Wednesday, 29 March 2017

MADELEINE - THOSE 'P' ALLEGATIONS





The scenario of Madeleine's plight, painted by ex RUC Detective Dave Edgar, should send shivers down us all.  If there were any suggestion at all that Madeleine is being held as a sex slave in a hellish lair, and has been since the age of 4, then every detective who has ever been involved in this case should hang their heads in shame.

The uncomfortable subject of paedophilia has never been far from the forefront.  For those new to this case, and those who are totally confused, there are several factions attached to this case, who are trying (desperately in some cases) to attach child sexual abuse to Madeleine's disappearance. And each faction has a different motive and a different set of beliefs.

The Parents

On the night Madeleine disappeared, Gerry was overheard speaking on the phone and referring to paedophile gangs in the area.  Possibly, the only likely reason he could think of for his daughter being abducted.  It could be said that Team McCann were not thinking long term at the time, the 'P' word mean death for a 4 year old and no necessity for a Search and a Fund.  However, the 'P' word is emotive, when it is introduced any sense of reason or logic flies out the window. While Gerry and Kate acknowledge paedophiles may be to blame, they still stress there is no reason to think she has come to any harm.   

The Establishment

Paedophiles are this century's witches, and right up there with terrorists as public enemy number 1.  Governments are able to introduce new Terrorism Laws for our own good if they can convince us the threat is great enough.  Ditto paedophiles.  If they are able to convince us that our children are in danger, they can legally monitor our internet activity.  Anyone who objects is a defender of the heinous and must have something to hide. 

For government agencies and national charities competing for funds and donations, Madeleine was the ideal poster child.  Unique in a world of unattractive spotty teens who have run away and children involved in custody battles, the sweet, innocent face of Madeleine attracted sympathy and attention worldwide. It said 'here is the tragic result of ignoring predators online', the message was, ALL our children are vulnerable, even the cute little ones.  All our worst nightmares are real. 

The Anti's 

Many of the anti's believe Madeleine died (on the night or before) and that she died from sexual assault by one or more adults.  I know, yuck, and I hate myself for typing that, but that, in a nutshell, is what they are saying.  They have reached this conclusion because they believe the parents had to hide the body. 

Their tasteless accusations are based on the flimsiest of 'evidence' and in 10 years nothing has been proved.  I mention them here, because those new to this case could be misled.  To get an idea of their mindset, these 'researchers'  have spent years looking at the McCanns family photographs with a microscope. They have also pried into the private lives of those witnesses named in the police reports, stalking them and publishing their ill thought out opinions online.  For two years Bennett was terrorising the wrong Smith family!

For the sake of clarity, mention them I must.  They believe that the McCanns and their friends were involved in some sort of paedophile ring, passing their small daughter around to friends and VIPs.  Here Hall and Bennett match up with CEOP and the like, because they too, believe there is a network of paedophiles online, but theirs' goes right to the heart of the Establishment, both in Portugal and the UK.  For many of them, their bible tells them they are living in Sodom and Gomorrah and they are surrounded by deviants. They see it here, they see it there, they see it everywhere.   

I don't know what kind of holidays they go on, but I personally have never heard of family holiday resorts holding annual events for sexually deviant child molesters.  Same goes for the 'swinger' lunacy of Textusa - err, does she not know that 'swinging' resorts do exist, and, they are adult only.  And I'm guessing, no-one takes the kids and mother-in-law. 

Like much in this case, the latest opinions of Dave Edgar are bizarre, and realistically, a terrible thing to say to grieving parents.  Is that really the image you want in the parents' heads as the 10th anniversary approaches Dave?  Presumably the parents gave the go ahead for his comments, he is, or was employed by them. But, in any event, if the prisoner scenario is what he truly believes, then where is the urgency? where is the passion?  His lacklustre suggestion of a new campaign sounds hideous when there is a child so desperately in need of rescuing.   



Hang on Maddie, we'll start a new campaign.



114 comments:

  1. As you say Rosalinda: "But, in any event, if the prisoner scenario is what he truly believes, then where is the urgency? where is the passion?"

    The Mail explains:

    "The news comes after Kate and Gerry McCann lost their third libel case against the Portuguese detective who claimed they faked Madeleine's abduction."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dave Edgar & his partner were the third set of detectives hired by the family McCann. THIRD! They were special, they had inside information, they were ex-British police, IMHO that is why they were employed. The inside edge. You didn't mention Raymond Hewlett & the tie in with all things Portugal and Edgar.

    What parent in their right mind, within an hour of their missing child would be heard on his mobile, this documented witness statement saying that his child was abducted by paedophiles. Where would he have got this information? 60 minutes are ticking away, that a big leap into the dark zone.

    I would be more interested if there was an emphasis on 9.45 - 10.15 pm. And why was it that the Smiths who came forward to say they saw a man carrying a child at 10pm - always confused for years of Jane Tanners sighting of someone allegedly carrying Madeleine at 9.30\40 now ruled out, that the Smith subsequently came forward to give even more enlightening information, thus now leaving one man standing carrying a child.

    And holding the thought of the Smith family, was it not identikit pictures of two possible characters, that remained on file with the McCanns.

    That has subsequently cost the British tax payer £12m + and rising to collate, unpick and fathom out.

    All noise!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Rosalinda and others

    In my opinion, pedophilia in this case is nothing but the fairy tale told by Gerry just hours after Madeleine had gone missing.

    Apart from the alleged open window, that nobody but Kate had seen, there was no evidence and not the slightest indication that an intruder had entered the apartment, so if Gerry hadn’t immediately made up the story about an abduction/abductor in connection with paedophilia, the abduction as such would certainly have been questioned right away by media, especially as the P J were rather suspicious about the McCanns’ and their friends’ story from the very beginning.

    I’ve always wondered why Kate, on the next morning, when talking to/with Yvonne Warren Martin actually claims, that a couple has abducted Madeleine. “- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter”. (p j files). For some reason, this statement by Kate hasn’t been so much discussed.

    What she said doesn’t really contradict what Gerry suggested 12 hours earlier, but it’s just more precise as she narrows down the perpetrators to a couple. How did Kate reach that conclusion. What couple was Kate talking about? Does she unconsciously talk about herself and Gerry? Just a thought.






    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't Gerry go for a 'P' after checking the children?

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 29 march 14:11
      Yes he did. Even worse, he had a feeling of being watched and suspected that an intruder might be in the apartment. Yet, of course, he left the apartment without checking if there really was anyone who could hurt Madeleine. Why should he? He was just having a nice time. He then met Jeremy Wilkins outside the apartment and had a nice chat with him and didn't seem to be especially worried about what could happen to his daughter. Is there anything odd about this?

      Delete
    3. Yes I too wonder about this 'couple ' that Kate said had taken Madeleine. The question here is: Did this conversation take place before or after Amaral was given the run around with the Nuno Lorenco story? If before, it really does seem to be a conspiracy to incriminate the Polish couple.

      Delete
  4. Imagine the logistics of a swinging scenario at the Ocean Club, it would be pure Benny Hill.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 29 March 11:39
      Talking about Benny Hill, reminds me of a time long ago in the U K, when comedians like him, Tommy Cooper George Formby and others were just appreciated comedians but not politicians or S Y detectives as today. What went wrong?

      Delete
  5. Round and round in circles. See previous blog and comments:

    "Wednesday, 4 January 2017
    SMUT IS IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER"

    http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/smut-is-in-eye-of-beholder.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for reminding me that I previously covered this topic.

      Have the paedophile allegations since gone away? Well no, just this week Dave Edgar is claiming Madeleine is being held as a sex slave in a hellish lair. Should I ignore that because it is a subject I have already covered?

      Certain themes will return again and again 13:30 because they are all part of the COVER UP. The idea that once a subject is discussed it should be filed away and never mentioned again, is absurd. I don't care how many times the same old lies are wheeled out - I will challenge them.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure Madeleine's parents knew and approved of Dave Edgar's latest outlandish story long before it went to press. It's a good distraction, isn't it? And by coincidence, the reasoning behind the Supreme Court's judgement has been published today and confirms once again, the parents were not cleared.

      Delete
  6. Hi Ros' and readers. Travis here from @_nottravis

    Although Richard D Hall is skilled at making videos, he is essentially a conspiracy theorist. Or to be more exact, he takes conspiracies and elaborates on them. That's his job. He will not solve anything, he will just try to convince people of that conspiracy.

    Bennett: Don't understand this guy whatsoever. A solicitor going out of his way to hand out / post leaflets !!! Then continues to pursue the McCanns until he ends up in the dock? A solicitor !!! A supposed professional. Even if he was retired, what was he thinking? Odd. So odd in fact, that you'd almost be forgiven for thinking he is in league with 'team McCann' to make those who question look stupid.

    Also, there was no swinging on that "holiday". Textusa is just full of pure speculation and ideas that go nowhere - from what I've read anyway.

    One final thing, while I'm here...

    Ros', when I started to notice (about 9 months ago) that Amaral was inventing / creating fictional stories in his book, I asked what your thoughts were and for whatever reason you decided to take the fifth. I always wondered why you did that? I mean, with you being a writer, I was surprised by your reluctance to acknowledge it. What was the reason for that? Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "when I started to notice (about 9 months ago) that Amaral was inventing / creating fictional stories in his book..."

      For example?

      Delete
    2. Hi Travis, thank you for post.

      To be honest I have no recollection whatsoever of discussing GA inventing/creating fictional stories in his book. Is this coming from yourself?

      If so, perhaps you can cite some of these 'fictional' stories as I am not aware of any.

      Delete
    3. Hi Ros', yes, it's from myself. You can read all the various examples on my feed starting 02.03.17 - I think.

      The one I asked you about previously was the Dog Story. The story is an analogy of Amarals theory - Unknown death, parents conspire to conceal, bagged, stashed and then disposed of via car - without doubt a straight up analogy. Yet Amaral conceals this by inventing a conversation with his wife about bad omens, justice and doing the right thing. All pure fiction. That's just one example.

      Delete
    4. I have no reason to think GA made up the story about his dog's death Travis. And I have no idea where you are going with this.

      Goncalo Amaral, in his book The Truth of the Lie, gives a factual account of the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The events in his book correspondence exactly with the investigation. Had they differed, ie. had GA gone off on a tangent, the McCanns would have used that as evidence in their libel claims.

      The McCanns have not been able to disprove anything said by GA in his book. And therein lies their problems. Ten years on, there is no abductor, nor is there any other credible theory for Madeleine's disappearance.

      GA's personal life, what he did or didn't discuss with his wife, is totally irrelevant. What matters is where we are now. Operation Grange are not investigating Goncalo Amaral. Although he is major player in this case, the investigation is focused on what happened to Madeleine, not GA's pillow talk.

      This fixation with Goncalo Amaral is bizarre on every level. Discrediting Goncalo and the police will not get the McCanns off the hook. And because it is so personal, it makes all of their decisions irrational. No sane person would gamble (and lose) their entire fortune on proving a point in Court. A point that won't make one iota of difference to anyone, least of all their missing daughter.

      The McCanns' pure hatred of Goncalo Amaral has brought about their downfall 14:31, yet still they, and you persist. Can you not see how insane it is?

      Delete
    5. Just Wow.

      For a start the story about the dog is fiction. It's a clear and obvious analogy used to illustrate his theory. How is that for a reason? It's what fiction writers do don't ye know? He does this numerous times throughout his book. The guy is a very talented fiction writer. I have provided and explained numerous examples.

      This is nothing against Amaral. It is an observation that reveals talent, so why you feel the need to be so defensive is beyond me.

      I couldn't give a hoot what the McCanns can or cannot disprove. I really couldn't care less. They are all lying.

      I look into the McCanns and their story just as much as I look at Amaral and his story. I am fair and objective.

      The FACT you think we should ONLY scrutinise the McCanns and not the entire case is why you are where you are - stuck in a loop with no answers to anything.

      I have, whether you choose to believe it or not, proven that Amaral and the PJfiles are bogus / not genuine. Which means they are ALL in it together.

      Come back to the conversation when you have read my posts. Start from 02.03.17 - a years worth of research (you're welcome btw) - or you can ignore it and go back to being confused.

      I was taught media analysis by Jon Corner himself from 96'-98' so when he appeared on the news as Madeleine's godfather I knew something was up.

      Travis.

      Delete
    6. The Great Jon Corner eh, lol. I studied literary criticism at university Travis, and as a prolific reader, I have studied it all my life.

      I am also a published author, who broke the misery memoir genre, by telling my story, as a story, so it read as fiction. A quick, easy read, but lacking in sex, violence and embellishment. Ce la vie.

      I'm sure all your research will be interesting to some Travis, but you lost me with a year's worth of research to read. Who has that kind of time? lol. Can you not sum up it up in a nutshell?

      I am not putting Goncalo Amaral on trial here Travis. What he does in his private life is none of my concern. Whether he was a good cop or a bad cop, won't make one iota of difference. There either was an abductor, or there wasn't.

      Delete
    7. "The Great Jon Corner"

      I wouldn't say that, but the guy knows his stuff. He was creative director of his own media production company at the time of McCann. And look at him now? CEO at MediaCity !!!

      "I studied literary criticism at university"

      And yet you couldn't see Dog Story was an analogy. In fact, you still couldn't see it after I pointed it out.

      "I am also a published author"

      Not sure how that is relevant here... but well done you.

      "Can you not sum it up in a nutshell?"

      It's a hoax.

      "A years worth of research"

      Don't worry Ros', I haven't spent anywhere near the amount of time you have on McCann. And I've summed it all up in a few dozen tweets - there, that's not too much of a chore for you is it?

      "Either there was an abductor or there wasn't"

      Wow. Still wrestling with that one are we? ��

      Travis.

      Delete
    8. I have little time or patience for madcap theories Travis, and I'm not wasting mine and my readers time by publishing them here.

      Delete
    9. "Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everybody is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it's from Neptune."

      Noam Chomsky

      Delete
  7. Why did the parents and friends themselves suggest that paedophilia was a motive for the crime. Kate writes about this in her book. Heck, she even records that they had a conversation around this very subject that fateful week with another parent. Why on earth would this be at the forefront of their minds? Despite what anyone says this is NOT what normal parents chat about at the edge of the playground. I think the Gaspars were right. I certainly wouldn't want either GM or DP bathing my children.��

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jennifer

      Kate is making things up in her book in order to defend herself and Gerry’s claims about an abduction. I cannot imagine, that they ever discussed paedophilia before Madeleine went missing, or before Madeleine died in the apartment.

      As for Gaspars’ witness statements, I don’t doubt that they are telling the truth. Still, I believe that what Dave Payne and Gerry said was a sign of immaturity. Disgusting, absolutely, but is it really what potential child abusers would say or do?

      Delete
    2. Jennifer 29 March 2017 at 14:36

      Despite what anyone says this is NOT what normal parents chat about at the edge of the playground.

      I might tentatively agree with that.

      “I think the Gaspars were right.”

      Depending on what you mean, perhaps not quite because:

      “I certainly wouldn't want either GM or DP bathing my children.”

      Whereas Gaspars, you may recall, continued having their daughter bathed by David Pane despite of what they had heard and observed.

      That, more than anything else in their statements, I would consider as not ’normal’, wouldn’t you?

      T

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

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 30 March 2017 at 00:28

      “…they were probably being polite and not wanting to point a finger at anyone and also trying to see if their suspicious (sic) were grounded…”

      It is a legal principle that the welfare of the child is paramount (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents).

      In the circumstances it was the Gaspars who were solely responsible for their daughter’s welfare. They owed their daughter a duty of care. Their ‘experiment’ was in breach of said duty and therefore not ‘normal’ irrespective of whether or not “they were probably being polite and not wanting to point a finger at anyone and also trying to see if their suspicious (sic) were grounded”.

      The aforementioned UK legislation was in line with that of the EU at the time of the breach and it still is.

      Get it?

      “…oh dear anonymous etc.”

      I’m not “dear” to you, ‘dear’.

      Perhaps you, ‘dear’, might consider contemplating King James Bible (Luke 6:41):

      “And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?”

      Nem Zich a vaneh! (And take spelling lessons, ‘dear’).

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
  8. As Mark william Thomas , there is no surprise for the McCanns with Edgar's story since both were and probably still are paid by the McCanns. They bet on the public's short memories.

    What better way of imprinting an abductor in people's minds than by the normal panic of this age. Paedophilia rings everywhere, satanic abuse and god knows what other inflated mad theories. As you say, they make it easier to control communications, to boost charities' revenue, to implement legislation which would never pass otherwise. Yes moral panics are quite useful.

    I think you will find this article on a "saint" that run a charity for exploited children interesting. You will then understand how so many people used the Madeleine case to boost their charities, their companies... Seemingly Somaly Mam gave Mr Gamble a hand in Cambodia.

    http://www.newsweek.com/2014/05/30/somaly-mam-holy-saint-and-sinner-sex-trafficking-251642.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for that 14:39, it was a very interesting read.

      For me the Madeleine case revealed much about charities that I had suspected. That is they are just as unscrupulous and disingenuous as their commercial counterparts when it comes to raising money.

      As for your penultimate paragraph, I think once people understand that concept, the furore surrounding the Madeleine case becomes clearer. So too the amazing support the parents have had from police agencies and charities. That's the problem when you apply capitalist ideology to public services, funding is based on need, so the need must appear greater than it is.

      Several police agencies rushed out to PDL to offer their assistance, most curiously of all, was CEOP, Child Exploitation and Online Protection.

      Should there ever be an Inquiry, I have no doubt there will in depth analysis of the disagreements between the police agencies involved. Whilst Jim Gamble and CEOP backed Mr and Mrs McCann, Mark Harrison was advising look at the parents and bring in the dogs. I am glad at least that Martin Grime and his amazing dogs are appreciated in the USA.

      Things changed of course when the tories came into power. Under Theresa May, Jim Gamble resigned as Head of CEOP, and it would seem the Review granted to the McCanns by the same Ms. May, is not quite the one they wanted. A couple of weeks ago for example, Operation Grange could have countered the 'the Mcanns were never cleared' statement, with a 'we're looking for a gang of child traffickers', but they didn't. If their purpose is to deflect from the parents, they are doing a terrible job.

      Yes I note the connection between Somaly Mam and Jim Gamble. I then googled Jim Gamble and Cambodia and all sorts came up!

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for publishing the above, it slipped through I am afraid. I have no idea what the picture was, I didn't look, but I suspect someone is up to mischief.

      Delete
  10. @14:31

    Literary freedom, relatively insignificant. It doesn’t detract from a true history of facts, based on the actual Portuguese police files.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Literary freedom? The book is supposed to be non-fiction.

      Relatively insignificant? That one story alone evokes sympathy and fuels conspiracy. He is exaggerating his plight.

      Why is Amaral adding to the conspiracy and making things up. I thought that was the McCann's job? Integrity is supposed to stand in opposition to hypocrisy.

      So in your opinion Amaral can say whatever the hell he likes, so long as he bases his theory on the PJfiles, yeah?

      Take a look at the witness statement (from the PJfiles) by Fatima Seafim. Now, strange as this may sound, but that witness statement was constructed / created to mirror the story of 'Our Lady of Fatima'. Look it up / read. That means that witness doesn't exist which in turn means that the PJfiles are bogus.

      I'm just saying what I see. It's right there in black and white.

      Travis

      Delete
    2. Travis @16:24

      "that witness doesn't exist" ?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HHZYs15tCM

      from 5:10 Fatima

      Delete
    3. @16:24

      Where to begin...?

      "Richard D Hall is....essentially a conspiracy theorist."

      So that's a 'no-no' then.

      Now,

      "strange as this may sound,..that witness statement (by Fatima Seafim) was constructed / created to mirror the story of 'Our Lady of Fatima'... That means that witness doesn't exist which in turn means that the PJ files are bogus"

      Sounds strange alright. Are you alleging a conspiracy perchance??

      "The book (Amaral's) is supposed to be non-fiction"

      So is 'madeleine' by Kate McCann, but you wouldn't think so to read it.

      Personally I see in Kate McCann an analogy of the true mother inside the Caucasian chalk circle, who gives up her child to save it from the harmful consequences of a custody dispute.

      "I'm just saying what I see. It's right there in black and white."

      Do you read tea leaves too.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 29March 16:24
      Hi Dear Travis
      Poor Fatima Maria Serafim da Silva Espada in her witness statement talks as if she were the Portuguese "Our Lady of Fatima". In moment of emotions she reveals her religious faith, which is reflected in her speech. Her name suggests what her vision of the world is. It touches my heart. Women like Fatima Maria do exist Travis. Believe it or not. Still I find it interesting that you have/had your doubts.

      Delete
  11. Notice how no-one from Kate and Gerry's past ever come forward and say anything bad or negative about them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 29 March 16:37
      Not even their Tapas friends!

      Delete
  12. from twitter

    " Travis
    @_nottravis

    I think the #McCann story was some kind of public distraction event / hoax / prepackaged news deal. The Brenda Leyland story was also a hoax."
    ------------------------------------

    Interesting view you have about Brenda Leyland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's all Martin Brunt's fault. On the day of Brenda Leyland's inquest he tweeted

      "That was a hoax!"

      So I looked into it and you can see some of my findings starting from 10.03.17 in my feed.

      Travis

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 March 2017 at 17:53

      '' ie. had GA gone off on a tangent, the McCanns would have used that as evidence in their libel claims. ''

      I think the McCanns saying that he was accusing them of being party to the hiding of their daughters body without any evidence to support such a claim is pretty much suggesting that he had indeed gone off on a tangent.His subsequent removal from the case by his superiors suggests they possibly thought the same, after all, he may well have had 26 years experience in detective work and enjoyed success, but how many investigations into child murders or abductions had he led ? Was it more than three ? Or less.

      ''The McCanns have not been able to disprove anything said by GA in his book. And therein lies their problems.. Ten years on, there is no abductor,..''

      If somebody comes up with a theory, the onus is on them to prove it, not for somebody else to disprove it.Proving it is actually where problems lie. That's where the ten years comes from..

      ''GA's personal life, what he did or didn't discuss with his wife, is totally irrelevant. ''

      Naturally. Maybe he did 'have a bad feeling' about things.Such 'feelings' are held as important to him. Wasn't one of the infamous '48 questions' directed at KM about whether or not she had 'had a bad feeling' prior to touching down in Portugal ?That wasn't important either.

      ''This fixation with Goncalo Amaral is bizarre on every level. Discrediting Goncalo and the police will not get the McCanns off the hook''

      The McCanns, yours, mine or Joe Blogg's discrediting of him is nowhere near as important as the opinions of those who had been happy to pay his salary for more than 25 years.They took him away from the case.Who put the McCanns ON the hook by the way ?

      ''No sane person would gamble (and lose) their entire fortune on proving a point in Court.''

      He was left with no choice but to defend himself or withdraw.It was his gamble. He weighed up the odds and took that gamble. had he had some support behind him, it would have paid off. It's not always right to bluff when the stakes are that high.

      ''The McCanns' pure hatred of Goncalo Amaral has brought about their downfall 14:31, yet still they, and you persist. Can you not see how insane it is?''

      The psychology of hate is a tad more complicated than that. You have to open the door to the possibility that the McCanns might have been telling the truth.Maybe their daughter was abducted after all. They haven't been arrested in the ten years that have passed so it isn't that bizarre to consider that there might be something in it .If so, their alleged 'hatred' is well - founded. He's accused them of killing or hiding the body of their toddler and elaborated on that claim with all manner of imagined scenarios( fridge/freezer/coffin).

      Delete
    3. It doesn't matter how many times you say the onus is on Goncalo Amaral to 'prove it', the reality is, Gerry and Kate are living under a huge cloud of suspicion that only they can clear.

      It at be wrong of the public to judge them, but it is what it is. Anyone in the public eye will attract both negative and positive comments, they live with it.

      The McCanns have always had it within their power to win back public affection with honesty and transparency. Instead they have done the opposite. Even their official FB page is run by anonymous profile. There are no personal touches, the parents don't speak directly to 'their fans', they seem to be surrounded by a wall of secrecy. Everything they do appears suspicious.

      Delete
    4. "The McCanns have always had it within their power to win back public affection with honesty and transparency. Instead they have done the opposite. Even their official FB page is run by anonymous profile. There are no personal touches, the parents don't speak directly to 'their fans', they seem to be surrounded by a wall of secrecy. Everything they do appears suspicious."

      LOL. They're victims of a crime, not bloody celebrities looking to make a comeback! Sadly, the mob don't differentiate.

      Delete
  13. @19:14

    "He was left with no choice but to defend himself or withdraw.It was his gamble. He weighed up the odds and took that gamble. had he had some support behind him, it would have paid off. It's not always right to bluff when the stakes are that high."

    You seem unaware that it is the McCanns who have 'lost', not Amaral.

    "You have to open the door to the possibility that the McCanns might have been telling the truth."

    Until, realizing the extent of their lies, you close it again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 March 2017 at 21:15

    ''It doesn't matter how many times you say the onus is on Goncalo Amaral to 'prove it', the reality is, Gerry and Kate are living under a huge cloud of suspicion that only they can clear.''

    The only way they can 'clear it' is via the courts.Yet, as soon as they even mention that they will, the haters start screaming.No matter how many times you-or others like Bennett- say the onus isn't on Amaral to prove the validity of his theories, it is. Nobody ever went to jail just because people were 'suspicious' .Evidence and witnesses were needed.

    ''It at be wrong of the public to judge them, but it is what it is''

    'It is what it is' doesn't excuse the amount of bile and dirty rumour, let alone the accusation of murdering their child or covering her death up.

    ''Anyone in the public eye will attract both negative and positive comments, they live with it. ''

    They have no choice. The public have one though.

    ''The McCanns have always had it within their power to win back public affection with honesty and transparency''

    They say they have been. They say they didn't kill or cover up the death of their child. Your statement is implying that they're lying. So, in essence. your message to them is ''come on Gerry, Kate, be truthful and transparent- say you did it''. Does your message extend to the PJ and SY ''admit you deliberately hid the obvious' ?

    ''Even their official FB page is run by anonymous profile''

    Who is 'anonymous' in this instance? Why do you watch it ?What do you actually 'know' as opposed to 'suspect' ?

    '' the parents don't speak directly to 'their fans', they seem to be surrounded by a wall of secrecy. Everything they do appears suspicious.''

    Is there a single sentence uttered by the McCanns that you and the rest don't view with suspicion or hiding a dark secret ? Why would you think they choose silence..there's thousands of vultures sat at screens chewing toffees and drinking wine just waiting...it's weird.

    Anonymous29 March 2017 at 21:07

    ''You seem unaware that it is the McCanns who have 'lost', not Amaral.''

    I do indeed. Of the three, who was removed from their job ? A detective was attempting to 'nail' them for a crime and have them charged. It didn't happen. It still hasn't. The McCanns - as things stand- have failed to block that detective publishing a book. Who really 'lost' ?

    ''Until, realizing the extent of their lies, you close it again.''

    What 'extent' ? You're implying there exists a catalogue of lies to which we can all refer.If that was true, the police would have access to them. Why haven't they been charged ? Or are you also implying that the police are covering something up and ignoring the lies ? What other reason could they have for not acting on these 'lies' ? Do you think it might be because, like you, they can't hold the lies up in the light and expose them as lies because they have no proof ? Just suspicion or 'theory' ? It isn't a fact that they've lied until someone in the mix proves it and then proves why they're lies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In the archiving of the original Portuguese report, it was state that the McCanns, in not returning for a reconstruction, lost the chance to prove their innocence.

      Ten years on they have still not returned for a reconstruction, what are people expected to think?

      Delete
    2. Yes Rosalinda, even the Prosecutors in their final report when explaining why they shelved says, that the McCanns were not given the chance to prove their innocence, though they say that it had with their friends' refusal to participate in a reconstruction to do. No matter how one twist, turn and formulates this, the McCanns did nothing to make their tapas friends return to PDL. The McCanns could have chosen to o clear themselves by talking to their friends about the importance of it, but wished not to do so.

      Delete
  15. _nottravis on Ros's blog - aargh!

    ReplyDelete
  16. 21:54

    "You're implying there exists a catalogue of lies to which we can all refer"

    It's titled 'madeleine'

    "It isn't a fact that they've lied until someone in the mix proves it and then proves why they're lies"

    That's about as sensible as saying a chair isn't a fact until someone sits on it and explains why.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 March 2017 at 22:34

    ''In the archiving of the original Portuguese report, it was state that the McCanns, in not returning for a reconstruction, lost the chance to prove their innocence.
    Ten years on they have still not returned for a reconstruction, what are people expected to think?''

    That they weren't interested in ( or advised be part of) taking part in yet another reconstruction maybe ? How many have there been and what came of them ? So you think that them taking part in another one would have proven their innocence ? is it really that simple ?

    Anonymous29 March 2017 at 22:45

    ''That's about as sensible as saying a chair isn't a fact until someone sits on it and explains why.''

    A chair isn't a fact, it's a chair.That's a fact. I'm putting your choice of analogy to dismantle my 'lies need to be proven as lies' argument down to a sale at your local off license.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      "taking part in yet another reconstruction maybe ?", you say. There's not been any reconstruction that they have been taking part in. The film clip shown in Crime Watch had nothing with a real investigative police reconstruction to do, besides they were not "acting". The only purpose was to show it on BBC in order to make people "aware" of that Madeleine had been "abducted".

      The McCanns themselves have produced things of the same sort. Instead of threatening their critics with Carter Ruck, they should kindly write a letter to the Prosecutors and ask for reconstruction to be done and offer their and their friends' participation.

      Delete
  18. 23:03

    "I'm putting your choice of analogy.... down to a sale at your local off license."

    That's not the only thing that could do with putting down.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I think the whole saga has been contaminated deliberately with the paedophile agenda by the McCanns themselves for two reasons.
    1. It gives a reason for the 'abduction.' I am of the opinion there never was an abduction , just an awful accident that screamed 'negligence' which these two just couldn't jeopardise their hard fought careers to admit to.
    2. There's no doubt in my mind that Portugal is a country where paedophile activities and those indulging in such heinous activities operate. Some of these decadent criminals may well be a part of 'the establishment' and possibly are even known to the McCanns. This is not to say the McCanns are in any way associated with those vile activities but simply have knowledge of what and who. . However in my estimation the cry of, 'The paedophiles have taken her' is simply a threat to those people involved. On the lines of: You protect us or else. Thus the protection machine moved in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 30 March 10:34
      I just wonder, if you by any chance would know, how many small children or young teenagers have become victims of paedophile activities in holiday resorts along the Portuguese coast since the day of Madeleine's disappearance?

      Delete
    2. @10:34

      Thank you for posting. I am thinking along similar lines.

      Delete
    3. @Anon 30 March 10:34
      Hi
      Your hypothesis isn't really new. Others have speculated about it earlier. The problem, as I see it, is that the McCanns' must have known a lot about such illegal activities among influential people within the Government/the Met etc etc, but still having nothing to do with it, just keeping it as a secret in case they would need this insight to blackmail some of them, in case they should end up in trouble.

      No, if they had known about who is involved in what and when, they would certainly have been involved themselves. Of course it's an interesting but scary theory, but far fetched in my opinion.

      Delete
    4. I don't think you can necessarily judge how many paedophiles there are in any given area by counting the victims !! Clement Freud who has connections with people in high places was certainly in the area and I can think of several others ......................I leave you to ascertain who those people might be. I don't think Portugal necessarily has more than its fair share of deviants . They're ubiquitous . Unfortunately.

      Delete
    5. I honestly don't think Clement Freud was prowling PDL and climbing in bedroom windows 18:41, I think he is being used as another distraction.

      Delete
  20. Dear Rosalinda

    I would like to draw your attention to a libellous comment posted by Anonymous 30 March 2017 at 00:28 at http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/madeleine-those-p-allegations.html?showComment=1490830137556#c1521611734925632700.

    I should be most grateful if you could be so kind as to remove that libellous comment from your blog.

    Regards

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HI T
      Anon 30 March 00:28 is using inappropriate language and manifests his/her bad judgement. He/she judges you in a harsh way, because he/she/it expects everybody to agree to what IT says.

      I was labelled McCann-hater by "unknown"(still I don't know who "IT" was) just because I keep on saying that I don't believe the McCanns' version of what happened to Madeleine. Whatever people may call me or no matter what threats people may use to intimidate me, I'll keep on talking about the Portuguese investigation and how the McCanns managed to sabotage it.

      Delete
    2. I can't see a post at 30 March 00:28 T, what am I missing?

      Delete
    3. Major Tom to captain Rosalinda

      24th post counting from the top of this blog.

      Can’t talk till later. Sorry.

      Bless.

      T

      Delete
    4. I can.

      Just enter the numbers 00:28 in the 'find' bar. Simples.

      Delete
    5. Hi Rosalinda
      This impolite phrase (30 March 00:28), quite illogical in its context as well, is what T thinks is libelous. At least it's humiliating.

      "Mrs Gasper was very clear that she always would be around when the children were in the bath....oh dear anonymous (refers to T) you really are coming across as the most ghastly perve....utterly ghastly....

      Delete
    6. @ Ros 16.04

      whoops - maybe T can see things that we can't?

      Delete
    7. @ Ros - no looking again - here it is:

      "Anonymous30 March 2017 at 00:28

      No not at all...they were probably being polite and not wanting to point a finger at anyone and also trying to see if their suspicious were grounded....Mrs Gasper was very clear that she always would be around when the children were in the bath....oh dear anonymous you really are coming across as the most ghastly perve....utterly ghastly...."

      Delete
  21. I too think the Brenda Leyland escapade was some kind of hoax. So much of it just doesn't add up. Martin Brunt is in this up to his neck, imo. The telephone conversation with Murat that was made public. Why? The Brenda Leyland door-stopping. Why did they single her out? She seemed to be on the brink of some important information with regards to one of the nannies, I do believe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her and others were trolling who they THOUGHT was the creche worker, AT.

      They were wrong as usual.

      Delete
  22. Anonymous30 March 2017 at 13:25

    'Some kind of hoax' needs a little expansion. The lady's funeral wasn't a hoax. However, I think I know what you mean. She was a sort of sacrificial lamb at the time trolling was in the news. The anti-trolling had all the hallmarks of media spin. And Clarence is the undisputed king of spin. Yes, I know, we don't blame him directly on here if we can help it, as it takes a bit of blame away from the the parents- and we can't have that, even though Clarence was put in place by the same Government that gave the parents a large 'fighting fund' to fund his services( which basically means he was still being paid by the government).

    Sky TV and Twitter have blood on their hands too where Brenda Leyland is concerned.Both showed that a code of conduct means nothing if headlines and advertising is there for the taking.Her death shortly after was a shock. That it was suicide was a bigger shock. We have to accept that as it was the official verdict. It's up to us if whether we believe that. It's typical of the tacky tabloid TV to combine with the tack of twitter and decide that Brenda Leyaland's ideas and thoughts were dramatic enough to doorstep her like she was a terrorist, but then brush as much as they could surrounding her death under the carpet. Why wasn't that as newsworthy I wonder ?

    Whatever she was on the brink of we'll never know. She might not have been on the brink of anything. How could she be ? There's no evidence that she had 'inside knowledge' of nannies or otherwise. All she stated. vocally, was that she was of a mind that the parents had ' questions to answer'. She said that with dignity and calmness and quiet conviction. I know it's a cliche to say 'she never looked in the least suicidal to me' but i think a lot of us have said that.The obvious answer is waiting in the wings 'they never look suicidal if they're really gonna do it' so it's a fruitless debate. But two things came of that tragedy. It provoked anger among Twitter addicts-trolls or otherwise- and stoked the fire even more, which i believe was the real intention in the first place. It was only a matter of time( a short one) before the McCanns would be blamed. GM had voiced his feelings about trolls going too far. He thought opinions were one thing, blind anger and outrageous accusations were another.So, forgetting the spin doctor, the TV and twitter( all of which answer to governments) the hate was intensified and directed with more energy toward the McCanns, which I believe was the other real intention. The Government have provided an unholy amount of money and iron-clad protection of the McCanns.So why was this 'double whammy' put in place ? I suggest it's because, just as the supposed 'anti-troll' news story masked the fact that they wanted more of it, directing more anger toward the McCanns brought even more suspicion their way-which kept all eyes in one direction( not the one they wanted).

    The trolling hasn't stopped, it's picked up speed. The hatred of the McCanns has done the same.Another mission accomplished by those who have been pulling all the strings since May 04 2007.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You need the word 'before' in your last sentence.

      Delete
  23. @Anon 30 March 16:23
    You say, referring to what Gerry McCann believes; "He thought opinions were one thing, blind anger and outrageous accusations were another". Dr McCann has never had any problem with different opinions about the alleged abduction, as long as the abduction as such is not being called in question.

    However, nobody can pursue the hypothesis about his and his wife's implication in their daughter's disappearance, without being labelled troll and running the risk of being persecuted by their "team".

    From the McCanns' perspective, everybody who thinks that they should face charges for child neglect or for disposal of Madeleine's body does so "in anger and outrageous accusations". Implying such things has always been "ludicrous", in the McCanns' opinion. No, the McCanns have never accepted or tolerated people who have questioned the abduction hypothesis, just those who have/have had different opinions about what stranger it might have been who took Madeleine or where she might be today etc etc, because in such discussions they can participate and express their hopes and pain.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I had to read that twice and I'm still not convinced Ziggy wrote it!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Björn30 March 2017 at 13:53

    ''Hi Ziggy
    "taking part in yet another reconstruction maybe ?", you say. There's not been any reconstruction that they have been taking part in.''

    Yes, Bjorn, I know, and i addressed it in the post that you isolated that single phrase to quote for your purpose. I know how reconstructions work and why they're made. I also know that the actors you mention were from the same agency and Mitchell had them sign a gag order. Why would he do that ? Because he was running the whole show and he was in charge of all media presentations from reconstructions to Question and Answer sessions. Why, therefore, is it so unacceptable to suggest that he also decided who attended the reconstruction ? Because it blames Mitchell rather than the McCanns ? No surprise there...

    ''Instead of threatening their critics with Carter Ruck, they should kindly write a letter to the Prosecutors and ask for reconstruction to be done and offer their and their friends' participation.''

    Couple of points there, Bjorn. Who are 'the prosecutors' ? Who is being 'prosecuted' ? What are they being 'prosecuted' for ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      What I meant was that I wished that the Prosecution office in Portugal would open the case and start to investigate the McCanns'. If the McCanns asked for a reconstruction, the Prosecution office might decide to start a real investigation in Portugal. What's now going on is just a search for Madeleine by the S Y.

      Delete
  26. 'T'
    The first comment on that date was just after midnight, the next after 10 am with nothing in between. Are you sure you have the correct thread ?

    Namaste

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous30 March 2017 at 18:20

    ''You need the word 'before' in your last sentence.''

    I was allowing a couple of hours margin -midnight onward once all calls had been made ( i didn't want to start another marathon of who-phoned-who-and-when-and-why) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. Björn30 March 2017 at 17:28

    ''Dr McCann has never had any problem with different opinions about the alleged abduction, as long as the abduction as such is not being called in question. ''

    Maybe, maybe not. At the time, there were a lot of other tweets.Some were no more than silly rumours about 'rows' heard by passing neighbours, their marriage being on shaky ground and threats of the 'i know where you live' variety. I think anyone would want that type of thing stopped.I dare say a lot of it was total bullshit.But who can gamble that all of it is when you have two kids ?

    ''From the McCanns' perspective, everybody who thinks that they should face charges for child neglect or for disposal of Madeleine's body does so "in anger and outrageous accusations"

    I think, and always have thought, that they should have faced the music regarding the neglect. They didn't even deny leaving their children unsupervised. All questions as to why they didn't face charges should be directed to the PJ. They normally charge parents-so who stopped them this time ? The anger over accusations of hiding their child's body have to be considered valid until first, there is finally proof produced to say she was actually dead and secondly, that they hid her.Until that happens they feel justified in their anger as nobody has offered such proof. Why ? Your guess( and that's all we can do, like it or not) is a good as mine. It has to be exposed as ''ludicrous'', not suspected as being such.

    ''No, the McCanns have never accepted or tolerated people who have questioned the abduction hypothesis''

    They have. They haven't had any choice.It might make them angry but as long as it's only a theory that's being questioned and not a direct accusation that names them as guilty of a crime, they can't sue anyone for it.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Björn30 March 2017 at 20:21

    ''Hi Ziggy
    What I meant was that I wished that the Prosecution office in Portugal would open the case and start to investigate the McCanns'. If the McCanns asked for a reconstruction, the Prosecution office might decide to start a real investigation in Portugal. What's now going on is just a search for Madeleine by the S Y.''

    Evening Bjorn..

    That's not how it works, unfortunately. Prosecutions aren't advanced until a case is presented to them. First, the police have to be confident that they have a strong enough case against whoever they arrest ( eye witnesses, forensic evidence, exposed false alibis and so on)and, second, they still have to be satisfied themselves that the confidence of the police is well placed as it's public money that would fund the prosecution. The reason that SY are still searching for Madeleine is that-officially- she hasn't been declared dead.Therefore, it's their duty to keep on searching. In this case, the search has been intense and meticulous- or so they tell us. That's part of the show. It justifies their spending on it. I doubt there's a detective anywhere, in his heart of hearts, believes that Madeleine's still alive out there, unfortunately.But, God help the first policeman or detective who is still in work voicing that loudly. The 'official line' is very tight. All it takes is one loose cannon and it will snap and a lot of people will be on their backs and be floundering. The conclusion of this case is imminent. Ironically, after such a long investigation that has offered up far more questions than answers, there's only( in my opinion) three possible ways it can be closed. I have my thoughts on that. I've noted the three 'sign posts' shown to us by the MSM in recent months and i can see where the road leads. The McCanns aren't going down for this. Right or wrong, it's too late for that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Madeleine could have been officially declared dead after 7 years Ziggy, it was the McCanns who chose not to.

      Delete
    2. "At the instigation of Kate and Gerry McCann, Madeleine was made a ward of the High Court of England and Wales."

      Delete
  30. Good Evening/Night Ziggy
    We shall never forget that this is a Portuguese case. A crime of some sort committed in Portugal.

    In my opinion Ziggy, the British taxpayers have been deceived by their own Government.

    As for the McCanns, If they had really wished to reopen the case, they should have sent a request to the Prosecutor’s Office or to the Judiciary Police in Portugal. They did not! Instead, they demanded that the S Y should review the documented investigation and help them to search for Madeleine.

    The Portuguese Supreme Court’s ruling in favour of Gonzalo Amaral and its conclusion that the McCanns was not cleared in the first investigation, that is, the one that was shelved in 2008, confirms, what I’ve always suspected, namely, that this case has never been reopened in Portugal.

    If there had been an ongoing Portuguese investigation, the Supreme Court, which were dealing with the McCann/Amaral libel vs freedom of expression, would have waited a few months for the result of it, because an investigation into a crime committed by the McCanns or by some stranger, is of course intimately connected to this libel case, but as I’ve just said; The McCanns never asked for the Portuguese case to be reopened, so it never came about.

    If the Operation Grange had assisted the Portuguese P J in an ongoing reopened Portuguese investigation, and there would just have been one line of inquiry to pursue for a few months, the Supreme Court could easily have prolonged its processes a little bit till the Portuguese P J had presented their final report. The reason as to why they didn’t is that there’s no Portuguese investigation, has never been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The civil case was a clear cut right to freedom of expression v the right to a good name.

      Amaral and freedom of expression won.

      Nothing to do with the criminal investigation.

      Delete
    2. It is my understanding that the Portuguese investigation was re-opened Bjorn, and indeed still is, albeit much lower key than Operation Grange.

      I remember several years ago, it may have been when Scotland Yard stepped in - the head of the British Crown Prosecution Service went to Lisbon for a meeting with the Portuguese Judiciary. It was common knowledge and much discussed at the time and I think both investigations have been live since.

      I think it highly unlikely that the CPS and Portuguese Judiciary would be involved in such a high level cover up and we have seen Operation Grange working with the PJ, most notably the searches and digs in PDL a couple of years ago.

      I agree, the Portuguese investigation is probably inactive. They did everything they could do in the summer of 2007, for them nothing has changed, there are no new suspects. When they shelved their file in 2008, it was because they couldn't take it any further. Their main suspects had returned to the UK, and they and the British witnesses were not co-operating. As you rightly pointed out Bjorn, the McCanns have always had the power to have the case re-opened - simply by answering the police questions and doing a reconstruction.

      We can only guess at what is going on with the Portuguese Police Bjorn, I think their judicial secrecy has kept it all under wraps. In 2008 there was no procrastinating, they were not going to waste anymore time and money on it and it shelved. That attitude probably holds true today, in that that have allowed SY to take the lead. But equally, it could be that those being investigated are British.

      At the moment we haven't got a clue where Operation Grange are going with this, it's all pure speculation. As you say Bjorn, they have no jurisdiction over crimes committed in Portugal. And realistically, they are faced with the language barrier and they are unfamiliar with the locality and culture.

      The more you think about it Bjorn, the more complicated it becomes!

      Delete
    3. Hi Rosalinda
      Thanks for feed back. In a few months we may hopefully get some kind of final report from the S Y, helping us to understand how they have co-operated with the P J and what final conclusion they may then have reached.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 31 March 09:41
      Hi
      Yes true in a sense. Still the Supreme Court must have referred, even if it was implicit, to the final report of the Prosecutors' report dated 2008 regarding the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine, when it concluded that the McCanns had not been cleared in the investigation 2007/2008. Yes, there are two quite different cases, yet linked to one another as I've tried to describe.

      Delete
  31. @ Björn30 March 2017 at 22:34

    The original investigation was in the hands of the PJ. Amaral led his team from early on. His suspicion of the UK government is well founded and I wish he would have spent some of the last few years banging that particular drum. There's a school of thought that says that would be a ganble too far. it's one thing for the public to cry out loud about cover ups, that's fine.That can be spun as 'those conspiracy nuts'.But when someone intimately involved at an official level does it, they have a habit of turning up in 'accidents'. I see no other reason why Amaral, in the transcripts that I've read of his interviews, hints at 'interference' but won't elaborate. I think it's left to common sense to infer his meaning. I agree with his assertion that the UK bulldozed there way into this case. I tend to hold a slightly different view of why they did.

    It's true that the tax payers here have been ripped off. But that's not new. The Government has waged war on it's people for 20 years now. Like the rest of Europe, we're undergoing the new 'class apartheid'. We complain, but only half-heartedly. Nobody who can fix it will listen as they like it broke.

    Gordon Brown's call to Portugal was the last one to be made prior to the removal of Amaral and his team. That, for me, is significant.One PM to another-just for an abduction investigation ? I don't think so somehow. The UK wanted control of the investigation. If they had taken over completely from the beginning it would have looked too suspicious. So the PJ carried on 'in tandem' with SY and, in 2008 closed their investigation. They saw no progress or significant developments so used common sense and saved their tax payers the expense. The UK had what the UK wanted from then-control.It just didn't look so obvious. SY didn't see any genuine developments or leads either.So, rather than look incompetent and keep the wheels rolling, they made some themselves with a series of 'sightings' and 'leaks'. Nobody expected them to come to anything. The question is-why were they going to these measures to keep an illusion alive ? They still are.

    The reason SY didn't assist the PJ is because each have their bosses. The forces didn't come to that decision. It was arrived at soon after the UK PM had met with his Portuguese counterpart. Yet nothing about the case, be it a murder one or abduction, is political.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very fair portrayal of events to date.

      "Yet nothing about the case, be it a murder one or abduction, is political."

      "I agree with his assertion that the UK bulldozed there way into this case. I tend to hold a slightly different view of why they did."

      There exist, therefore, at least two valid interpretations of the 'why'. The 'P' assertion may be considered one of them but, until the fog has lifted, others cannot be ruled out.

      "The UK wanted control of the investigation. If they had taken over completely from the beginning it would have looked too suspicious".

      Yes and yes, although what they did do is suspicious enough. Internationally agreed protocols on co-operative policing overseas placed procedural restrictions on just how far the UK could push its luck at the outset, but these were as good as flouted from the off. Diplomatic staff were explicitly instructed to 'exceed their authority' (see the WikiLeaks memo).

      So, even before arriving at an answer to the question 'why', there are grounds for accusing the UK government of interfering with the course of justice overseas.

      "for an abduction investigation ? I don't think so somehow."

      Delete
    2. Your final sentence 'for an abduction? I don't think so somehow'. Apologies, I don't know if that is your statement or a c/p 11:00.

      Presuming it is yourself, are you implying there is much, much more than an abduction? Perhaps you could clarify.

      Imo, the interference of the UK government in the summer of 2007 and perhaps ongoing, is enough to warrant a Public Inquiry. Basically, they prevented the Portuguese police from doing their job. And yes, WikiLeaks was very enlightening on that one.

      Delete
    3. "Presuming it is yourself"

      Not this time. It was a quote from ZS.

      I dare say he could offer his own 'clarification' (not the Mitchell approach I would hope), but for my part I cannot envisage a situation which lets the McCanns off the hook.

      Although others would disagree, I take the government interference as a 'given', which raises the question: 'On whose behalf, exactly?'

      'Ziggy's' previous argument(s), while recognizing the government's role, seeks absolution for the McCanns at the same time.

      Let's imagine for a moment the establishment's being desperate to conceal something perpetrated by one of its own, be it abduction, homicide or whatever, yet quite independent of the McCann family. Can we also envisage that family standing by for a promise of 'safety from prosecution', while their daughter has been 'taken' from them, permanently or otherwise?

      Not likely. Anyone who knew those responsible for such a crime against them (as they would have to in the face of government 'reassurances') would raise Cain, no matter where the blame ultimately lay. (I'm reminded of Richard Feynman's exposure of the culprit 'O-rings' at the inquiry into the Challenger shuttle disaster. His incontrovertible proof showed up the political bullies inside NASA for the imbeciles they were).

      The McCanns, however, appear not to know 'whodunnit' even now. So why should they behave in a seemingly clueless fashion if they DO KNOW what went on?

      The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that it is ultimately they who are being protected, either because one or other of them has something to offer, or has offered it in the past - absolution as a recompense for services rendered you might say. Quite what those services might be is another matter for discussion/speculation ad nauseam.

      Delete
    4. What the McCanns offered 13:32, was a 'poster child', an attractive, appealing face to front child protection and missing kids. Sometimes the answer is directly in front of us.

      There is nothing 007 about Gerry and Kate, they are not even special. There are articulate, erudite, professionals who allowed their daughter's face to be used to inflate bogus claims of child abuse and child abduction. May their God forgive them.

      Blair and Brown are just as much to blame. They too used the cute Madeleine to boost their own popularity. Look at what compassion PMs we are to have taken time out to speak to the bereft parents personally. For the cynics out there, remember Tony Blair also supported the campaign to free Coronation Street's Deirdre Barlow.

      On first appearances 13:32, Gerry and Kate represented the British dream. Upwardly mobile professionals with 2.4 children, church going, law abiding, non users of drugs or substances. What's not to like? An updated OXO family.

      An ad agency couldn't dream that kind of stuff up, no wonder the airplanes to PLD on 4th May, were packed with lawyers and spin doctors.

      Gerry is not special (though he thinks he is), none of his campaigns have led to hordes of followers. The opposite in fact. Hacked Off who appeared to be doing quite well, nose dived when he took the helm.

      I believe that what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, is pretty much a described by Goncalo Amaral in his book The Truth of the Lie.

      That is nothing premeditated, nothing pre-planned - all those responded REacted to the situation, they didn't create it. That it has gone far, is one embarrassment covering up another - there will be a sea of red faces when the truth is revealed.

      As I believe GA said, none of it needs to be embellished, and I would add, it is as it is. In order to clear the McCanns, Operation Grange will have to come up with a bespoke story, in the same way as they came up with a bespoke crecheman, to fit the statements of Gerry, Kate and their pals.

      Delete
    5. Rosalinda @15:06

      "There is nothing 007 about Gerry and Kate, they are not even special."

      With respect, we know no more about the McCanns than they have seen fit to reveal. Even the PJ couldn't access their medical records or credit histories.

      "They are articulate, erudite, professionals who allowed their daughter's face to be used to inflate bogus claims of child abuse and child abduction."

      Yes. After the fact.

      "I believe that what happened on the night of 3rd May 2007, is pretty much as described by Goncalo Amaral in his book The Truth of the Lie.

      "That is nothing premeditated, nothing pre-planned - all those who responded REacted to the situation, they didn't create it."

      That is the 'bill of goods' we were sold at the time, and have been ever since.

      "As I believe GA said, none of it needs to be embellished"

      I don't know what GA said personally. Has he passed any comment on GM's habit of receiving clutches of text messages daily from the same number, then immediately checking his voice mail?

      Probably not, since it appears to have been fraught, post-traumatic behaviour. Except the practice commenced on the morning of Wednesday 2nd May.

      Why couldn't Kate McCann 'bear to use her camera' once she'd taken that 'last photograph' of her daughter? What was so distressing about her being pictured beside the pool that Thursday afternoon, and with two days of their holiday left?

      A tendency for Kate to use her camera could not have been contingent upon the distress of an unexpected accident/abduction that lay in the future, and which no-one could have known anything about beforehand.

      There are reasons for believing Madeleine's famous pyjamas did not leave the apartment after all, and equally valid reasons for believing a report in Correio da Manha of the UK Ambassador's contacting the then PJ chief, Alipio Ribeiro, at dinner around 11:00 p.m. that Thursday night.

      Of course that's just a newspaper story - but, as with the sniffer dogs' behaviour, the McCann spin machine made no effort to repudiate it. Instead they came up with a fictitious explanation.

      And why is that important? Because, according to all accounts of how the word was spread, i.e. official (FCO/NPIA) public statements and the McCanns', no one contacted either the British Consulate or the British Embassy before midnight.

      In the immortal words of Clarence Mitchell:

      "there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it."

      You are of course at liberty to disagree.

      Delete
    6. ZiggySawdust 30 March 2017 at 23:36

      With respect.

      Just a few thoughts in passing.

      “Yet nothing about the case, be it a murder one or abduction, is political.”

      We see it differently. Top politicians and several agencies answerable to them involved themselves or had been involved in the case. That alone makes the case, or at least some of its aspects, political.

      Why do you speak of murder, by all accounts a most unlikely scenario? We recall your ‘justification’ for your use of ‘murder’: accidental death and concealment of the corpse taken together equate to murder. You are in a position to know you a wrong. What is one to make of your persistent references to murder?

      We know where you stand on the ‘abduction’.


      Your frequent references to hate/r(s) are an unnecessary distraction and they are more often than not duly ignored. The apparent force of your condemnation of those you call haters is such that an independent observer would label you a hater.

      You accept that the parents were negligent and you did remark that their negligence would have been “contributory”. We would be grateful if you would expand on the “contributory” bit, in your own words and/or with a link or two.

      Your ‘War and Peace’ are long overdue, or have we missed it? We have been growing athirst to enjoy reading your masterpiece!

      You are awful but we like you.

      Peace.

      Major Tom (better known as ‘T’) with Richard “Dick” Emery assisting

      Delete
    7. A modest correction to an earlier comment (31.3 @13:32) if I may.

      Last paragraph - I used the word 'ultimately' when 'penultimately' would have been more precise. I suspect (although I cannot yet prove) the 'abduction' of Madeleine McCann was not the parents' idea.

      And no, that is not the crass remark it appears. I believe the 'abduction' to have been proposed to them and anticipated by them.

      Delete
    8. @10:19

      "I believe the 'abduction' to have been proposed to them and anticipated by them."

      So do I.

      Delete
  32. Hi Ziggy/Bjorn

    Good points have been raised. My understanding is GA asked for information ie medical records but according to him this was refused with no explanation given. However what I do find interesting is SY statement on crimewatch saying the McCanns are not suspects and also the JT sighting has been cleared but remains anonymous. I personally don't believe this person existed. Also the Daily Mail online has quoted the McCanns fury someone has started a petition so get them to take a lie detector test. Again at the start of this case the McCanns themselves volunteered to take it but said it was I believe expensive. A national newspaper offered to pay for it but they changed their minds. One thing I would like to have seen is once SY were given funds for the investigation conditions should have been set for the McCanns, full cooperation with the PJ would be one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why should innocent parties decline to take a FREE lie-detector test in the interests of furthering an investigation which is in their interests?

      Doesn't take any working out does it? 'A waste of time because we haven't lied' is hardly the right answer, given the purpose of the test.

      Delete
    2. Hi John, I'm sure part of SY's agenda, especially at the beginning, was to steer suspicion away from the parents. That is understandable given the level of publicity this case attracts - the lives of the families would have been intolerable if they were seen as suspects.

      I don't think any conditions could have been attached regarding the funding John. And given the McCanns didn't really want to be investigated, a withdrawal of funding would have been a relief!

      We don't know if the parents have co-operated with the police or not. I guess, most of us lean towards 'not', because they didn't appear in the CW
      reconstruction, and bizarrely it was filmed in Spain!

      When witnesses refuse to speak, there is nothing the police can do. And there are many precedents, that is missing child cases where the parents refuse to co-operate with the police. The Ramseys, the Aisenbergs, the Irwins, the Celis's...... In each case the police are no longer looking for other suspects and there is no pretence that they are.

      The PJ have not been looking for other suspects since September 2007. The findings of the dogs may not have been enough to prosecute, but they were enough to cut back the scale of the search significantly.

      It is of course absurd to think that the Portuguese Police and authorities, would allow a dangerous child predator to remain at large in order to 'frame' Kate and Gerry. Apart from the fact that it would leave their own families at risk, imagine the outcry if another child were 'taken'?

      Gerry and Kate will never agree to a lie detector John, but they don't really have to. Anyone with a keen eye can 'see' their lies in every interview they give. The study of lying is one of 'things' John, a subject that has fascinated me for decades, I think that is why I have found Kate and Gerry so compelling!

      Delete
    3. Agree 10:40. I'm a great fan of US real crime documentaries, and am amazed at how much weight is given to lie detector results. That is, it almost immediately rules a suspect out, if they pass the test. And crucial in a missing child case I would have thought, as once the parents are ruled out, everything can be concentrated on the search.

      Ziggy will no doubt point out that we are not allowed to assume anything from Gerry and Kate's refusal to take a lie detector test, hopefully in one sentence, lol. However, whether tis legal or not, many will take this refusal as a huge red flag. It's always been there btw, but it has been highlighted this week via a Petition and Tracey Kandhola (who's side is she on?). Methinks the McCanns are under attack, every recent story has been negative and these latest petitions are being signed by thousands. The tide is turning, and it's kinda scary that someone like TK can do.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, I meant to add there, passing a lie detector test would go a long way to lift the cloud of suspicion from the parents. And it would be far cheaper and less time consuming that suing ex detectives.

      I have always wondered why the McCanns have put their own defence above the fate of their daughter. Innocence is it's own defence and there was never any danger that would be falsely incriminated.

      Whilst I am uncomfortable with the parents being put on the spot by a petition, for their own sakes, it would silence their critics if technology backed up their claims.

      Delete
    5. "Sorry, I meant to add there, passing a lie detector test would go a long way to lift the cloud of suspicion from the parents. And it would be far cheaper and less time consuming that suing ex detectives. "

      Bollocks. Nothing the McCanns can do will stop the mob. Besides, this is the UK not the US - lie-detectors have no place here, and rightly so.

      Delete
    6. Surely it depends on how trustworthy the person is who is conducting the test Ros!
      Would it be yet another member of Team McCann ?
      They've "commissioned" plenty of those to churn out sympathy and support, Kate's gym buddy Tracy and discredited ex police with theories that simply ignore EVERY SINGLE TIME the evidence of the dogs - The identification of cadaver in areas and on Kate's clothes and blood spots.
      Where would that leave all the advocates for a lie detector test?
      Such tests are simply not acceptable in our courts.
      They think we are all simpletons and fools!

      Delete
    7. @ Ros 11:36

      " it would silence their critics if technology backed up their claims."
      ------------------------------

      Who are you trying to fool Ros - it would not silence you!

      Delete
    8. This is #McCann madness. There is not going to be a lie-detector test.

      Delete
  33. Hi John and Ziggy
    "One thing I would like to have seen is once SY were given funds for the investigation conditions should have been set for the McCanns, full cooperation with the PJ would be one of them"

    Yes you're absolutely right, that's why I keep on talking about this cancelled reconstruction, which should have been the first thing to carry out when the S Y (Operation Grange got involved, or involved themselves in this case.

    Talking about Gordon Brown's contacts with the Portuguese P J, I remember Gerry in an interview with Sandra Felgueiras having said something about Brown being the man that decided that the case should be closed. Cannot refind this comment on the internet. Somebody else perhaps can find Gerry's comment?

    As for creche-man, I too John really have my doubts about whether he exists or not. Of course some anonymous person might have called Redwood saying that he may have carried his daughter that night and then the Redwood team elaborates that story a little bit and dresses up one of their colleges and takes some pictures. Half a lie so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When DCI Redwood introduced 'Crecheman', I wondered if he had made a deal with Jane Tanner? JT would be facing pretty hefty charges of perverting the course of justice, if her sighting was invented. I'm not so sure now. I think if one had 'cracked', the rest would have swiftly followed.

      It is absurd to think that the PJ didn't check the night crèche records for 3rd May imo. Crecheman was created to fit the sketch given by JT, not the other way round, which was bizarre.

      But apart from covering JT's arse, the introduction of Crecheman changed the timeline - that is it added another 45 minutes onto the window of opportunity. DCI Redwood imo, opened that window of opportunity to bring forward new witnesses. It also validated the Smiths sighting (45 mins later) with those infamous efits that look just like Gerry!

      Delete
  34. to all above( too lazy to identify )

    'anon' has given a fairly good interpretation of what i was saying and saying in the subtext. While i appear to be protecting the parents, I'm not.I'm just refusing to attack them.If you read me closely, my actual 'attacks' are directed at the 'invisible men and women' who pull the strings and press the buttons. The infamous 'hidden hand' that's worked it's magic for centuries and shows no sign of losing it's touch..

    I defend the parents on the grounds that the police forced/investigators etc have failed to offer something to take to court, and we have to accept it as much as we have to accept anything our owners do. I've maintained that, even with a gun at my head and no choice, i couldn't say with 100% conviction what happened that night. I can only call what i see and infer from that.If we're honest, we're all on that ship. I've hinted before that it's possible that the McCanns didn't do anything to their daughter or hide the body but that it didn't mean they were completely blameless. In other words, whatever happened is known to them and something prevented an arrest and replaced it with political smoke and mirrors. I've read the GM 'freemason' connection things and the like.I can't comment as they're only rumour( Freemasons are secretive, remember). Somebody in the wings or some people in the wings have something on someone.Or perhaps the parents have something on someone. There has to be a point where the factions get ravelled as there is NO reasonable explanation to justify the sheer volume of money and help( they knew this was going to be years-why else pay millions if Madeleine could have been found in days?).

    I can't accuse anyone of anything with total belief. So I won't. Amaral was bulldozed out of the way for a reason.Who brought the bulldozer and who drove it ? And who commissioned it ?

    As for lie detectors- no point. They're inadmissible in a court.They're unreliable. I could tell you i saw three pixies on a bus today and escape the detector. They work by first registering your vital signs, remember. What is Gerry's job again ? A good cross examination would yield more.

    ReplyDelete
  35. ( 1 )

    Just a couple of points as posts have been inserted since earlier...

    Clement Freud. We found out he was a paedophile post mortem. There's a reason for that as we are finding out lately. When somebody from high office( or formerly of) is known by others to have enjoy that proclivity by peers who share it, nobody talks. It's the same as when Savile told a young female PC over 30 years ago : ''Take me down and i'll take your bosses down with me''. So that came out post mortem too. Of Freud's long -standing friends from the political world who shared his hobby, he was closer to Cyril Smith and Jeremey Thorpe than most . Same dance. I believe Freud was keeping the McCanns close for reasons beyond mere tea and sympathy.Let's not forget which tree this apple fell from. Nor let us forget,Matthew Freud's closest friends( Cameron, Blair, Brown) and his one time marriage to the Murdoch Empire Of Sleaze. He sold them a dummy. His 'jokey' references made to GM and KM about the press speculation was( no pun avoidable) a Freudian slip. That was his role. A point needs to be made here i'll keep brief because it's unpleasant. Repeat offenders in this area of crime have a 'type'. Little girls of Madeleine's age weren't his.The accusation of his well -publicised former victim were her ill-informed guesses. Another point I'd like to make is that, whatever anyone's opinion of Paedophilia may be( and I think it's obvious), beware the agenda in the brewing; this is going to be drip fed as an illness( which it is in a lot of cases) soon so the perpetrators are normalised as having 'a condition' rather than being criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ( 2 )

    My other point is about the Gaspar statement.

    The Gaspar statement troubles me.

    It's long and it's 'wordy. I suppose she had to be thorough.It would be savaged in a court.

    When she finally moves on from tedious introductions of characters and scene-setting, she moves to 'that' conversation.

    ''I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario.''
    There's the meat and potatoes there. Stand-outs : 'I think ' 'I can't remember the conversation in it's entirety' and 'but they seemed'.

    ''I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.''

    What did Dave say ? Who mentioned Madeleine's name ?

    On the 'gesture' :

    ''There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. ''

    Probably.But where is Madeleine's name other than 'seemed'. Where is GM's half of the conversation ?

    She recalls an identical scenario that she'd witnessed a long time before( but didn't put her off socialising with them) :

    ''In saying this, I want to mention once again that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary scenario, although I’m not sure.''

    Dave just sounds like he turns a bit weird when the wine's flowing. Gaspar forgets only important details( names for instance.But that was a natural follow on from the introduction :

    ''One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’.''

    This skeletal statement was given flesh by a hungry pack of hounds desperate for some added spice to an already confusing stew.

    Early in the case, people had GM's miserable face or perceived arrogance.They added KMs coldness and aloof attitude.That identified the suspects before the PJ did. Years down the line, Gaspar's statement was added to their menu. It suggested something sexual.Even though Gaspar only uses terms like 'it seemed' and never Madeleine's name or GM saying a word.Details don't matter. Leave them for the Devil. Once the massed ranks had added sex to two mean-looking suspects, it was open season. The internet was plastered with it.Soon, the Governments media arm swung into action. Tales of child trafficking, child murders, ritual abuse and the like were pouring from every pen and being added to it all. The collective consciousness had already demonstrated it's readiness to accept these ideas more than happily. All we needed for the feast was a bit of blood. Cue the eternal tail-chasing 'dogs evidence' debate. And then there were 'those' photographs of a little girl( who was now a little victim) in her mum's make up. With all of the above already awaiting more flesh, no way would the ranks buy that( again, leave the details for the Devil).They were suddenly 'Lolita pics'. Freud entered the fray as a ghost- but a handy one fit for purpose in the eyes of the frantic.All it needed was 20/20 hindsight and imagination.

    I'll close there. It just seemed that somebody had to put things into perspective given the title of the thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @01:30

      The following quotes are isolated merely in order to facilitate making a concise point.

      "Clement Freud. We found out he was a paedophile post mortem.

      "Repeat offenders in this area of crime have a 'type'. Little girls of Madeleine's age weren't his."

      Indeed. And once a 'gal' has achieved the age of consent the lecherous actions of a lothario are not usually considered to be those of a paedophile exactly.

      It is undeniably true that some men are perfectly prepared to 'take advantage' of young women. On the other hand, not a generation passes without some young women placing themselves in a compromising situation and regretting it afterwards.

      With just a little exaggeration in certain quarters Clement Freud was made to fit the bill (or at least come close)

      "Freud entered the fray as a ghost- but a handy one fit for purpose in the eyes of the frantic."

      Delete
  37. Anonymous 31 March 2017 at 21.36
    First things first. I apologise for the belated reply to your post . I think Ros slips them in when she's in her wine cellar sometimes ;-)

    'T', Major Tom, and your inner self Mr Richard Emery( i have vague memories of him..i watched from my cot..i swear.)

    Unlike the polishing and bottom-wiping process prior to a final draft of an essay, i tend to rush at these posts and their editing limits.As such, I tend to take for granted that readers such as your good self and Ros will know what I'm yelling about even if it's a loose reference.

    When i said that nothing about it being political I was pointing out, for emphasis, that politicians never invade murder, abduction or any other suspected crime committed abroad.They're politicians, not police.So, that the opposite is true in this case, it raises much bigger questions than most that are discussed. When I speak of murder, it's one of a handful of often repeated allegations( moreso since many point to sexual interference via the parents or tapas members).Amaral says accidental. Who knows ? But if they reported an accident i'd go with it.The concealment of the body is implying murder.I say that as i can only imagine that as a feasible reason as certain evidence could be yielded form a body.It's not my personal idea-it's my interpretation of a murder scenario.Accidental death would be elevated to murder if there was evidence of physical or sexual interference.I still favour the procurer theory.

    My references to haters are not a blanket criticism. If a group of people hold fast to the theory of the McCanns being guilty of nasty things it's their business and prerogative.But refusing to face the lack of 'official' support for it and then scrutinising their every word and photograph to go beyond conventional 'slating' and just being vicious is in hate territory. Dismissng any alternative, despite the ten years gap, and attacking or attempting to mock alternative views is reinforcing their stance and reinforcing the impression that they hate. What we hate makes us weak. Weak people lash out. It's possible to discuss sensibly.An independent observer of me can mind their own business :-)

    The parents contributory factor was leaving their children vulnerable.leaving them unsupervised.In danger.I wasn't( and still am not) quoting that, it's my own opinion.I'm the only link to my opinion.

    By the way, T..who is this 'we' you refer to..just curious...

    Nmaste

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "who is this 'we'..."
      We = Major Tom and Dick Emery.

      Delete
  38. Anonymous3 April 2017 at 01:32

    "who is this 'we'..."

    We = Major Tom and Dick Emery.''

    That would have been some album..

    ReplyDelete
  39. ZiggySawdust3 April 2017 at 02:55

    Indeed.

    You are obviously a man of taste. And so is ‘T’ it would appear.

    2 April 2017 at 22:48

    Your cot must’ve been rather large. Bespoke? A future man of wealth and taste?

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope we’ve guessed your name, oh yeah
    But what's puzzling us
    Is the nature of your game

    You are awful, but we like you.

    Mick and Dick

    ReplyDelete
  40. This devil needs no sympathy, major. :-)

    Strange, the first thing that came to my mind when i read 'mick and Dick' was Stellar Street :-) The second was akin to some questionable cartoon duo likely to appear on South Park :/

    Ooh, see the fire is sweepin'
    Our very street today
    Burns like a red coal carpet
    Mad bull lost its way..
    War, children, it's just a shot away
    It's just a shot away..

    Z.Sawdust ; Chairman of The Cygnet Commitee.

    namaste

    ReplyDelete
  41. Chairman Mao to Chairman Z:

    What might have been and what has been point to one end which is always present.

    So let's all sing and smile, shall we, Rosalinda?

    ReplyDelete