever had one explanation and it's the only plausible one!"

      (Recommended reading: Gullible's Travels)

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @19:20

      "The 'darker forces' explanation still looks like the only plausible one for me."

      "Oh dear", you say.

      No doubt you share the same point of view as the author of a recent 'Tweet', who, while defiantly batting for the McCanns, thoughtlessly offers us all reason for scepticism:

      "Full credit to the #mccanns. Single handedly starting Op Grange, re-investigation in Portugal and getting the PJ files released. Amazing.

      Plausible (NOT).

      Delete
    4. Whilst many of us may have 3rd May 2007, imprinted in our brains Ziggy, the majority of mainstream reporters do not. This is just another example of slapdash journalism.

      Delete
    5. 20:19. Gullivers Travels: My dear old mum's favourite book :)

      Delete
  22. Ziggy Sawdust @16:32

    Apology accepted (I wasn't really emotionally distressed).

    Keeping all of one's theoretical plates spinning can be a challenge when on the receiving end of flak from all quarters.

    A major problem we face in proposing our 'plausible theories' is that they fly in the face of others' pre-conceptions - the very inclinations that TM have traded upon from the outset.

    Stay true to the evidence and vindication must inevitably follow.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Ros: job description

    "Your main priority as a legal secretary is to provide secretarial and administrative support to lawyers and legal executives. Your daily tasks will include:

    Keeping records up to date
    Typing up legal documents
    Answering the phone
    Organising diaries
    Preparing court forms
    Attending court
    Performing legal research
    Making appointments with clients"

    30+ years of that - Christ!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ros 18:59

      ''I see you are still trying to offload everything on Clarence, Ziggy.''

      I said i thought he was the circus ring master.He was taken from Whitehall to the McCanns. That suggests a politician made the call to him and no doubt crossed his oily palm with silver. Or did two British doctors already have him on the friends list on their mysterious mobile phones.I suggested he was the front and the coordinator between the McCanns, MSM, and his bosses. The oil slick cut his teeth as a Royal correspondent. He's an expert in bullshit.

      '' I personally think someone in Westminster made the wrong judgement call..''

      You can say that again.But which home sec, pm or chancellor did that ? Either way, it wasn't their call.At most, the home secretary can talk with the top cop at the time. Politicians have other more pressing engagements, like visiting children's homes and hiding their money.

      ''The complaint against Goncalo Amaral is ridiculous.''

      Maybe, maybe not. But they said him declaring Madeleine as dead would stop people searching.It has some logic to it.If he didn't say it, or say Madeleine was dead, Gonco A had a slam dunk there for slander or libel or defamation and missed it.

      ''The pretendy detectives? Kate and Gerry are far too canny to take their eyes off the money, so I don't buy for one moment, the money was spent without their knowledge.''

      That's not what I said. I said they didn't realise that it would, later on, prove to be wasted.

      ''It is absolutely absurd that suspects should employ top notch experts to assist the police who are investigating them''

      Personally, i'd employ the SAS, army and navy if i had the money, but i take your point. I recall when little April Jones was snatched in Wales.The whole town ran to the scene with sticks and awaited instructions from the police where and how to search. They were told to 'keep back' and leave them to it. Another amazing police force.

      ''The 'abductor' was on foot! He didn't even have a car let alone a private jet. ''

      A predator would have an escape route in mind before he struck. He would also know road blocks and airports would be on alert if the police were awake. He would also be a short walk from the sea, where boats live.

      ''And by the way, he wasn't saying Madeleine was dead''

      Ten years is a long time. He said it at some point.The McCanns are still of the mind that Madeleine is hopefully alive and the search should continue until they know otherwise.It's hard to get into the mindset of someone in that position.Do you throw the towel in and accept that the stats suggesting that she's dead? Or do you cling to a lifeline despite the odds ?

      ''All the press conferences were called by Gerry and Kate''

      By-or for ? If it was by them, why did they have a PR man in the shape of Mitchell.Mitchell called them.He was in charge of spinning stories and manufacturing sightings. He was ostensibly acting in the interests of the McCanns as they were ostensibly his employers.But he was called from sleepy Whitehall at short notice and that fund didn't originate in a McCann bank account. To be honest, I had a feeling results would begin to turn against the McCanns after Gerry McCann emailed the Governments man and said his services would no longer be required and they needed to cut costs( or stop him hurling it at bad ideas). Too late was the cry...

      Delete
    2. 19:05, lol, yes 30 years of that! I had two kids to bring up and a mortgage to pay. And I did well. I was one of London's 'Super Secs', secretary/pa to the head of division in one of the larger firms. As a temp, my picture was on the front cover of my agency's magazine and I worked in most of the well known London firms, including Mischon De Reya and the Family Law Association.

      I moan about my years as a 'wage slave', but in retrospect I probably did enjoy a lot of it. The 'temping' especially, I got a kick not knowing where I would be working from week to week, not fear, work was a plenty, and I usually opted for the highest bidder.

      But you are right 19:05, the actual work was boring as hell, lol, I spent a lot of time day dreaming. It wasn't until my late 30's that I actually followed my dreams and became a mature student. I still 'temped' when I needed to, but something changed.

      Delete
    3. You are giving far too much credit to the predator Ziggy, you have him prepared like James Bond entering the mountain of Dr. Evil. Before setting up get away cars, planes, trains and automobiles, he would have to have known that the McCann children were alone in the holiday apartment every night. So this masterplan would also have involved several days of surveillance.

      Seriously Ziggy, who would go to that amount of trouble to steal a 3 year old girl? No 3 year old is that special. And think of the prison sentences had they been caught? Why go to all that trouble? Traffickers want kids who will not be missed, kids who can just fall off the radar, not a child who's face and distinctive eye would be plastered all over the news.

      Hope, well that deserves a post of it's own!

      Delete
    4. I'm an absolutely movie buff, and collector of iconic one liners. Most well known, but some that strike a chord with me personally, I'm not sure if they do with anyone else. One such line came from the John Cleese film 'Clockwise' (brilliant!). Having neared the end of his disastrous journey, he eschewed hope. I must find the exact line, but basically he pointed out how hope is probably the most destructive emotion of all.

      I don't know if I was down when I saw the movie, but his message stuck with me. While you are hoping for something impossible to happen, the world is passing you by.

      Gerry and Kate are wrong in my opinion to devote their lives to finding Madeleine. Even if it was a genuine search. They have two other children and much to make for, they should be the parents priority. And I will say it, even if no-one else will. What the are doing is not only unfair on their surviving children, it is also unfair on their families and those around them.

      I would imagine the British police have told them they believe Madeleine is dead, but of course this is something they would not share with the media unless they had to.

      Scotland Yard are on the case, but to quote the parents from pre Operation Grange, no-one is looking for Madeleine. They were claiming how unfair it was that the entire burden of the search was them, as Madeleine's parents.

      Operation Grange haven't made any appeals for Madeleine sightings or updated the age progression picture. There are no signs they are looking for a live child.

      But returning to 'hope'. I personally think it is very cruel to encourage people to hope for a lost cause (although religion has done very well out of it). It's like telling a kid who's puppy has been run over and killed, not to worry he would be back tomorrow. Although Gerry and Kate are in Cuckoo land, I hope to God they are being realistic and honest with the twins.

      Delete
  24. @anon18:28

    Be ready for the new buzzwords 'Fake News'. The back catalogue of 'conspiracy theories' that have been proven to be on the money and exposing the lies of Politicians and other trusted pillars of the establishment ( church, police etc) through all of the heavily edited and censored MSM ; edited heavily and often replaced by BS in order to protect. Cameron couldn't wait to utter 'the conspiracy theorists will have to look elsewhere now' a couple of years ago once he mistakenly thought one of the elite rats had been cleared of filth. The victory was short lived but he didn't mention it again..

    The lead up to Trump v Clinton was painful enough. But the internet horror stories leaked some potentially damaging details and threatened to expose more via wikileaks. The 'FAKE NEWS!' alerts that followed was the new 'conspiracy nut!'. It has a different sound.But, although the words change, the song remains the same.

    Once the elite go in panic mode they have the same strategy. mainstream news outlets and documentary makers are briefed. Soon we'll see that drip by drip of news items, documentaries and online hysterics 'exposing' really hurtful /racist /terrorist fake news stories'. The army of sheep has never been bigger so it should ensure that the real news buried.

    Soon, anyone who is anyone will be dropping it into casual conversation to appear in tune..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perceptive commentary.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  25. @chez 19:20


    '' Eh? They've only ever had one explanation and it's the only plausible one!''

    I'm afraid I must have missed any of them giving a plausible explanation of their over involvement,or an interest that's bordering on the forensic in comparison to every other crime involving a Brit abroad, or even here for that matter.What was it ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes, the darker forces. I'll pass on that, thank you.

      Chez

      Delete
  26. 13 October 2014
    Although the searches turned up no fresh evidence, the Met said detectives had gained an “essential understanding of the activity for which people have used this piece of land” and alluded to “substantial work which is yet to be done in the coming months”.

    9 February 2017
    ?

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Ros who says:

    "but you forget I spent 30+ years as a legal secretary. Courts don't set sums, claimants do"

    Whilst there seems to be a competition here to post the longest comment, I will keep mine quite short:

    You are WRONG Ros - a claimant/plaintiff/appellant etc makes a claim to a Court/Tribunal etc for an amount - the respondent/defendant etc argues the point.

    The Court makes the final decision on the amount of the award.

    Jeez - 30+ years wasted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @20:17

      Apart from the informative part, your comment is too long.

      Delete
    2. If the claimant WINS the Court decides the amount of the award. The Court doesn't set the amount at the outset of the claim, they can claim what they like, but what they are awarded is up to the Court.

      The point being, Gerry and Kate decided their pain and suffering was worth £1.25million, £250k for each of them including the children. That is the amount THEY claimed for in their Writ and Statement of Claim. And as we saw, the Court did not find in their favour.

      Delete
  28. Quick point on UK libel laws, if the McCanns decide to sue any UK publisher ref to GA's book without concrete proof. The same applies to them as again there is certainly no concrete evidence of an abduction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah. The publisher would have to substantiate their claims. The McCanns would have to prove nothing.

      Delete
    2. The McCanns have to prove their innocence.

      Delete
    3. One never has to prove one's innocence.

      Delete
    4. I think, 14:28, when all the evidence points in your direction, you probably do have to prove your innocence. Especially if you don't want to live for evermore under a great big cloud of suspicion.

      Delete
  29. "Turns out Goncalo Amaral wasn't the bad guy after all."

    Yep appoint an arguido who subsequently received an 18 month suspended sentence to co-ordinate a missing child case.

    Sounds sensible to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appoint "an arguido who subsequently received an 18-month suspended sentence". I very much look forward to watching the full documentary about how that "arguido" came to be sentenced "subsequently" after his work on this case. I'm sure the wider public would find the coincidental involvement of so many other players in Madeleine's case rather interesting, too.

      Delete
  30. @john100 21:02

    The McCanns haven't stated that there's concrete proof of anything. All they've said is that they HOPE she's still alive and that they never hurt or killed her. They haven't suggested anyone else has hurt or killed her, they hope or believe she's been taken and is safe. Although the latter is unlikely, they have to hope. The onus isn't on them to prove a negative-ie that they didn't kill. The onus would still be on somebody who has stated that he believes the child is dead and that the McCanns made an abduction story up to avoid being identified as responsible for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He has good reason to believe she is dead - The dog alerts,
      IMO everything else about this case is speculation. The dog alerts were real and although it may not hold up in court, it's their evidence that convinced me. Everyone should read the case of Attracta Harron and other cases these dogs have assisted in.

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust @00:09

      The McCann platform for the past decade has been the assumption of abduction together with the presumption that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Madeleine is still alive.

      In reality, either Madeleine was abducted or she is dead.

      Significantly, in the latter instance, she will have been dead from the outset, not at some indeterminate time since,revealing the Fund to be the most cynical fraud imaginable.

      The McCann faction has gambled everything on what they suppose to be the impossibility of proving a negative (to paraphrase Gerry McCann), i.e. that Madeleine was NOT abducted.

      But, as they say in the office, 'the impossible we do at short notice. Miracles take a little longer'.

      In my view, making a case against abduction would not require a miracle of any description. Nor is it impossible.

      Delete
    3. The same dogs failed at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey....therefore there alerts cannot be accepted

      Delete
    4. Anonymous @13:49

      Failed to do what?

      Delete
    5. Therefore your statement cannot be accepted because you can't spell 'their.'

      Delete
    6. 00:41 Is that you again, Tony?

      Delete
  31. @11:02

    No disrespect intended, but the dog alerts may well have convinced you.However, the man who pioneered DNA fingerprinting wasn't impressed by the 5A evidence. He offered himself as a witness for the defence if the McCanns ever faced court.Even allowing the McCann haters the benefit of the doubt and letting them have it as real evidence ( God knows they really need some to justify their bile), the dogs didn't identify a killer, they identified a space where a killers victim had been.Some like to think Kate McCann( or Gerry, or Payne etc) went over the top in a punishment and killed her by accident. If that's possible, why isn't it possible for an abductor to do it and make off with the body that has his DNA on ?

    @anon 11:25

    Am I reading you right in thinking that you're suggesting the McCann circus was funded by, and sustained by people willing to throw money at covering up a death ? I think that's highly likely.But the sums and time involved don't add up to a desperate need to protect a couple of Brits abroad who let a domestic get out of hand. As you say, they really should have put a serious case on the table against an abduction by now.Too incompetent to be true. It continues to smell funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @15:31

      "Am I reading you right?"

      Yes, you are.

      "the sums and time involved don't add up to a desperate need to protect a couple of Brits abroad who let a domestic get out of hand"

      Indeed not.

      "It continues to smell funny"

      It most certainly does.

      Delete
    2. You mean the very same man who works in the same university of Leicester as Gerry McCann. The very same man who is responsible for the first DNA conviction in the UK, back in 1987 wants to testify against his own findings ....Try harder Ziggy saw .

      Delete
    3. Re, your reply to 15:31. Cadaver odour takes at least 90 minutes to develop. Your theory that the abductor took the body after waiting in the apartment for one and a half hours, simply doesn't fit evidence. The checks were allegedly every half hour.

      Delete
  32. anon07:46

    ''The McCanns have to prove their innocence.''

    why ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      One very good reason Ziggy as to why the McCanns should prove their innocence is of course ,that they will not have to go on for ever suing people for not believing in their version. Wouldn't that be a great relief?

      Delete
    2. Not sure what the McCanns can possibly do to prove their innocence.

      Delete
    3. ZiggySawdust @15:35

      For their own good. Otherwise, they will remain under a cloud of suspicion. Information travels fast in a digital age ("with a whole new generation" - Gerry McCann).

      "Tens of millions of people use YouTube. There are over 229 videos of Madeleine on it already and that's interesting." - Gerry McCann, August 2007

      Delete
  33. @anon 13:27

    ''Now, start denying the dogs findings Ziggy, but be careful how you do it as you may give the game away to your identity. Now be honest for a change Ziggy.''

    First thing's first. This internet paranoia is exactly why i rarely mix on blogs and never on social networks. I have no idea who you think i am but clearly you have someone in mind that you've possibly had dealings with during your online odyssey. Don't waste your time. You're barking up a wrong tree (and even sniffer dogs would support that).

    Like you, and others driven by hate, i too was impressed by the sniffer dogs and thought that would 'do' for the McCanns.I still questioned why so much was being done to keep them innocent though. I dug around and read Sir Alec Jefferys' take on it because, let's face it, he's top dog( no pun intended) in this area. He said it mattered not a jot and would have no difficulty in defending the McCanns should they be charged with murder. He knows far more than I do. he even knows more than twitter (true story).

    I agree that the dogs found only the macs. This didn't become a eureka moment for me though, as it was their apartment.I'd have been interested in DNA on Madeleine, though. Because a non'mac' fingerprint would rule somebody else in. But Madeleine wasn't there any more.

    ''you saying DCI redwood speculated on tv WITHOUT having thought that if MBM died in the apartment ''

    '' You and I both know he was not speculating when he said this or he may just as well have said the wicked witch of the east took her.''

    I said that he was speculating because he said Madeleine 'may not be alive', not, 'Madeleine is dead' or 'Madeleine isn't dead'. You and I don't 'know' he wasn't speculating.He said he was. You might suspect otherwise but can it be proved ? If he was lying-can that be proved ?Would you call him a liar and continue if he asked you for proof ?

    '' Now be honest for a change Ziggy''

    What have I ever lied about on this blog.Why would i ? I don't have the facts.You don't.The massed ranks of twitter don't.The police don't. All we have is theories and suspicions. You can't take those pigs to market.

    ''Your twisting of the truth Ziggy is becoming impossible to swallow im afraid.''

    I can't advise you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Bjorn 16:32

      A sort of half good reason there. I think you have to read it as it actually is, and not how it is on twitter. The McCanns haven't and will never be able to sue anybody for not believing their story. They can, however, sue anyone who is proven to be passing libelous, slanderous and defamatory remarks about them that have no foundation in truth. If the haters can't exercise any self -control and put forward suggestions or theories and add the 'this is only my opinion', or even the odd 'it makes you think' disclaimer, then they have to be big enough to take a smack on the jaw in return.

      Nobody likes a bully. Nobody likes a gang of bullies.They only like each other.And, truth is, they deserve each other.

      '' A bully is an arsehole '' - Abraham Lincoln ( circa ages ago)

      Delete
    2. Err, let's get this wholly bully thing straight Ziggy. It is the McCanns who have pursued Goncalo Amaral. They are the aggressors, They were demanding he give them £1.2million, he was saying no. The one being asked to hand over the cash or else, is the bully.

      Delete
  34. 1/2
    At Ziggy,
    Im not paranoid and i certainly dont hate the Mccanns, To hate them I would have to know hem personally...and I dont (obviously you like to start by attacking the person not the post, typical pro behaviour!!). I am just someone who has been following this case from the onset.
    How I feel is irrelevant, this is the only blog i post on and im not on twitter or any other social media.

    Now you said,
    1,
    I agree that the dogs found only the macs. This didn't become a eureka moment for me though, as it was their apartment.

    Well as we both know they also identified Mcc clothing and the Mcc hire car and key fob....in the underground garage, whilst ignoring all the other cars and clothing that the Mccs had not touched!! What you are doing is being selective Ziggy and thats not cool. Either you know all the facts or you dont, be careful when cherry picking.

    2. you said,
    I said that he was speculating because he said Madeleine 'may not be alive', not, 'Madeleine is dead' or 'Madeleine isn't dead'. You and I don't 'know' he wasn't speculating.He said he was. You might suspect otherwise but can it be proved ? If he was lying-can that be proved ?Would you call him a liar and continue if he asked you for proof ?

    May not be alive = may be dead...its an either or statement. There is no logical reason for him to stste this if its not at least 50% likely you would agree ..no?
    its not like saying she "may not be a liverpool supporter" because the opposite is every other foootball club in the world and his statement would have no point. I think its fair to say that the MET think its at least 50% likely that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, and Im sure they have their reasons for this. If its down to the dogs then its fair to say that MBM lay it situ for an hour or two in the apartment for cadaverine to occur. If its for other reasons then maybe we will know in the fullness of time. But please dont dismiss his remark so readily, I would bet he had good reason to sa it. If you know better than DCI Redwood then please enlighten us all.

    I have no problem with debating with you Ziggy, and respect your right to your point of view.

    Given this, what do you make of this from spudguns site?

    2/2

    ReplyDelete
  35. at Ziggy
    2/2
    Ostensibly, the ONLY evidence that Madeleine McCann was abducted comes from JANE TANNER.
    She insists that she saw a man carrying a small child whom she believes was MADELEINE, around 40 minutes before Kate McCann actually declared the girl was missing.


    Those more conversant with this case will know that Tanner’s description of this ‘abductor’ changed dramatically over the subsequent Month’s and indeed years, since Madeleine’s disappearance.


    His height, size, shape, hairstyle, clothes, manner, and on at least one occasion, even sex, have all been changed or modified, often coinciding with, (and dependent ON), the description being given out by ‘Team McCann’ of the person that they and their ‘investigators’ were eager to locate in any given Month.


    Additionally, not only the ‘abductor’ but his prey was also subjected to a number of changes, starting out as a mere ‘bundle’, as in a blanket, before metamorphosing into a little GIRL with pink pyjamas just like Madeleine!




    More saliently, particularly for the Police investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance, the Policia Judiciaria afforded NO significance to Tanner’s sighting for THREE reasons.


    ONE, because it would have been way too dark to afford any credibility to the description Tanner provided;

    TWO, despite insisting that she DID see an abductor, 40 minutes later when Kate McCann appeared at the Tapas bar, screaming that Madeleine was, indeed missing, Jane sprung into action and erm......not only did nothing but SAID nothing!!


    And THIRDLY, the Portuguese Police were equally sceptical when it transpired that at precisely the same time Tanner is alleged to have seen this abductor, two other witnesses who were effectively in exactly the same location saw neither this man nor indeed Tanner.

    One of these witnesses being Gerry McCann himself!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Neither "Tannerman" nor Crêchman have ever existed. Operation Grange have wasted years just to defend a liar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Tannerman" exists, although he wasn't carrying Madeleine. "Crèchedad" is an Operation Grange fabrication, as he was walking in the wrong direction.

      Delete
    2. Hmm, that has always puzzled me Bjorn. I think it is ludicrous, and a tad insulting, to suggest the PJ didn't check out the comings and goings from the resort crèche that night. I wondered at the time if Jane Tanner had done some sort of deal. The sudden appearance of crècheman got her off the hook for lying and/or perverting the course of justice.

      I sometimes imagine Operation Grange are playing a long drawn out game of cat and mouse with the parents. I watch a lot of real crime documentaries and I am amazed at the lengths some police go to, to outmanoeuvre their targets.

      Delete
  37. "Err, let's get this wholly bully thing straight Ziggy. It is the McCanns who have pursued Goncalo Amaral. They are the aggressors, They were demanding he give them £1.2million, he was saying no. The one being asked to hand over the cash or else, is the bully."

    Err, let's get this wholly bully thing straight Ros. It is Goncalo Amaral who pursued the McCanns by writing his book of false accusations. He is the aggressor!

    Chez

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pistols at dawn Chez!

      Goncalo Amaral wrote his book because the McCanns were trashing his name and reputation all over the world's media!

      Delete
  38. "The McCanns haven't and will never be able to sue anybody for not believing their story. They can, however, sue anyone who is proven to be passing libelous, slanderous and defamatory remarks about them that have no foundation in truth. If the haters can't exercise any self -control and put forward suggestions or theories and add the 'this is only my opinion', or even the odd 'it makes you think' disclaimer, then they have to be big enough to take a smack on the jaw in return. "

    Exactly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bizarrely I agree with some of your sentiments 19:10, though the smack on the jaw should be via a direct rebuttal. If the McCanns were so concerned about their reputations and their honour, they had the ear of the MSM and could have cleared the huge questions up themselves. Any newspaper would have given them a centre spread if not a complete pull out.

      Goncalo Amaral has successfully restored his honour by telling his side of the story. Gerry and Kate have always had the option to do the same and it may have gone some way to win back public support if they had. There were a lot of questions that remained unanswered, and they remain unanswered still. Not just from GA's book but from the police files that were made public. Even this week, their priorities are completely skew whiff, for Gerry and Kate, GA remains their main enemy and main target. They have no comment on the damning words of the Supreme Court Judges.

      Delete
  39. @ros 18:50

    ''Err, let's get this wholly bully thing straight Ziggy. It is the McCanns who have pursued Goncalo Amara''

    If you check the contents of my post, it's clear that I'm not referring to Amaral, Mcann, or anyone else that's actually been IN the case. I was referring to the bullies who gather in a black cloud to hurl spite and spread rumours they claim are 'facts'. Those who refuse to think about anything other than their own bullshit. I think neither of the McCanns killed their daughter. I used to believe they had. I have an equal amount of evidence to support both arguments - zero. That's why i wont attempt to pass anything off as 'truth' or 'evidence' when it's never more than unsupported conjecture. When i see proof -actual real, concrete proof to support anything, I'll know my position as I'll have something to point at to support it.

    If anybody accused me of harming my child or , worse, killing him, I'd be the aggressor too. I wouldn't need a penny if i could get up close and personal with the accuser either. It would be the shortest legal case in history, and the last time he opened his mouth. The McCanns, as we know, were under the spotlight and had to go about things how they went about them. Amaral wouldn't have been in the position he was in had he understood how unprofessional it was to broadcast what was supposed to be in house. He shaped the public's view ( ''well he was the cop so he must know'') deliberately and planted plenty of seeds not only of doubt but with malice. Somebody should have had a quiet word and told him ''you know if you can't back that shit up you can be done you ''.

    His cult status has spawned an army of hate. So he, and his online minions, should shut up or put up. Don't sing nasty tired old songs to each other, get your petitions.Demand the explanations to what you haven't understood and demand answers. England and Portugal are democracies.It's your right. It's their duty- the key word to 'public servant' is servant. Then again, the adrenaline rush is more of a kick for the haters as they type white-knuckled.

    Sad, really. What has it come to..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be honest Ziggy, I don't understand the anger and rage. As I mentioned elsewhere, I have been accused of all sorts, including making snuff movies. None of them bother me a jot, because I know they aren't true.

      And to be honest Ziggy, why waste your time and energy on 'false' accusations when your child is missing? Again, it's a matter of priorities.

      The idea that Goncalo Amaral has cult status is absurd Ziggy. At least 50% of the 'haters' have abandoned his theories and come up with their own. And I used the word haters deliberately there, because there are indeed people attached to this case purely for malevolent reasons.

      GA did not start up a cult of hate. In the early days, no-one even knew his name. It was the McCanns' own behaviour that turned the public against them, why can't they see that? Gerry and Kate were appearing regularly on TV and, to put it bluntly, they are just not likeable.

      They show no remorse, they show no humility, they show no gratitude and they accept no blame. Now I accept that the Gerry and Kate we have seen on TV are not real, if they were, I'd be amazed they had any friends whatsoever. But the strategy they have been using, is a complete turn off. And note, none of this has anything to do with Goncalo Amaral.

      Delete
  40. ''At Ziggy,
    Im not paranoid ''

    ''(obviously you like to start by attacking the person not the post, typical pro behaviour! ''

    ''What you are doing is being selective Ziggy and thats not cool. Either you know all the facts or you dont''

    Did you actually read my post ?

    ''May not be alive = may be dead...its an either or statement. There is no logical reason for him to stste this if its not at least 50% likely you would agree ..no? ''

    Why can't you understand that this means he was speculating ?

    ''I think its fair to say that the MET think its at least 50% likely that she may not have been alive when she left the apartment, and Im sure they have their reasons for this. If its down to the dogs then its fair to say that MBM lay it situ for an hour or two in the apartment for cadaverine to occur ''

    key phrases : ''I think''' ,''she may not have been alive'' ''If it's down to the dogs''.

    All possible. But you THINK its fair to say, she MAY NOT have been alive, and IF it's down to the dogs. If you recognise and accept that what you said there is only speculation, you have a personal breakthrough. They may all have happened, but they may not have.It's speculation.That doesn't mean wrong, it means that it needs concrete support.

    Spudguns ? No idea there. I haven't heard of spudgun.

    If any single efit was produced in a court of law by the prosecution as evidence, the defence would counter it with about 6 more. One looks like Laurel, one looks like Hardy ; one looks like a 1950s B movie zombie ;one looks like Podesta before and after (or even both brothers); one is hollow cheeked and dirty looking, one is clean cut and stocky. It seems an awful lot people chose 10 pm to go walkabout and lose the power of sight. But, either way, there have been thousands of Social Psychology papers written on the subject of how unreliable eye witness testimony can be. I don't think anyone who's followed this case would argue with that.

    When you are physically close and sometimes emotionally related to someone in a situation like this, you will 'remember' things of significance. If you can't, it's easy to feel compelled to have a vague memory and dress it up .You also have to allow for a witness 'adding to' what's seen. It's usual to attribute unpleasantness to someone scruffy who cant hold you gaze. Forget that he may be down on his luck or shy or both. But a smartly dressed man with his chin up never looks suspicious. Too grey an area...

    Having said all of this, if there is genuinely anything important or vital that I've missed, that's great. You can tell the met. It's no good telling me, I can't arrest anyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ros 20 :14

      The MSM are rarely, if ever at all, worthy of attention in anything high profile; especially if politicians have a vested interest in outcomes. Why do you think one of the runts in Whitehall was called in to control it all at short notice ? He, officially, was protecting the McCanns interests. We all saw that so it must be true etc. He was in charge of what came out of their mouths and out of the pens of germilists. The Mail is The Sun without tits. They're both in the pockets of people we don't see in the background and charged with shaping public opinion. The Sun isn't even toilet paper where i live. Thatcher started that Hillsborough bullshit via Police in Yorkshire and an editor at a desk. The filth that followed was, in essence, Thatcher's voice. Anything that has a hint of Murdoch or Freud is worthless.There's ALWAYS an agenda. The McCanns were promised front pages. Front pages are the hook to pull you in. The papers benefited more than they did.

      Amaral will have his honour restored when he receives public apologies from his former superiors for doubting him and sacking him. I'm sure that will come if his book is filled with the truth of their lies too . Shall we hold our breath ? Coming out with spurious ( and without supporting evidence, that's what they are) and nasty allegations isn't restoring your honour. You're right, many things needed, and still do need, to be cleared up.Until then, everybody put your pens down and wait.

      Gerry and Kate McCann's priorities being skew whiff is neither here nor there. They probably realise a few hundred thousand '' fighters for justice'' are scrutinising their every move and word and ready to read it and twist it. I think it's fair to guess they're none to happy about the judges thinking , and, as such, will be pissed of at the poison pen behind it all.

      Grow a pair, Mr Amaral. Take on those you complained about and who removed you. Or doesn't that have any salacious selling points for the publishers.Fight for your honour and justice. Set your aim at who took all of your evidence away and said you messed up.

      Delete
    2. I hardly think Goncalo needs 'grow a pair' - tacky Ziggy, he is one of the bravest men of our time. He stood alone against not only the McCanns, but the establishment. And he has already fought for his honour and justice, and he won!

      I agree with you regarding the newspapers, cases like Madeleine's have revealed just how disingenuous they are. But they are all about shifting copy, they will go with the story that sells.

      Delete
    3. @ros

      '' The idea that Goncalo Amaral has cult status is absurd Ziggy.''

      Had you typed Madeleine into google in the last 4 days, there was no escaping the online orgy over his so-called success. He gets to have his book published, he didn't solve a case. But it's being counted as a victory.The congratulations is one thing, but they rarely leave it there, they can't control themselves. They can't resist a 'go get 'em' Gonco ' or something poisonous about the McCanns. He's become some kind of bizarre life raft for the haters to cling to.

      ''GA did not start up a cult of hate''

      Cults are started by those who want to make a cult or, in todays fashion, an online shrine. I didn't say GA started his own cult, i said he spawned one. He's popular because he's trying to convict the McCanns in the court of public opinion. That should be easy when you see about 90% of that particular selected section of public opinion are haters. Haters seldom allow thinking to block their buzz.

      ''Gerry and Kate were appearing regularly on TV and, to put it bluntly, they are just not likeable. ''

      That's nothing but a personal opinion and slight. There's a few pictures online of Gerry laughing and Kate laughing publicly. Try and find one that isn't accompanied by the usual'' look at the bastards and they're supposed to be shattered over maddie '' and the usual mindless bullshit. But, when in interviews, and they talk or make an appeal, they're miserable and not likeable because they seem pissed off. God knows why they're pissed off. Any ideas ? If being 'not likeable' was a crime, the internet would be very quiet.

      ''They show no remorse, they show no humility''

      They might not show remorse because , if you're talking about Amaral, they're not sorry for obvious reasons. They've thanked the public many times for continued support throughout such a long span of time.

      '' I accept that the Gerry and Kate we have seen on TV are not real,''

      But your conclusions of them as 'not likeable', and other personality assessments are based on these viewings.

      '' . But the strategy they have been using, is a complete turn off. And note, none of this has anything to do with Goncalo Amaral.''

      No, it's about being angry that no progress has been made in the search.It's more important than Amaral.He was sacked and he went on tour plugging his book . The 'strategies' have been mostly scripted for them behind the scenes.

      '' I hardly think Goncalo needs 'grow a pair' - tacky Ziggy, he is one of the bravest men of our time.''

      He wrote a book about the theories that got him fired from his job. He didn't bring down a fascist dictatorship.

      Delete
    4. I don't get the constant anger Ziggy. Gerry and Kate have been given everything they wanted, more media exposure than any other missing child, a fortune in donations, a best seller and lord knows how many investigations. The majority of missing children don't receive a fraction of the help the McCanns have had.

      Who are angry with? Other than Goncalo Amaral that is. What do they think should be done, that hasn't been done already?

      Being constantly pissed off and in a state of anger is not endearing Ziggy, even if it is justified. I think we all go out of our way to avoid miserable people.

      The McCanns have had much over the years to be grateful for Ziggy, but even when given all they desire, they continue to whine. I know 'the only' thing they want is Madeleine back, but ditto every other parent of a missing child. Never have they uttered the words, we know how lucky we have been with all the resources we have been given.

      And it's not that they are incapable of showing joy, they are positively ecstatic in their Express interview following the dropping of their arguido status. And indeed they held a press conference when they won Round One in their legal battles against GA's book. Obviously Madeleine hadn't been found, but they celebrated anyway.

      There are heroes in every walk of life Ziggy, and sometimes the hero is the little guy who stands up for the truth.

      Delete
    5. @ros 13 :30

      I find it strange that talk of high level conspiracy is dismissed out of hand by haters.It contradicts their meticulous sleuthing skills. Yet i read often how much money and coverage they've received and how unique it is by the same people. I read that they 'paid off' their mortgage with the money, even though only the McCanns and their bank actually know their personal financial condition. But the accusation adds more coal to the fire so let's stick with that.And let's not total up the salary of Mitchell, g4, Oakland, and Lord Bell and the like; money spent in good faith but, in all but name, stolen from the fund under false pretences.

      They're angry at Amaral for one simple reason :they consider that he's perpetuating a false narrative of the crime that frames them as killers. The fall out from that is having to field questions and recall events to an army of his believers who are scrutinising any reason they can use against them because they're now officially killers because his book is officially allowed to see light ( let's not mention that the decision was based on it never being considered more than his opinions and theories only).

      I can't find it anywhere in my soul to pigeon hole two parents who lost a tiny daughter as 'miserable people' to be avoided.Even if they do- to quote you ''continue to whine''.

      ''they are positively ecstatic in their Express interview following the dropping of their arguido status ''

      Any idea why ? A possibility could be that they are innocent.Had they been charged and found guilty despite no eye witnesses or DNA ( Amaral's air tight case), they would be away from each other and their two other children. So, avoiding having to leave two children without parents, and being separated from each other based on an investigation that inspired the PJ to do nothing more than sack the author, is, to say the least, a relief that's hard to put into words.

      Criticising them for being miserable on the one hand and then for being happy to be free of unfounded allegations on the other is typical of every lose, lose the McCanns face from the internet.

      The 'little guy' was fired for his idea of the truth. When he goes on TV tour and book signings telling the world that he thinks they lied too and that they made up a story to cover up the truth of why he was relieved of his position, then he's beginning to slip into the hero's boots.

      Delete
  41. GA has done nothing wrong, he investigated a case that still remains unsolved. He is entitled to his opinion like everyone else. The McCanns are not detectives or experts on sniffer dogs but they choose to ignore those findings. Whichever side we choose to believe in, at the end of the day the buck stops with the McCanns as they left 3 small children alone in an unlocked apartment & that alone to me is unforgivable.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Hi Rosalinda
    We must also not forget their happy faces, when they celebrated Madeleine's 4th anniversary, while she, as they then suspected, could be in the hands of rapists and pedophiles. A very peculiar way of grieving, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Björn11 February 2017 at 15:20
      "A very peculiar way of grieving, isn't it?"

      But they weren't grieving - they were acknowledging the massive support they were getting and hoping their child would be found.

      It was not a funeral.

      Delete
    2. To Anonymous 11 February 16:05

      Sorry,

      Naturally, my choice of word was not quite relevant in this context. Anyway none of them seemed to be particularly weepy, considering what they thought had happened to their daughter, and it was a distasteful way to use a kidnapped child's birthday for pure marketing purposes. One of Gerry's so called marketing ploys, I assume.

      Delete
    3. Indeed Bjorn, and they wonder why people don't like them.

      Delete
  43. It should be noted that the Supreme Court in Portugal ruled that Amaral had the right to say what he did under freedom of speech and right to publish rules.

    The Supreme Court did NOT rule that what Amaral said is true or false.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @John 100 : 15:00

      Amaral was the lead detective.He wasn't being paid for opinions.He was paid to catch a killer or abductor, not take the easy shortcut. Leaving your kids alone isn't right by any stretch. But it's slightly and subtly different to killing them. The McCanns didn't choose to ignore any findings. The PJ did. The McCanns just refused to believe the evidence because they were sure they hadn't done anything.

      @Bjorn 15:20
      ''Hi Rosalinda
      We must also not forget their happy faces, when they celebrated Madeleine's 4th anniversary, while she, as they then suspected, could be in the hands of rapists and pedophiles. A very peculiar way of grieving, isn't it? ''

      That is a perfect example of what i said to about the lose, lose, Ros. They smile-they're sick; they don't smile, they're miserable and whiney.

      @anon 15:20
      ''The Supreme Court did NOT rule that what Amaral said is true or false.''

      With a note that it shouldn't be considered either, merely one man's opinion. A 'lierary work'

      Delete
    2. Ziggy Sawdust @15:54

      You are coming across as something of a 'Janus' in the matter of the McCanns.

      On the one hand you accept that they are implicated in a cover-up of extraordinary proportions. On the other you leap, somewhat irrationally if I may say so, to their defence.

      "The McCanns didn't choose to ignore any findings".

      Does Kate McCann's refusal to answer 48 police questions fall within that realm of behaviour, do you think?

      "The McCanns just refused to believe the evidence because they were sure they hadn't done anything."

      That is a your own opinion, not a statement of fact.

      One might just as readily claim "the McCanns refused to accept the evidence because they were intent on convincing others that they hadn't done anything."

      Again a statement of opinion (although arguably with more going for it).

      As to the Supreme Court's not ruling on the truth or otherwise of Amaral's published remarks, they didn't comment on the price of bananas either (an equally irrelevant observation, for the purposes of illustration).

      What they did do, very clearly, was consolidate the appropriate interpretation of the archiving, which is that the McCanns cannot be considered, ipso facto, innocent of crimes which the Portuguese investigation identified - the investigation summarised by Amaral in his book.

      Of course, in the context of a trial, the law requires the presumption of innocence ('innocent until proven guilty' and all that), but it is definitely not the case that the act of archiving, of itself, either confers or confirms innocence. It doesn't. Far from being 'unproven' the case has not even been tested.

      Hence the McCanns being 'sure they hadn't done anything' is no more a reliable assessment of the facts than any other of their slanted interpretations of events.

      Delete
    3. Ziggy, 15:54,

      If Gerry and Kate were so fake, there would not be such a sharp contrast between their different emotions Ziggy. Grieving people do laugh, their emotions are so high, tears and laughter often alternate. It is not unnatural.

      Gerry and Kate have created their own prison, they are afraid to laugh in public, and certainly not on camera, that's why they are so wooden. But they have had 10 years in which to relax and unwind a bit, show their true personalities, yet they give every interview as if it's their first.

      Delete
    4. Hi Ziggy, I’m not, as I’ve said earlier a psychologist, but still I doubt that Kate is showing her true feelings, just faking.

      What I’ve problem with is, that Kate always tries to express feelings of despair and regret by making grimaces/faces. In doing so, she always fails to squeeze one single little tear out from her eyes. It’s true, people do indeed react differently. Some people manage to suppress what they feel deep inside, and they sometimes manage or prefer to do so, whether they are among friends or in public.

      It’s not unusual that a parent whose child has gone missing, and who’s really in deep despair, shows a controlled countenance , either with no signs of emotions, or with feelings of anger. However, a person who cannot control his/her feelings will reveal that by unambiguous facial expressions. If such expressions are not faked, as I believe they are in Kate’s case, tears cannot be kept back. In short Kate shows what is supposed to be uncontrolled facial expressions, but they aren’t really, as there are never any tears.

      I think that this’s what the Portuguese viewers saw when Kate appeared on Portuguese TV asking for help in their search, that is, a queer tormented face without any tears. An angry face without any tears would not have seemed strange at all, but Kate chose the tormented alternative, which she has done many times later, when she could have chosen the controlled and determined look. Had she done so, nobody would have questioned the absence of tears.



      Delete
  44. Hi Ziggy @15:54

    I'm going have to disagree with you. Yes GA was the lead detective on the case which is why I & others accept his version of events. The McCanns did question his book hence the court case & the evidence of the sniffer dogs. As I said previously the McCanns are not the expert. I'm more than positive that if GA & the dogs started diagnosing medical ailments & issuing prescriptions they would be the first to jump up & say your not qualified. The McCanns did ignore the findings, they also ignored 3 small children in an unlocked apartment which started the whole chain of events.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ John10011 February 2017 at 16:33
      "hence the court case & the evidence of the sniffer dogs."

      Strange - I don't remember the sniffer dogs giving any evidence in the libel trial.

      Delete
  45. ZiggySawdust . I have worked on this case , i work in the media , i was one of the first to jog over to Malta on the first sighting , you won't remember that of course , when i asked the Police officer to hold a copy of the Sunday Mirror , with Maddy on the front page , he stopped me , and said you will find the answer lies with the parents , up till that point i assumed like everyone else it was an abduction , another Photographer on the case , cant go into to much detail , but they had the cash to splash , said to me after taking pictures inside 5a , if i remember rightly they paid 25 k for access , to a mrs McCann , (No relative ) " we know they have done it , we just cant prove it " and ziggy do you remember the first account of how they knew maddy had been taken , you know the one where the cuddle cat had been placed high on a shelf , remember , well i do, i was there , and if you fancy going back through cuttings , you will find that the news of the screws mentioned , there were no shelves , of course that story , and it is a story , has now evolved to the cat being on the bed , less one child and the curtains blowing in the wind , , so which version is it , ziggy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for posting here 19:36, I think this is probably the first (known) opportunity I have had to liaise with someone who was actually there. I have always wondered what feeling was like 'on the ground'. Here in the UK, it appeared as if all the locals were on the McCanns' side. At least the ones interviewed were.

      I was blown away the first time I saw the video of 'the cook speaking' - I will find link -, which gave the perspective of Warners' staff, and they weren't very impressed with the McCanns and their demanding holiday party. It must have been quite galling to watching the media circus while they were giving up their free time to search.

      Anyway, do tell! Whatever you can that is, I really would like to know what the true feeling was in PDL at that time.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous11 February 2017 at 19:36

      you may be able to fool Ros that you were there but quite frankly your post is absolute nonsense.

      Delete
  46. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/2500864/Madeleine-McCann-Kate-McCann-refused-to-answer-48-questions-from-Portuguese-police.html

    7- Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

    Good question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @21:10

      "Good question"

      I've no doubt they asked a number of good questions, but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

      The apartment was not so big that Kate McCann couldn't have established exactly who was inside it before raising the alarm. With Madeleine already 'abducted' the culprit may still have been in the vicinity, but not still in the apartment.

      In any case it's possible the question lost something in translation.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @21:34

      I agree with you, but the question lost nothing in translation.

      Partindo da premissa que a Madeleine havia sido raptada, porque deixou os gémeos sozinhos em casa para ir ao Tapas dar o alarme, até porque o suposto raptor poderia ainda estar no apartamento, não respondeu. Porque não perguntou aos gémeos naquele momento o que havia sucedido à irmã, ou porque não lhes perguntou mais tarde, não respondeu.

      Conundrum?

      Delete
    3. @21:34

      "The apartment was not so big that Kate McCann couldn't have established exactly who was inside it before raising the alarm."

      The first six questions relate to 'searching'. "What did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?"

      Question 7 in case she couldn't or wouldn't answer the first six?

      Delete
  47. I remember Gerry being interviewed re the book,he said he hadn't read it and didn't intend to'he was very dismissive and then voila 12 months later when there were profits from it they sued! "it isn't about the money" my arse! Nobody has made more money out of Madeleine than those two!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps they knew one day they would need it?

      Delete
  48. (1)


    @ Ros 20:48

    ''If Gerry and Kate were so fake, there would not be such a sharp contrast between their different emotions Ziggy. Grieving people do laugh, their emotions are so high, tears and laughter often alternate. It is not unnatural''

    You need to read that back to yourself. I know it's natural- i just wouldn't highlight it as a criticism of any one.

    ''Gerry and Kate have created their own prison, they are afraid to laugh in public, and certainly not on camera, that's why they are so wooden,'' (a bit like that, really). I'd have some compassion and humanity.

    @anon 19:36

    I hope you don't take this the wrong way , anonymous 19:36, but i read quote after quote criticsing Mitchell for his endless ''a source close to..'' and ''a friend of''. And I agree with the criticism. A source could be my postman's sister in law who went to Leicester races one day and heard whispers. The mail specialise in it. So, forgive me for being less than enthusiastic when an 'anonymous' pops onto a forum to tell me he ''was there working on the case''. Obviously, if i was one of the 'hater's anonymous' i wouldn't be interested in your credentials just as long as you were for justice against the McCanns. But I'm not. I have never perceived myself as being in ' a side' since I played football in the Anfield league.I'm all grown up now. I like to balance and reality check the 'fors' and 'againsts' looking at the McCanns, then the same for Amaral's theory, (or his successor's, which is completely different again).This said, I'd be happy to debate your points once I know which branch of 'the media'you represented back then and now .


    ReplyDelete
  49. (2)


    @anon 21:10

    It's a question, good or bad is debatable.

    By the time Amaral sat Kate McCann down for a grilling, he'd been informed that the blood evidence and DNA evidence were no longer on the table.Regardless of what Kate McCann said, a charge would not be able to call upon it.They went as far as saying the blood might not even be human at one point.

    Q7- why did you go back to alert friends at the Tapas if the abductor could still be in the apartment? (Why would an abductor stay there-it's an abduction. He'd have gone.)

    Q43-to 47 - Discuss forensic evidence and the dogs.All of which was known to have been dismissed. Kate McCann had already stated she couldn't explain it. Nor could the PJ apparently .

    A more interesting question would be to ask Amaral, even though he was convinced she was a murderer, why the ''abuction'' only turns up in 1 of 48 questions. A dog with a bone ?

    Gerry McCann had reflevcted later that the abductor MIGHT have been hiding in the apartment when he checked on the girls. That's only reflecting on a possibility.He might be right, he probably isn't.

    More questions should have been about any suspicious looking characters around running up to May3. That's pretty much standard procedure in these cases.

    @anon 17:24

    "The McCanns didn't choose to ignore any findings".

    Yes, you're right, I said that.I was saying that they refused to accept them, but those more important chose to ignore(then shelve) them.

    "The McCanns just refused to believe the evidence because they were sure they hadn't done anything."
    (That is a your own opinion, not a statement of fact. ).

    No, that's a fact. They really did say that.

    ''What they did do, very clearly, was consolidate the appropriate interpretation of the archiving, which is that the McCanns cannot be considered, ipso facto, innocent of crimes which the Portuguese investigation identified - the investigation summarised by Amaral in his book.''

    Sounds clever, but the nutshell version is covered by innocent until proven guilty, even if they re-opened the investigation of Amaral tomorrow.This week was only about literature.

    '' Far from being 'unproven' the case has not even been tested.''

    It's been ten years. What's the delay ?

    '' Hence the McCanns being 'sure they hadn't done anything' is no more a reliable assessment of the facts than any other of their slanted interpretations of events.''

    'Slanted interpretation' isn't fact.It's only your opinion.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy Sawdust @22:29

      I think I see where you're coming from.

      However...

      'The McCanns just refused to believe the evidence because they were sure they hadn't done anything.'
      (That is a your own opinion, not a statement of fact. ).

      "No, that's a fact. They really did say that."

      In which case you should be more careful with quotation marks. The statement above appeared in your original comment without any. It read therefore as something YOU said not as something said by the McCanns, either in whole or in part.

      "the nutshell version is covered by innocent until proven guilty"

      No sir! I specifically used that phrase in the context of a formal trial, an ordeal to which the McCanns have not so far been subjected for whatever reason ('What's the delay?' Your guess is as good as mine).

      Outside of a law court it is neither illegal nor immoral to hold an opinion as to the culpability of someone suspected of a crime. It is virtually inevitable. The right to hold such an opinion is, in effect, what the Supreme Court decision reflected.

      'Slanted interpretation' isn't fact. It's only your opinion.'

      I cannot be bothered to list their lies here. If you wish to argue they haven't told any, either personally or through an intermediary, then fill your boots.



      Delete
  50. @22:12

    Unfortunately I don't have access to their bank accounts, or fiscal dealings. So I'll take your word. Do you have the same access to Mr Amaral's as well ?

    ReplyDelete
  51. I notice that havern has started another hate campaign about Kate:
    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13527-email-to-missing-people-re-kate-mccann-as-ambassador#356382

    " In view of the recent unequivocal statement in the Supreme Court of Portugal that the Mccanns have NOT been cleared, and that "even the archive ruling raises serious concerns relating to the truth of the allegation that Madeleine was kidnapped", do you think it entirely appropriate that Kate should remain as Ambassador ?"


    What a nasty piece of shit havern is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about you, @22:57 - in light of the Supreme Court ruling, do YOU think it entirely appropriate that Kate should remain as Ambassador?

      A simple YES or NO.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous12 February 2017 at 03:53

      YES

      Delete
  52. @22:57

    That reservoir of bile is still the benchmark for all haters. It still has no limit to the depth it's prepared to sink to. And it's played no small part in inspiring mini versions of itself that pretend to hate all concerned there yet share their views and aims.
    I'd like to call that ironic. I'll call it stupid, that's more accurate.I'd like to say it shocks me. But i won't lie.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ Bjorn 22:00

    If you're not a psychologist, you shouldn't read facial expressions and arrive at conclusions that have been informed by your own bias. Or are you on commission from Hyatt ?

    I've seen a photograph of Kate McCann close up . The comments beneath included : ''look at that psycho stare,'' ''the eyes of a killer,'' ''horrible bitch'' and one maniac said ''she looks like she's been to hell and back, poor soul''. Guess who got pounced on by the online sniffer dogs...

    I watched a session of Q and A . I watched Kate McCann cave into herself and slump forward and begin to cry. Gerry remained sat bolt upright, rigid and tight lipped.He was having to sit next to his wife with her at the mercy of the gutter press and their microphones pushed close hoping to have obviously loaded questions answered so they could sell more papers.

    There was another time she went flaky and became upset. She turned to tell Gerry McCann they would leave it and just go. She was angry. He tried to calm her down and told her to 'say nothing while you're 'miked up' ''. Now, that sounds to me that he was aware that one wrong word or phrase would be blown up into 4 paragraphs in papers and endless online attacks. Good thinking ? You'd think so. But no, the sniffer dogs heard what he said and they ran with the :

    ''see he was telling her to switch off cos we were listening and woulda caught the bastards'' and several like that. Just to clear something up that's painfully simple in the real world. They were surrounded by people - they would have been heard without a microphone.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous @03:53

    Kate McCann is a washing powder ad for 'missing people'; highly annoying, but it gets stuck in one's head.

    It's such a double-edged sword, isn't it?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL NL, I've just published a blog that picks up on this! I feel as though we have all been part of a live reality show, that is, the McCanns drew us into their ongoing soap opera, just as the Osbornes and Katie Price drew us into theirs.

      All their appeals have been to the wider public, they have always presented themselves as PLU (People Like Us)up against the Establishment. In their case, the Portuguese Police.

      I agree Kate McCann is compelling. Her ability to lie is comparable to none. And she has kept it up for so long. She is an enigma. Is she the subjugated wife, or the ruthless brain behind the throne?

      For anyone interested in the psychological aspects of this case, they could no better on a wet Sunday afternoon, than to take a look at the whole concept of folie a deux - a madness shared by two. Tis fascinating!

      Delete
    2. Yes, Rosalinda literature often helps us to better understand the world.
      I would recommend Emile Zola’s first novel “Thérèse Raquin, and in particular the relation between the two principal characters Thérèse and Leonard, as it may shed some light on that between Kate and Gerry.

      Delete
    3. Many thanks Bjorn, it is now on my reading list! :)

      Delete
  55. @Ros

    '' Is she the subjugated wife, or the ruthless brain behind the throne? ''

    Or neither ? Maybe, like 'smut is in the eye of the beholder', so is dishonesty. Interpretation is subjective . That's the trouble when you throw too much time away on 'reality' shows. It can blur the view of actual reality and boring answers are less entertaining. I can recommend an interesting 'step 1' if you're talking actual psychology, which fits better into the context of 'trial by mob' and hive mentality watching every move the McCanns make. I'm thinking along the lines of Queen B(ennett) and the trend he's started, ie, hate blogs thrown onto the internet assisting his own personal quest of revenge.


    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-03-06/question-everything-believe-nothing-chapter-two-group-think-and-hive-mind

    tis fascinating too...

    ReplyDelete
  56. @anonymous 10:25

    ''Outside of a law court it is neither illegal nor immoral to hold an opinion as to the culpability of someone suspected of a crime. It is virtually inevitable''

    I couldn't agree more. We all have our pet Jack The Ripper theories. I even have my 'Wallace' ( ' the man from the 'pru' ) theory which fascinated me from a young age as it was a crime that occurred about 60 seconds from where I grew up. They're both iconic cases and make for good discussion. But there's a world of difference between holding an opinion or theory and broadcasting them to as big an audience as possible if it levels grave opinions and accusations at a person or persons that the police forces of two countries have been unable to do in ten years. The judge has given the thumbs up with a proviso that the book is being allowed to see the light of day due to it being a literary work that states somebody's opinions /theories. My guess is that the judge knew fine well that the decision was dangerous, but there isn't a statute that covers 'probabilities' . So using 'discretion,'he decided to let it hit the shelves. If it introduces yet more ripples into the river of poison so be it - shit happens. Careless ? Of course it is. But 'careless' has become synonymous with most things concerning this case from 2007 - 2017 and counting.

    I believe the McCanns have either lied or made mistakes under duress. Again, it's a grey area. Which are lies and which are mistakes. ?The trauma of losing a child can make the calmest mind spin. When some detective is in your face trying to force you to agree with his theory it can be confusing too. If you react angrily, it's a sign of having a 'nerve touched' . If you 'no comment ' your way through an interview you're 'hiding the truth to save yourself'.

    In an ideal scenario the grey area would eventually become black and white if a sharp detective and his team were capable. It's been grey for ten years ( in real time, real world ).

    ReplyDelete
  57. Ziggy Sawdust @15:17

    I quite agree that certain moral principles have been royally flouted in this case, but, as you say, we are faced with 'real time, real world' constraints (errare humanum est).

    The story of 'The man from the Pru' was unfamiliar to me until now. The Whitechapel affair, however, provides the first recorded instance AFAIK of 'evidence tampering' on the part of the Met. Police (the Commissioner no less).

    Hence the powers of invention exhibited by DCI Redwood (retd.) have a century old precedent (and Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has his role model).

    ReplyDelete
  58. @15:17

    Exactly. It's a demonstration of how easy it is to feed the baying masses any tripe once you know their preferred menu is.It's also the most famous example of how the mainstream can spin any crap without conscience. The infamous 'Dear Boss' letter that still gives people the chills was penned by a journalist who ran with that headline the next day. Sales went mad. And, as you say,interference from our dear old Met. Abberline knew he was having his strings pulled by the hidden hand.But, to this day, and despite all we've learned in over a century, many still cling to the least likely theory of them all - that 'jack' was one man with a knife magical powers of invisibility. Expand the view and open the mind and...oh..sorry..i'm in tin foil hat country again....

    As for SIR Bernard..him and SIR Norman have sickened the majority of Liverpool. Two lying freemasons together, two excellent proponents of smoke-and-mirrors policing. They earned those knighthoods.Vile, disgusting liars.

    ReplyDelete
  59. '' Anonymous10 February 2017 at 17:26

    You mean the very same man who works in the same university of Leicester as Gerry McCann. The very same man who is responsible for the first DNA conviction in the UK, back in 1987 wants to testify against his own findings ....Try harder Ziggy saw ..''

    okay

    http://metro.co.uk/2007/09/11/mccanns-given-boost-by-dna-expert-107977/


    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous11 February 2017 at 21:44
    @ Anonymous11 February 2017 at 19:36

    you may be able to fool Ros that you were there but quite frankly your post is absolute nonsense

    Would you like more details , perhaps ?, In Malta for example There was a World Bikini Competition going on , Coronation Street were filming in Gozo at the same time As the McCann story broke , but you know this , well i do as i was there .

    Lets give you a bit more info shall i , the Photographer for the News of The World who Photographed inside the apartment was called Peter Powell , its ok his byline was all over the pictures

    it was he that first put doubts in my mind , i had just assumed like everyone else it was an abduction ,
    Now back to the first account (Holding statement ) Kate "I knew Maddy had been taken as the cuddle cat was placed high on the shelf " that was the stock answer until something better could be thought up , now we have the curtains blowing in the wind with the window open and doors banging , and most importantly the Cat on the bed ,

    As i mentioned , even the News of the World in the copy from when they ran the interior photographs , made a point of mentioning "What Shelves " now anonymous go and trawl through the back issues , you will find what i am posting correct , as for doubting i was there, thats your problem ,

    i dipped my toe in a few times , nice shift work when offered ,and in those days the Red Tops had money to burn ,

    Anonymous do you know the day rate for a newspaper shift ? do you know the news of the world had there own travel company , they booked flights through ? just a bit of insight for you . And have you ever met Kate's Mother at a fundraiser in Liverpool talk about hard faced ...

    Ros , i know snappers that were out there full time on this , one even had a stroke out in PDL lucky for him, he had been out in Bangladesh the week before
    ,
    if you need more insight i can ask around , but there is one more thing , an ex copper retired of this case now living in surrey , had a breakdown as a result of the stress of what was going on , i don't know this guy , but a Gf of mine does , he is talking a bit about what happened over there , i am hoping to have a meet up with him , or at least ask my friend to ask him some questions ,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that 17:14.

      I am curious as to what went on in PDL in the summer of 2007, especially with the large McCann entourage. What were they all doing? They weren't searching.

      Delete
  61. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 February 2017 at 21:49
    Many thanks for that 17:14.

    I am curious as to what went on in PDL in the summer of 2007, especially with the large McCann entourage. What were they all doing? They weren't searching.


    I just checked when I first covered this story in PDL it was 22 Jun 2007.

    I used to do cover shifts for a week at a time to give the staffers a week off

    To illustrate how desperate they were to get cover i told the desk , i have never driven on the wrong side of the road and i said , i would only go if i stuck with a reporter that would do the driving . i don't think they had anyone else left on the rota so they were cool with that

    As i mentioned the first sighting was Malta , and the incident with the police officer happened 25 June 2007,in fact . that was a Sunday hence holding the Sunday Paper , I was gobsmacked when the Police officer said look closer to home with that one , he still held the paper though .

    I would be interested if someone who supports the parent would explain why the first account , of how Kate knew Maddy had been taken changed (Cat high on shelf ) VS (Cat not on shelf window open curtains blowing in wind ) any dramatic change to a account , just means its fabrication , but the Police know this anyway . no doubt the fan club will say she was confused , but they ran with that account till at least the News of the World ran the interior pictures SUNDAY 11 MAY 2008

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous14 February 2017 at 17:16, 15 February 2017 at 00:52

      Thank you for posting, very interesting!

      “As i mentioned the first sighting was Malta , and the incident with the police officer happened 25 June 2007,in fact . that was a Sunday hence holding the Sunday Paper , I was gobsmacked when the Police officer said look closer to home with that one , he still held the paper though .”

      Can not understand the above: 25 June 2007 was a Monday.

      Thanks again. Please continue.

      T

      Delete
  62. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-474844/Madeleines-favourite-Cuddle-Cat-toy-placed-reach.html

    "Madeleine's favourite toy, her pink 'Cuddle Cat, was taken from her arms and placed beyond her reach by her kidnapper, according to new reports.

    This important evidence could point to the fact that Madeleine was actually taken alive.

    According to a report in the Sunday Mirror, Kate McCann knew instantly that Madeleine had been abducted when she saw that the toy had been moved from her sleeping daughter's arms and placed on a ledge way beyond the four-year-old's reach."

    ?

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_15.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  63. 21 Jun 2007

    "Olegario Sousa, a spokesman for the Judicial Police, said that he was not aware of the sightings until he was told by a journalist."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1555208/Five-Madeleine-McCann-sightings-in-Malta.html

    "Meanwhile Mr and Mrs McCann will tomorrow lead a global event, releasing 50 balloons in at least 50 countries to maintain awareness of Madeleine's disappearance.

    In Afghanistan it will be marked by a specially arranged kite racing event and in Ventura, Southern California, 50 white doves will be released."

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anonymous15 February 2017 at 10:58
    Anonymous14 February 2017 at 17:16, 15 February 2017 at 00:52

    Thank you for posting, very interesting!

    “As i mentioned the first sighting was Malta , and the incident with the police officer happened 25 June 2007,in fact . that was a Sunday hence holding the Sunday Paper , I was gobsmacked when the Police officer said look closer to home with that one , he still held the paper though .”

    Can not understand the above: 25 June 2007 was a Monday.

    Thanks again. Please continue.

    T

    I am looking at the date of the published picture from my cuttings , thats why the date was wrong , the picture was taken 24th Sunday , published 25th Monday

    ReplyDelete
  65. I have just spoken to another snapper who started on the case weeks before me
    he had a great encounter with GM at the only Cash Machine in PDL at the time , the only time that he met GM without his Minder ,

    McCann said to him are you fucking following me , the snapper said no he was heading back to the press compound Estrela da Luz: where we all stayed and hung out ,GM was carrying a shopping bag full of wine at the time , (Party Time )

    You asked about the Friends what they were doing
    He as I never got an answer from the Tapas group they would always stonewall or say everything had to go through Clarence always the same answer from any of the group ,he never once saw any of the group searching

    The snapper was working for a rival paper so you keep your cards to your chest but he suspected them from the off as things he was saying did not ring true , the Papers were doing the own investigations. Every paper doing there own digging , I have been reminded one Paper bought bar bill during the 3rd of May .

    One thing I was surprised at, not once were they followed , all those trips back and forth , the reason was the story was being managed by Clarence , if you pissed him off the Paper would be out of the loop .

    The Snapper said the tackiest thing he witnessed was the 50 day missing anniversary , the one with the Balloons , the snapper said it looked like a kids Birthday party as the Macs came down the hill holding them , another snapper did say it looked shit to Clarence , and got Kate to stand next to a 50 drawn in the sand .


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks 14:10, it must have been quite a surreal experience. I find it bizarre that a government employee (Clarence) spent 3 months on what was, effectively, an extended vacation! The story of Gerry with his shopping bag full of wine and ready to give a 'Glasgow kiss' doesn't surprise me. With Gerry, anger always seems to simmer just below the surface. I've had bosses like that in the past, it's never ended well.

      I have read accounts from Warners staff as to the behaviour of the McCann group - they were not impressed. It seems they took full advantage of Warner's hospitality.

      There is a short video on youtube 'Tapas cook breaks silence', that confirms the McCann party did not join in the searches.

      I have to say I was astonished at the parents' and the entire party's boorish sense of entitlement. I can't believe how many of their friends and relatives who 'turned up to help'. Were they all on 'full board' with flights and transfers and use of all facilities thrown in? Then of course, there were the collection buckets placed all over the resort What did they need the money for? The police had the biggest missing child search in it's history underway.

      So strange too, that Gerry, Clarence and their inner circle were organising anniversaries and events so far off in the future. Looking back at it all, it seems so premeditated, and, it must be said, callous. These were not people expecting Maddie to be found any time soon.

      I'm not letting up on Gerry and Kate, their continuing attacks on Goncalo Amaral and their frankly, arrogant demands, still get my heckles up. But. What about those on the periphery, all those enablers and active participants?

      Of course some we can't go into too much detail about for fear of extraordinary rendition or ending up like Brenda Leyland.

      But as for all the family and friends who rushed to their assistance in sunny PDL, where are they now? Nothing would assist Gerry and Kate more right now, than a show of solidarity using their own names and faces. The anonymity around the hosting of their website and facebook page racks up the suspicion.

      Clarence must accept some of the blame for the McCanns falling out of favour with the public. I suspect most seasonsed journalists would normally tell someone like CM to feck orf, or just laugh at him, but on this occasion he had something worth buying. Wasn't he the lucky one.

      It sounds as though Clarence took full advantage of his 15 minutes of power 14:10, and I can imagine the locker room talk, back at 'base'. Gerry quickly mimicked, Clarence's pompous arrogant style of treating journalists like minions, so too Kate who had to 'tell one journalist off' for not knowing her place.

      There's a wise saying about treating people well on your way up because you will meet them again on the way down. Or something like that. Gerry and Kate made powerful enemies when they volunteered for Leveson and even more powerful enemies when they treated those who actually bring us the news like scum.

      Clarence got away with his disagreeable behaviour, because he was in possession of the hottest story on the globe. However, that power has now gone, the world has long since moved on.

      I think what we are seeing is karma in action. I doubt very much there are any bidding wars for the 10th anniversary exclusive. People would prefer to read about the latest celebrity to win Big Brother or the Kardashians. Apart from that, there is now a madman in the Whitehouse making front pages and headlines on a daily basis. No-one can compete with that.

      Delete
  66. Might be of interest.

    Kate McCann (in 'madeleine'):

    “As more TV and press turned up in Luz, Alex Woolfall gave us helpful pointers on handling the media. We came to rely on Alex as our de facto media liaison officer. It was he who guided us early on, giving us simple advice that has stood us in good stead since. He told us to ask ourselves the following two questions before giving anything to anyone in the press: what was our objective, and how was it going to help? We’ve always tried to remember those basic principles in all our interactions with the media. Alex explained the rather Pavlovian responses of the media pack. If we began to give daily statements, for example, they would expect one at the same time every day. Sometimes, he said, all they needed was to be fed something to keep them happy, and if that was the case, this might be our only objective in speaking to them.”

    ReplyDelete
  67. ''I have just spoken to another snapper....the only time that he met GM without his Minder , '' ( snapper have a name or newspaper ?).Nice to catch up after 10 years i expect though..

    ( only time? How many times had he watched GM ?)

    ''McCann said to him are you fucking following me''
    ( well, it's a fair question isn't it?)

    ''GM was carrying a shopping bag full of wine at the time , (Party Time ) ''

    What was the party in aid of ?

    ''You asked about the Friends what they were doing
    He as I never got an answer ''

    Pardon
    So somebody( snapper with no name) said 'what are you doing' to tapas 7 ? Subtle.

    ''The snapper was working for a rival paper so you keep your cards to your chest but he suspected them from the off as things he was saying did not ring true ''

    Could this be why he follows people around with a camera and not work for Scotland yard ?

    ''the Papers were doing the own investigations''
    That's hilarious.

    ''The Snapper said the tackiest thing he witnessed was the 50 day missing anniversary , the one with the Balloons , the snapper said it looked like a kids Birthday party''

    The exact thing that keeps snappers in business then...

    ''story was being managed by Clarence , if you pissed him off the Paper would be out of the loop . ''

    We know Mitchell was PR

    '' snapper did say it looked shit to Clarence ''

    yes, that wouldn't piss him off would it.

    On a serious note, i hope the un-named ex copper who had a breakdown over something that was 'going on' that we don't know about makes a full recovery.If he does indeed 'talk' as you say, let us know what your 'friend' gets out of him or ask your 'a gf of mine' ( how many do you have ?)

    That was a good read. You owe me ten minutes.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anyway Ziggy , Back to the point I made about the first account of how they knew Maddy had been taken explain why it changed so radicaly as you clearly think you are so bloody clever .
    As for you other points above meh !! I have met the people you so fanatically defend , and I would not piss on them if they were on fire .

    ReplyDelete
  69. He [Clarence Mitchell] explained how turf wars developed between local and international press, and how he had had reporters in tears begging for extra information otherwise they ‘would be fired’, leading to stories containing “wild allegations” in the media against parents Kate and Jerry [sic] McCann."

    http://mumbrella.com.au/clarance-mitchell-commscon-2016-354982

    "Mitchell said it became "like a daily soap opera"...

    That was bound to happen; the media were being fed something to keep them happy, as Kate McCann said. Ain't karma a bitch?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Anyway Ziggy , Back to the point I made about the first account of how they knew Maddy had been taken explain why it changed so radicaly as you clearly think you are so bloody clever .

    I'm not 'bloody' psychic unfortunately. But, in my defence, I wasn't investigating the case, the suspects, or the statements. I believe some detective by the name of Amaral was given the gig before anybody was clever enough to hear about my obvious gifts. Have you asked him ? Or his successor ? Their answers are worth far more than mine. They're even more important than those of haters like your good self who merely echo each other. Get one of your 'snappers' to follow him......

    ( Hater alert) :

    ''As for you other points above meh !! I have met the people you so fanatically defend , and I would not piss on them if they were on fire .''

    You are a credit to your (imagined) profession.I might add,should you ever choose a different direction to take your talents, you might consider catering. It's been a long time since i saw a word salad tossed with such aplomb.

    'meh', indeed...



    ReplyDelete
  71. You see Ziggy. , you are a follower as my Granny would say easily led ,
    You don't need to be a police detective to work out that the account that Kate McCann gave was a pile of crap .
    Amoral was given the gig and he was doing a great job by all accounts , clearly you can have the wool pulled over your eyes , so I doubt you would be cut out for detective work .

    Haters , really. are you fourteen ?

    As for my Imagined Profession , well its one that has taken me places that you could only dream of , including the Hugo Beaty , and if anyone is reading including Police and Media out in PDL is reading this they will know exactly what I am referring to , you my friend won't have a fucking clue

    ReplyDelete
  72. @00:49

    Thanks you for all your comments.

    I have no doubt that, as you say, police and media out in PdL will know exactly what you are referring to.

    Furthermore, I do not believe the McCanns themselves are of particular importance.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @00:49

    ''You see Ziggy. , you are a follower as my Granny would say easily led ,''

    Whereas you've chosen to follow the millions, evidence or not.

    ''Amoral was given the gig and he was doing a great job...You don't need to be a police detective to work out that the account that Kate McCann gave was a pile of crap ''

    Actually, I think you'll find that you do.You would also need evidence that could secure a conviction.

    ''clearly you can have the wool pulled over your eyes , so I doubt you would be cut out for detective work . ''

    Amaral was cut out for it though wasn't he.The wool pulled over my eyes didn't prevent me seeing him fired.

    ''if anyone is reading including Police and Media out in PDL is reading this they will know exactly what I am referring to''

    Then I take it back-they're a fine bunch of detectives.

    ''you my friend won't have a fucking clue''

    The attitude and ignorance suggest you've handed in your 'snappers' badge and joined the police.

    Here's an idea. With the endless line of nameless 'contacts on the inside' and the 'knowledge' you imply is being kept from the public,why don't you get off the internet and take it to places that could solve the case. Why not share some real nuggets from this mine of information.There's two police forces who need this information and a couple of hundred thousand white -knuckled twitter obsessives who are in even greater need. Plus, as a bonus, you'd vindicate the tragic figure that is Gonco Amaral.The big 10 year anniversary is approaching and fame and glory await you.

    Or you could just stay online composing this fantasy and spitting out childish outbursts of naughty swearing as you go about your day..

    ReplyDelete
  74. Trying to find the Best Dating Website? Create an account to find your perfect date.

    ReplyDelete