CRISTOBELL DECIDED: MCCANNS LATEST NEWS UPDATE 27/3/17

Saturday, 25 March 2017

MCCANNS LATEST NEWS UPDATE 27/3/17

LATEST NEWS UPDATE MONDAY 27.03.17

Today's 'The McCanns are Innocent' story, comes via The Mirror (Paul Byrne and Martin Fricker) - as the former RUC Detective and employee of Gerry and Kate gives his first (weirdest) statement on the fate of Madeleine McCann.

I'm not sure it's his first statement, he has in the past said she was being held captive within 10 miles of PDL and introduced a Victoria Beckham lookalike, prompting him to say Jane Tanner's 'abductor' may have been a woman.

He now believes Madeleine was stolen to order by a child sex gang, but there is hope she is still alive. As a detective, I'd be amazed if Dave Edgar could find the way to the end of his road. The idea that the most famous missing child in the world has been a sex slave for the past 10 years is astonishing. Does he honestly believe a little girl, not quite 4, could have survived assaults of that nature? Does he believe she is surviving them still?

Naturally, he confirms Gerry and Kate played no part in Madeleine's disappearance as he rehashes the 'someone is protecting the abductor' old chestnut. What this case needs he tells us, is a new police backed European appeal, tv, posters, letters, texts, use of new technology etc, perhaps in time for the 10th anniversary eh?

__________________________________

Young Madeleine who was not quite 4, when she was 'taken'

LATEST NEWS UPDATE SUNDAY 26.03.17

I wasn't going to comment on the 'women support other women unless they're rich and pretty' article by Kerry Parnell, because, well frankly, it is too stupid and banal for words. But what the hell, it's a slow news week.

'Mum judging should be a crime, it remains one of the worst characteristics of women'. That offends me on every level, not least that she is another woman, but that she is even part of the same species. You are projecting Kerry, tut, tut, back to journalism school. You don't happen to be successful, rich and pretty do you? Because you're not really defending Kate McCann, so much as saying why don't other women like ME.

But let's take a look at your 1950's subjugated woman stance. All women have brains that work just efficiently as mens. You are not special. Women do not dislike Kate McCann because they are jealous of the dress she is wearing, or her blonde hair, some of us have evolved a little bit beyond that. They dislike her because she put her babies at risk and even now will not accept that she did anything wrong. They dislike that she and her husband have profited from their daughter's tragedy, and have persecuted the former detective who searched for their daughter ever since. And just to catch you up on that one Kerry. Gerry and Kate demanded Goncalo Amaral give them all his money and family home, and he said no.

Kerry is a lazy journalist, a headline skimmer.  She bought (hook, line and sinker) the victim status of the fragrant Kate (a woman just like her) and she is outraged. Women, especially, old, fat, ugly, poor, ones, hate Kate because what she took from the Madeleine story, was the persecuted middle classes and there it stopped. Had she thought about the content before writing the end, she might have considered how much 'hate mail' Karen Matthews would be receiving daily, if her abduction debacle had continued for 10 years?

Trying to make the dislike of Kate McCann a feminist issue is a new low, but the views expressed in that article, are pretty much the same views put forward by Kate's mother 9 years ago. Ie. Women don't like Kate because she is slim, pretty, etc.  That is, the sort of thing Mums always say to weeping daughters.

But to be fair, and you brought it up. As an old 'feminist', I'm not a big fan of women who can't operate without a man holding their hand. It irks me. I admire the kind of 'gals' that walk tall and straight and look the world right in the eye, as equals on every level. I have little patience these days for women who open with 'my husband and I'.

But, the sun is shining and I have much to do. Meanwhile I suggest Kerry Parnell does a little research before writing her better informed sisters off as bitches.

_____________________________

Some may have noticed, I am struggling to keep up with volume of comments that I am receiving. And sadly, some are slipping through and taking on lives of their own before I get around to responding or squishing them, lol. Those without a SOH, please leave now.

Tis my own fault I have to confess. I have a new obsession, the strange orange one in the Whitehouse. I am constantly having to pinch myself (figuratively speaking of course, I am a wuss) for reassurance that I am not in a particularly frightening, comedic/apocalyptic episode of Black Mirror. I imagine explaining the new leader of the free world to my patriotic and US loving old Dad, 'yeh dad, you would not believe it - almost exactly like Hitler, but even madder and more weird looking. And there's a whole family of them and they dress like the cast of Dallas, the US has become part of Trump/Putin Inc'. And more, 'plans for internment camps are underway, though happily for the dissidents, they are all 5* hotels built in areas unpopular with Russian Oligarchs'. I can, even in my head, hear my dad's reply in his thick Dundonian accent, 'awww jeeez, awww jeez'.

He was 10 when WWII broke out, and his dad was the only one of six, who returned from WWI. 'This must never happen again' was his mantra, especially when having a wee dram. I think he would actually weep at the picture of Theresa May and Donald Trump. Neville Chamberlain may have appeased Hitler when he waved 'Peace in our time', but at least he wasn't led by the hand, and I doubt there was any playful flirting. My dad, heck, even I, have to wonder how Churchill would have dealt with Trump. I'm not even a conservative but I am guessing he would have put his country above personal business deals.

To top it off, I could at least reassure my old dad, though he might be surprised, that the REAL leader of the free world now is the German Chancellor. She even knocked Jennifer Lawrence off the top of list of Formidable Women (my highest compliment). And for those female Labour MPs hiding in panic rooms and crying over offensive words on the internet, Angela Merkel has given them an example of how a strong, determined, woman behaves. Her fabulous facial expressions were those of a nana bemused by what toddlers are allowed to get away with these days.

But I am being disingenuous to those who have come here for the McCann news. Most of the tabloids this week went with Gerry and Kate's third time loss in the Lisbon Courts. Ouch, rub it in why don't you! Their complaint against the Supreme Court ruling was thrown out. Their only recourse now is the European Court of Human Rights - in depth discussion on previous blog.

There was a blip in the Official Find Madeleine Facebook page. The webmaster, still anonymous, shut it down for her own mental health. The glut of tabloid stories, especially from experts claiming Madeleine is dead has sent troll activity into overdrive. Once again they, including the unknown hostess, are victims of an unfair press and the blame will probably lie with Goncalo Amaral. Should they be cleared on September 1st, they will have a lot of suing to do.

To finish I want to make it clear, I honestly don't have the time or patience anymore for the ridiculous theories of CMoMM and Richard Hall. Everything they do, and everything they have done is with malicious intent. They are vigilantes, a more accurate description than hater I think. But worse than that. They are stealers of time. Something for which I have zero tolerance. I went right off Mark Wahlberg* for The Happening, in which nothing happened and 2 hours I will never get back. For me forums such as CMoMM are trapped in a cycle of regurgitated nonsense, they haven't had a new idea or a new thought in 7 years!.

And seriously Bennett, my blog may be exceptionally busy, but I am not letting posts from yourself or links to your vile cesspit slip through. You are a preacher of hate. You prey on people's misery and if there isn't enough there, you create it. This is the last bit of oxygen you will get from me.

*Mark Wahlberg has since been forgiven with Ted.

132 comments:

Anonymous25 March 2017 at 20:15
"Some may have noticed, I am struggling to keep up with volume of comments that I am receiving. And sadly, some are slipping through and taking on lives of their own before I get around to responding or squishing them, lol. Those without a SOH, please leave now."

Maybe you should explain how a blog devoted to the case of a missing child is humorous?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown26 March 2017 at 04:18
Time for a new post ros keep them coming!be interesting to know
your views/guess on how this case will play out next year.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Björn26 March 2017 at 11:26
Hi Rosalinda and others
just a few thoughts about freedom

Yes, Rosalinda, Angela Merkel is probably the cleverest and the most insightful politician in Europe right now. She’s familiar with her nation’s history and she has personal experience of totalitarianism (DDR) and this may be the reason as to why she doesn’t talk so often about freedom of expression in terms of its restrictions, as so many politicians in other European countries often do.

Despite the fact that the U K incorporated the European Convention into its domestic law in 1998 under the Human Rights Act in order to guarantee freedom of expression, there’s paradoxically been a gradual shift toward increased surveillance of British citizens, which in fact is a violation of the Human Act’s basic intention, namely, to ensure freedom of speech and press.

As for the Madeleine case, it’s quite obvious now, that it has become difficult to discuss other aspects of it, than the official version without running the risk of being bullied and persecuted . One cannot really question the McCanns’ honesty without at the same time challenge the whole British society, especially its legislature assembly and its bar association (Carter Ruck).

As far as freedom, in a general sense, is concerned, the U K now seems to be a country in decline, and Brexit hasn’t made things much better. It has ceased to be that spiritual home of freedom and of common sense, that my generation in the 60th used to dream about, who in those days wouldn’t even consider to go to Germany, although it’s closer to us both geographically and linguistically. “ Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security”, Benjamin Franklin said in the 18th century. Has David Cameron or Theresa May read anything about his thoughts? If not, I recommend they do.
PS
As long as you keep on writing Rosalinda I still feel that there's still a hope for a change to the better.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Rosalinda Hutton26 March 2017 at 13:20
My dear old dad was fiercely European Bjorn, his generation being much closer to the memory of wars. As a child of the 60's England felt like the kind of place you dream of. There was a strong sense of national pride and belief in the establishment. Old Labour had brought in the NHS and the Welfare State, care from cradle to grave. There was a huge sense of optimism.

I consider myself very privileged that I grew up in a multi cultural environment. All my playmates, like myself, were immigrants, though I was of the freckled Irish/ Scottish variety. All our parents worked at the huge Sanatorium across the road as Doctors, nurses and general staff. There were no class or cultural barriers between us. My best friends were Connie and Ivy, two Indian girls who's house was filled with exotic smells and colours and things that sparkled! To me it was magical.

Another best pal was Heina, a little German boy who's dad was a doctor. I immediately took him under my wing because he was different - he wore lederhosen, and I loved the shock value of introducing him as my best pal, then adding' and he's Gerrrrrman!'. We could see the eyebrows go up every time and it often got us free sweets. To be fair I used to boss him around a lot and get him in a lot of scrapes. His English wasn't great, so I did most of the talking on his behalf, he didn't seem to mind though, because we were always giggling.

I fear there will be a constant battle with regard to the internet Bjorn. That is, there will always be Drs. Evil, stroking cats and dreaming of ways in which to get back control of information.

And they will use every trick in the book. Currently they are using the issue of child protection, 'think of the children' is a good battle cry when you want to introduce draconian new legislation.

I will keep writing Bjorn, and bless ya.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous26 March 2017 at 17:57
Why after all these years are some know-it-alls still lying about swinging?
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust26 March 2017 at 17:57
Kerry Parnell- a modern day wannabe star. I know little about this fool as a surface observation is all that is needed to conform that she knows the route to celebrity; talk absolute shite and do it online for the most part, because you're likely to find more people gullible enough to give you attention. She's learned that sweeping 'controversial' statements get you and your name noticed and remembered from the Katy Hopkins school of attention-seeking, but has the craft to know where the line is; approach it but stop just in time.

Feminism and female emancipation peaked in the 1980s and that wonderful Hitler-in-knickers, Thatcher, was the living icon.It's 2017 now.It's not new anymore.And women have proven that they can equal and often better their male counterparts in all the big arenas.They've also proven they can be as idiotic, crass, untrustworthy and careless as them. Equality carries over into all areas, not just ones chosen carefully for debate.

Kerry's insightful, well-researched observations of the McCann case were never going to be an eye- opener for anyone. Her true observations are probably run-of-the-mill bullet points that we've all seen and heard. That's not her fault, nothing new has emerged in 9 years 3 months and 3 weeks.So, in keeping with her agenda, she's sat and asked that all-important question :''What can i say that will grab the readers eye and make them want to read and repeat?''. After that, it's pretty easy.Social Networks(yawn). It's working too. I hadn't heard of this shallow creature until i was on this blog and on this thread.

Feminist issues are yesterday/year. Thatcher, Merkel, Clinton, May, ,Rudd et al, have all proven that women can climb to the summit. That they can then royally screw it up isn't down to them being women, it's down to them being powerful politicians. Being a legitimised criminal isn't gender-bound regardless of how 'powerfully' you dress. Trump looks like Wurzel Gummidge, Obama looked like a tailor's dummy and 'Pappy' Bush and his idiot child looked like slick Wall St high rollers. Each and everyone of them should be in a cell for what they've done in their chosen careers. R soles.

'Mum judging' is a ludicrous phrase in any light. How about 'it's wrong to judge' and leaving it there ? 'Mum criticising' is nearer the mark. In our mum's(and their mums before them) day, 'parenting classes' would have been scoffed at. Then again, letting your pregnancy stand in the way of your GCSE exams would have been too.Parental responsibility has never changed throughout the ages until this one.That's the more interesting area for Parnell to explore.But who wants to carry on reading about her if that's the 'dull' headline.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous26 March 2017 at 18:58
17:57

Perhaps "still crazy after all these years"?

T
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust26 March 2017 at 22:51
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 March 2017 at 22:03

''Obama has the x-factor..like Bill Clinton, that is, he is oozes charisma. He speaks, people listen.''

Excellent attributes for the con artist. Depending on whether you're an aspiring con artist or you have just been duped by one, the attributes can be viewd with awe or anger. One of the most enduring and frightening images in 20th century history in my opinion is that of Hitler stood like a statue straight after his fierce and passionate speeches and the sheer volume of those before him stood just as still in a state of awe.I dread to think what else Obama possesses, and as for what Clinton is probably oozing after his years of 'extra curricular' activities..

''Harold Wilson or Ted Heath, or any of those old statesmen (and they were mostly statesMEN) of 3/4 decades ago. They seemed more trustworthy somehow''

Old Harold was a gent and was full of good values.Heath was depraved and his idea of great politics was to join Europe.The rest, since then, is history, unfortunately.

''after the McCann case, what do I know. ''

Nothing, I'm afraid.Like the rest of us.All we have is our nose for a smell and a critical, questioning eye that sees the unfolding revelations of how we've been lied to by a succession of trusted political giants who have nothing but personal fortune and the wishes of the banks as their priority.The blackmailing and bribery of each other they seem obsessed with is rivalled only by their corrupt, self-serving machinations. Their laws are for us - not them.

''Kerry Parnell's article is that the feminist issue she has raised is discrimination against rich, attractive, middle class white women -''

Two words for Parnell : superficial ; envy.

''It reminds me of Janet Street-Porter...''

I stopped listening to Mr Ed 5 years ago. She's always had a lot of loud things to say, little of which have been worth listening to. But post-Savile fall out, she was one of the long standing 'respected' BBC stalwarts. That means she's taking their money and towing their line. She was asked, like many other women who'd worked for them on TV or radio, for her thoughts. She was loud and excitable(for a change).Because of the sexism female DJs had told us about ? Nope. About the years of grooming and abuse child actors had been subjected to at the BBC? Nope. Savile ? Nope. She was angry because-and this is a quote you can find on youtube from the radio interview- ''the BBC handled it all wrong, they should have been able to keep a lid on it''
ReplyDelete
Replies
Rosalinda Hutton27 March 2017 at 00:42
Returning to topic, it is the superficial attitude of Kerry Parnell and those like her who have enabled this debacle to continue for 10 years. Kate, because she is pretty, rich and successful, couldn't possibly be involved in her daughter's disappearance. Her fragrance places her above the law, her integrity is not open to question.

This is an incredibly naïve position to take. Criminals do not walk around in uniforms with arrows on and carrying swag bags. White collar crime is far more prolific and far more damaging because dumb arse journalists like Kerry can't see beyond their pretty little noses
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 02:32
I think people assume swinging as they seem a very tight group , they have the pact , , there is no way normal people would stick together like this unless there was something they were all involved with .there were reports early on of statements were going to be changed , but this all stopped after the meeting at the Rothley Hotel 13th november
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 05:00
@00:42

I think you're being a too polite calling her naive. I think gullible is apt and stupid is more accurate. Once upon a time we would doff our cap the to clergy and doctors. To consider people in such exalted positions as anything less than wonderful was not on. To suspect them of dirtying their hands by committing nasty working class things such as murder was tantamount to declaring yourself a lunatic. The sun shines on the righteous etc. When 'commoners' go about their dirty deeds it's the stuff of great documentaries and salacious witness stories.The actual deeds are the draw-not the perp. It's no shock that they work in a warehouse if work at all.It's almost expected. But should someone deemed as important and above us fall victim to their demonic urges, the draw is different.How can anyone so 'well off' and important do such a thing ?Why would they blow a career and reputation so stupidly ? Biology is a great leveller. Harold Shipman taught us that.He out-scored Fed West.

Here's some links to educate Kerry :

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

http://murderpedia.org/female.G/g/gilbert-kristen.htm

http://www.ranker.com/list/serial-killers-who-were-doctors/ranker-crime
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 11:45
Rosalinda

“…how Churchill would have dealt with Trump.”

As one American with another? :)

“…I am guessing he would have put his country above personal...”

(Like his friend marshal Stalin had done?) Might you be ‘guessing’ wrong?

T
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 12:05
Regarding the new wave of McCann 'articles' in the newzzz : it's all about 'sexual abuse' and 'the kidnapper is protected' says Dave Edgar. Aha!?

ReplyDelete
Replies
Jennifer27 March 2017 at 12:08
The McCanns and their family and friends have come across as the very worst of people. Thinking they are cleverer than others when all the time betraying their narcissism and petty-mindedness.

Rather like a game of pin-the-tail on the donkey, they play the game of pin the blame on everyone else.

From the very beginning everything that was in actual fact their fault was blamed on everyone else. And Kate, in her book, bless her, has given us the evidence for her mindset and the mindset of her friends.

It's nice of her to have provided us with some hard evidence in case where evidence of the alleged crime is as non-existent as the tooth fairy. And of course we have evidence from media interviews of the McCanns and the 'Madeleine was Here' series as to how they and their friends conduct themselves. They have put on a performance but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, they are very poor actors indeed. You only have to look at the 'reconstruction' of Matt Oldfield's alleged check on the children at 9.30pm and Jane Tanner's alleged sighting of the 'abductor' to realize that these are people who have dug their own graves.

Incredibly, though, while Madeleine most definitely is in her grave, those responsible for her death are footloose if not, perhaps, fancy free.

What is so extraordinary in this case is that since when in a crime scene is the word of those last in the scene of the crime taken as gospel? If anyone is a laughing stock it is not the Portuguese police but the British police and the media who have blatantly thrown away public money on what they must know is a ludicrous, to coin Gerry's phrase, wild goose chase.

No doubt the police had some nice jollies in Luz, paid for by the UK tax payer. Perhaps enjoying those boozy lunches and some sardine munching that the Murdoch rags liked to accuse Detective Amaral of. Probably scoffing, as they raised their glasses, about how stupid the public were to have fallen for the McCann fairy tale.

While the public may have been naive, initially, they are certainly not falling for the McCanns any longer. Their 'troll hunting' escapade backfired big time. The worst trolls were always in the Team McCann camp and they know it. They played that card to the bitter end. It's a surprisingly effective device to accuse your critics of what you yourself are doing. But in the end even King Canute cannot hold back the tide. Their downfall was their hubris. If they had shut up when the case was shelved the public might have got bored with the story. Although, of course, there was always Detective Amaral on the case. And I doubt even class acts like Dr Amaral like to be made fools of by a bunch of narcissistic doctors and the gutter press.

Detective Amaral was always the class act unlike the McCanns and their dreadful friends. The fact that they are doctors does nothing to exonerate them. On the contrary, how appalling that people with so little class and intelligence should occupy positions of trust and power, having enjoyed the benefit of a very long education paid for by the tax-payer.

Don't even mention Clarence Mitchell. I wouldn't let him near the pig trough - wouldn't be fair on our clever four-legged friends.

Still, once you have cottoned on to the Team McCann modus operandi it is quite fun to pull apart their story. And the best places to start are their police witness statements and Kate's book. They really should be on the National Curriculum. Hours of fun.

RIP Madeleine.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 12:38
Today's topic.

As reported in 'the Mirror'

"As Kate McCann faced her 10th Mother’s Day without Maddie, retired Det Insp Dave Edgar broke his silence for the first time to open his files."

"When the Metropolitan Police took over the search in 2011, Mr Edgar handed his files to the force."

("Er, 'scuse me Mr.Policeman. Can I have me files back. I need to open them first time for the Mirror").
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 16:10
I have posted several times on here that Natasha Donn who regularly has anti-Mccann articles in the Portugal Resident is a member of cesspit. I have been shouted down and it has been denied on here.

Now it is confirmed by havern.

"by Get'emGonçalo Today at 9:51
(and CMOMM includes members such as Pat Brown, Joana Morais, Natasha Donn etc)"

I am fascinated to know just how much negative false information has been fed to the Portuguese press via cesspit/mclead etc.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 16:36
( one ) @Jennifer27 March 2017 at 12:08

''The McCanns and their family and friends have come across as the very worst of people. Thinking they are cleverer than others when all the time betraying their narcissism and petty-mindedness. ''

Do you have any idea what the odds are of 7 or more people closely related by friendship each being a narcissist ?Huge. I know the term has become fashionable recently thanks to crime documentaries but let's be realistic. A successful narcissist, incidentally, never comes across as the 'worst' kind of anything, or petty-minded. Narcissism isn't a shared interest like sport or stamp collecting.

''they play the game of pin the blame on everyone else. ''

Blamed what on who ?

''From the very beginning everything that was in actual fact their fault was blamed on everyone else''

The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements.

''It's nice of her to have provided us with some hard evidence in case where evidence of the alleged crime is as non-existent as the tooth fairy''

Evidence of alleged crimes is as non-existent as the tooth fairy, I agree.So do the police, according to the ten year time lapse. yet there's so many 'fact's' and 'clues' to incriminate the McCanns.And that's before the mind -reading even begins.

''They have put on a performance but unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, they are very poor actors indeed.''

What have the consequences of their poor acting been ? An arrest, or the simmering bitterness and hatred of the suspicious who seek any opportunity to spit but little evidence to justify it ?

''....these are people who have dug their own graves. ''

The people you refer to are walking about where they live and continuing with their lives. How come ?

ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 16:39
(two)@Jennifer27 March 2017 at 12:08

''Incredibly, though, while Madeleine most definitely is in her grave''

'Most definitely' needs proof. The police also need that information, as they haven't said she's dead as yet. Help them out.

''What is so extraordinary in this case is that since when in a crime scene is the word of those last in the scene of the crime taken as gospel?''

I think you might have 'statement' and 'gospel' confused. Either way, the new 'star' of the show, author Goncho Amaral, took nothing as gospel.Well, apart from the scenarios he imagined but failed to prove.His replacements had the same result.

''how stupid the public were to have fallen for the McCann fairy tale. ''

Nobody knows where the fairy tale is or the truth.If they do, they're not making it public knowledge.It's left to 'creative thinkers' shall we say.

''The worst trolls were always in the Team McCann camp and they know it...It's a surprisingly effective device to accuse your critics of what you yourself are doing. ''

Make your mind up.Team McCann or the McCanns themselves.

'' Their downfall was their hubris. If they had shut up when the case was shelved the public might have got bored with the story. ''
What hubris ? Saying you haven't committed a crime and no evidence has pointed to otherwise isn't hubris unless the opposite is proven . The tax payers money you focus on and the public opinion is of secondary importance at best. It's a search for wither an abducted or murdered child. Those investigations don't stop because people are 'bored' with them.

''even class acts like Dr Amaral like to be made fools of by a bunch of narcissistic doctors and the gutter press.''

When was being a competent and class act enough to have you removed from a case ? Are his (then) superiors class acts too ? Again with the 'narcissists'...

''Detective Amaral was always the class act unlike the McCanns and their dreadful friends. The fact that they are doctors does nothing to exonerate them''

Of all mentioned, only one lost their job.None of us know Amaral or the 'dreadful' friends personally so judgement of either is guesswork.

''On the contrary, how appalling that people with so little class and intelligence should occupy positions of trust and power, having enjoyed the benefit of a very long education paid for by the tax-payer. ''

Class isn't an issue when a doctor is employed.Ability, knowledge and qualifications are. The qualifications to become a policeman, sadly, are less stringent.

''Still, once you have cottoned on to the Team McCann modus operandi it is quite fun to pull apart their story''

I suppose we all have our own idea of 'fun'. The abduction and possible death of a child and the failure to solve the case in ten years isn't throwing out anything i can describe as even mildly 'fun'.But, it takes all sorts I suppose.Incidentally, the 'modus operandi' ? You do like your crime magazines don't you . The PJ, SY, and all other investigators might have spotted a modus operandi i would have thought. Surely there must be another 'class act' in the mix. Or do we have to do a call out on twitter ?

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 16:43
“Maddie is most likely being held captive, possibly in an underground cellar", Dave Edgar told the Belfast Telegraph in September 2009

Sleeper cell?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown27 March 2017 at 18:37
I notice very many removal of posts and comments have been going on https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13823-a-few-questions-about-cmomm-answered-24-march-2017
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 19:57
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 16:43

“Maddie is most likely being held captive, possibly in an underground cellar"

Sleeper cell?''

Some sleep ten years :-)

I smell 'prepping'. The tabloids are beginning the dance.What are they preparing for us this time i wonder. Dare they do more than merely hint that 'somebody' is being protected apart from the parents ? Test the water maybe ?

Where did this Edgar spring from after such a long absence from the front pages ?

''Calling for an end to the agony of Maddie’s parents Kate and Gerry, he pleaded: “If anyone confided in you, now is the time to come forward.”

What- NOW ? So soon ? It's only been ten years.

''The motive for taking three-year-old Madeleine was sexual.''

wow..that's original.The sexual again( along with the usual amount of 'evidence' to support it)..Twitter will go into meltdown..

So, she's being held captive in a cellar for sex.No mention of why it would be a cellar rather than a house( the imagery of a cellar is far more juicy), no mention of where said cellar is..nothing about who might have her..no proof that she's still alive..etc etc...

Is it any wonder that ten years have passed if this is the kind of 'investigator' on the case. The police get nowhere, the forenic evidence gets shelved and the private investigators have been hired from mental institutions. Tabloid standard.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 20:11
"Detective Amaral was always the class act"

I've always been amazed how this man has been elevated to such heights by those obsessed with nailing the McCanns. Indeed, Ros worships him! This man was convicted of falsifying evidence, and received an 18 month suspended prison sentence!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5370361/Madeleine-McCann-police-chief-found-guilty-of-falsifying-evidence.html
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown27 March 2017 at 21:03
"Re: A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT CMOMM – ANSWERED (24 March 2017)

Post by whatsupdoc Today at 18:20
I hope that when more of the truth emerges, Tony will receive all his money back from the McCanns with interest."

Someone who has no idea about the court case against bennett.

I would love to see him try to get his money back and may even contribute to the GoFundMe that he is so looking for - just to see him crushed again and apologise to the Mccanns again.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown27 March 2017 at 21:14
Don't ya just love it when 2 Mccann hate forums are in full battle mode!
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 22:38
@Anonymous27 March 2017 at 18:24
well said..

@Anonymous27 March 2017 at 19:48
well said..

@Björn27 March 2017 at 20:13

''By deconstructing the abduction version, as Jennifer implicitly suggests, in order to make some sense out of all of the McCanns’ lies, will do no harm to any person''

You mean ignoring the parents claim of their daughters abduction and calling them liars instead harms nobody except the parents.You constantly state things with complete conviction and can't prove anything whatsoever.All things stated, incidentally, are accusations of the McCanns deceit, dishonesty and callousness. When will you teat us to some evidence other than 'it seems to me' and 'it's as if' ?

''I’m really surprised, that there are still so many people who believe, that Madeleine is going to be found alive and that there’s a stranger, who keeps her hidden somewhere. ''

I don't think she's alive. I'd love to be wrong.Most people who comment on the case seem to think she isn't alive either.That doesn't mean she wasn't abducted,and there's no admissible proof of her being dead.

''As for Jennifer’s post here above, there’s nothing strange or bizarre about her questioning the innocence of the McCanns,''

Shocked that you'd say that Bjorn with your open mind and willingness to consider all possibilities.

''I’m just disappointed in them, because of their persecution of vulnerable and completely innocent people, in their never ending futile attempts to defend their already lost reputation.''

Who are the 'vulnerable' people the McCanns are persecuting in your world, Bjorn ?How do you see them as vulnerable ? Who or what made them 'vulnerable' ? Did they lose a child too ?

Anonymous27 March 2017 at 19:16

"The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements".

A non-sequitur.''

It isn't.

Björn27 March 2017 at 20:36

'''Hi Ziggy
"The people you refer to are walking about where they live and continuing with their lives. How come ?", you ask Jennifer or yourself. Just a guess''

Guess again. I was referring to Jennifer informing us of the people who have dug their own graves.They're walking about continuing with their lives.That's because they haven't been arrested, charged or stood trial for anything.There must ne a reason that's happening.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 March 2017 at 22:41
@Ros 27 March 2017 at 21:10

"You can say anything you want in most enlightened countries 20:35, it's called Freedom of Speech. The kind of draconian laws the McCanns demand are not wanted by anybody - that's why their legal claims are so unpopular."

As a general principle, freedom of expression may not limit the right to privacy, as well as the honour and reputation of others.
See the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Relationship_to_other_rights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Limitations

ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust27 March 2017 at 23:10
If we need 'draconian laws' in place in the 21st century to prevent somebody publishing accusations that we have killed, or helped to conceal the body, of our own children, we're screwed as a society here as well as abroad.What would Amaral do if he saw that an ex convict with a grudge is now out of prison and publishing her story, including how she was sexually assaulted during an interrogation and confessed to a crime she knew nothing about ? Would he celebrate her right to free speech-or use 'draconian law' to sue her and defend his own personal reputation ?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Jennifer28 March 2017 at 01:52
"The detective they have persecuted this past 9 years was simply doing his job - that is, trying to find their daughter."

You are wrong as usual - the Mccanns took him to court because he wrote a book stating that they covered up the death of their daughter and were involved in removal of her body.

----

No evidence that didn't happen....

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous28 March 2017 at 08:09
@ZiggySawdust 27 March 2017 at 16:36

("The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements".)

And Gerry McCann wonders why he didn't hear his children crying? How strange.

Gerry McCann, May 4, 2007:

"Between the 28th April, the day they arrived and the time the disappearance was discovered, he says that nothing unusual happened, only referring to an episode on the morning of the 3rd May, when Madeleine asked the witness the reason why they had not gone to her room when the twins were crying. As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom, however he finds his daughter's comment to be strange, maybe because it was the first time that she had made it.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm
ReplyDelete
Replies
Björn28 March 2017 at 14:02
Hi everybody

There’s something very weird about certain persons’ pseudonyms/identities on this blog. I’ve haven’t noticed that before. I commented on Jennifer’s first rather extensive post at the same time as I referred to an anonymous person who in his/her turn commented on her post, but I got an answer from the pseudonym “Unknown” saying “I have no interest whatsoever in your opinion about my posts. You are the perfect example of a McCann hater that is supported unreservedly by Ros”.

Later and further down on this list of comments, Jennifer surprisingly reappears by quoting, I suppose, Rosalinda "The detective they have persecuted this past 9 years was simply doing his job - that is, trying to find their daughter." Then telling Rosalinda; ” You are wrong as usual ”

This Jennifer, who earlier on this blog so aggressively attacked the McCanns now seems to vehemently defend the McCanns by saying to Rosalinda, that ”You are wrong as usual - the Mccanns took him to court because he wrote a book stating that they covered up the death of their daughter and were involved in removal of her body.” And finally, ” No evidence that didn't happen”.

So I’d like to ask both Jennifers; what do you believe happened to Madeleine. If the McCanns were not involved in her disappearance/disposal of her body, then there must have been a stranger abduction, which the first Jennifer in her post, if I understood her text, didn’t believe. Please try to remember which role you’re playing when commenting on this Blog. ”Jennifer or Unknown, or possible just anonymous, so that your alter egos don’t contract themselves in the future. Just a piece of advice.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Björn28 March 2017 at 14:44
Hi T
Re; your earlier posts in which you refer to me or what I’ve said.
Just wanted to say to you and to all other native speakers of English on this blog, that I don’t mind your correcting my English. On the contrary, I’m just grateful if you do. As for the expression “tongue-in-cheek” I couldn’t even have guessed the meaning of it, so I had to look it up, and by that my vocabulary in English has become somewhat enriched, I’d say. Thanks.

ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust28 March 2017 at 15:10
Björn28 March 2017 at 10:13

Hi Ziggy
"an ex convict with a grudge is now out of prison and publishing her story", you say...I suppose...''
'
There you again. No 'it seems' or 'as if' today, we have a new one - 'i suppose'.

I was using a hypothetical example. I'm aware of the Cipriano case.

''I wouldn’t be so cruel to compare him or Joana’s mother with the McCanns, but it seems you do so.''

Oh, there it is 'it seems'( without evidence..again)

You've told me that i'm referring to a case which i actually wasn't( see my actual post) then passed comment on me doing it. Look up ' hypothetical'( or try-just for an hour a day at first- to stop hating)

Jennifer28 March 2017 at 01:52

''because he wrote a book stating that they covered up the death of their daughter and were involved in removal of her body.''
''No evidence that didn't happen....''

Case closed then( how did those detectives miss that gem). There's no evidence that they didn't hide the body so lets arrest, charge and out them on trial.There's no evidence that they hadn't been out the day before shoplifting, let's include that too...

Anonymous28 March 2017 at 08:09

''As he did not hear anything, the witness did not go to the bedroom, however he finds his daughter's comment to be strange, maybe because it was the first time that she had made it''

If you don't hear a noise why would you go to the room ? If your child makes a comment for the first time, it isn't usual-ergo it's unusual. The discussion was about facts, and the fact i quoted as not debatable was the witness statements regarding leaving their kids alone.

Anonymous28 March 2017 at 10:16

"The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements".
A non-sequitur.''
'It isn't'.
''So it's a fact because they say so? I see.
Like the abduction then.''

No, a non-sequitur points to a comment made that has no relation to what's preceded it; there's no logical connection. I was pointing to an example of someone using a series of suspicions as a facts and reminding them that the actual recorded 'fact' was the statement of GM regarding the children being left alone the night before as well as the night of May 03. He ( and GM) said they 'suspected' an abduction had taken place as their daughter was no longer in the apartment.Neither stated it as a fact.They couldn't. How you've made that connection is by using a non sequitur, which is pretty ironic.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Björn28 March 2017 at 15:23
Hi Jennifer and Anon 14:30
Thanks Anon for trying to explain this to me, but here again a linguistic problem, at least for me. Jennifer's sentence "No evidence that didn't happen" Could mean No evidence, that that didn't happen which is synonymous with No evidence it didn't happen. Wouldn't that be proper English, but could also mean There is NO EVIDENCE (pause) so THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. Sorry I get so confused.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 00:17
Anonymous28 March 2017 at 18:09

"a non-sequitur points to a comment made that has no relation to what's preceded it; there's no logical connection"
You don't say?
I don't give a monkey's what you think you were pointing to, it's what you write that matters.''

I repeat, it does not logically follow that something is a known fact simply because someone else (McCann in this instance) claims it to be the case, under oath or otherwise.''

I wrote that it was a fact that they gave statements.One of the statements they made was to report that they'd left their children unsupervised. Two facts for you to absorb. There's no ambiguity so why make a meal of it . It's easy if you concentrate.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 00:47
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton28 March 2017 at 22:14

''I don't think GA would be bothered about the scenario you imagine Ziggy. Such a book could only be harmful if it had any credibility. ''
I knew that would be the response...

So, a retired detective with a good reputation who's had one or two 'misunderstandings' with his bosses and a demotion is accused via the book of a disgruntled ex -con making outrageous and damning accusations would just be water off his back ? Are you sure he isn't already a saint ? We're learning all the time about how police of every rank can edit,alter or lose statements, bully witnesses and falsify evidence.But if anyone claims that they were assaulted or bullied into a confession you think nobody would find it credible.I don't find that credible. Amaral, or anyone of his counterparts would have that book blocked.They'd sue any publisher or threaten them with court. They'd be stupid not to-what about their friends and family ? You and your followers surely know that you only need a puff of smoke and you can attribute it to a wild forest fire if you get your heads together.People out there will follow any 'trend'...

''But I guess that is the crux of the matter Ziggy. GA's book does have credibility, the McCanns have got nothing to disprove his theory.''

Their freedom is a fairly good argument wouldn't you think ?If somebody proposes a hypothesis, it's up to them to support it, not somebody else.If he has the support and his hypothesis is proven to be correct- all bets are off; he's won. A really powerful theory doesn't take 10 years to prove.

''People can and do write books of lies Ziggy, but if they have no credibility they sink without trace''

They don't need credibility, they just need a large enough audience that share the interest of the author. Amaral has a huge audience. His book sales will eventually reveal that. Millions have been made theorising solutions to Jack The Ripper's escapades, some well-researched, and well written. Who was he ? If Amaral's book contains the truth the haters pray for, his former bosses should read it and give Scotland Yard a call. He should then receive compensation from his former employers and a very public apology.He should also be hailed as a great cop who could have solved the 'case of the century' in a few months but was held back. But the only voices echoing his own are online.

'' Richard Hall/ Bennett will never go viral.''

They're viral enough. Twitter and blogs like this never let them be forgotten. Bennett is the Pied Piper of the mentally confused and easily led.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 March 2017 at 06:10
ZiggySawdust 27 March 2017 at 16:36

Morning.

Jennifer27 March 2017 at 12:08: ''From the very beginning everything that was in actual fact their fault was blamed on everyone else.''

ZiggySawdust 27 March 2017 at 16:36: “The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements.”

Could you please answer the following:

What was the purpose of your above comment?

How do you (“we”) KNOW that the McCanns left their children unsupervised?

How do you (“we”) “know as actual fact that” “leaving their children unsupervised” “was the fault of the McCanns”?

What does ‘that’ in your “They admitted that in their statements.” refer to?

Namaste.

T
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 17:19
Anonymous29 March 2017 at 11:00

"I wrote that it was a fact that they gave statements"
Bullshit!
You wrote (to 'Jennifer', 27.3 @16:36) exactly the following:
"The only thing we know as actual fact that was the fault of the McCanns was their leaving their children unsupervised.They admitted that in their first statements."

Another dog, another bone. Great.When i adressed the long post by 'Jennifer' and its long list of suppositions and unsubstantiated claims and accusations, i pointed out that the only 'fact'( yes, I know, facts aren't important if they obstruct the course of a mob and their target) that could be stated, was that the McCanns had left Madeleine and her siblings alone that evening.It is a fact that they made statements. Is that difficult ?Whatever is in those statements remains in those statements. I'm not saying whether or not they're true, I'm saying that they made them. The detectives, from Amaral onward, have accepted them as facts though. Two camps have formed since. Amaral suggests, while they may well have left the apartment to join their friends at the tapas bar, that doesn't mean that they hadn't killed their child, or been aware that she was dead. He inplies that their journey, and the subsequent 'checking in on' the children by them(McCanns) and friends was to construct an alibi. The other camp believe Madeleine was abducted during one of the gaps between said 'checks'. The McCanns were seen at the Tapas bar at the time they said they were there.

''You clearly do not (or do not wish to) properly understand what you have written. And yet you expect, or at least hope, readers here will subscribe to your arguments.''

I understand it clearly;you don't. I have little care with regard to what readers subscribe to. After reading a few miles of typed garabage based on guesswork and bad-mindedness I can honestly say that if that's how so many 'tick', they can subscribe to whatever they like. I'm just glad that I have none of them or their ilk near me in real time.

''More thought and less verbage would stand you in good stead.''

I stand in 'good stead' where it matters.

ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 17:24
Jennifer29 March 2017 at 15:01

''There is considerable evidence that she died and the McCannn's tried to cover it up''

Is it 'considerable' enough to make an arrest ? It's existed for ten years.

'' I think Dr Amaral actually states that at he believes they simulated an abduction.''

Yes, he did. He also 'believed' they'd hidden her in a fridge or freezer somewhere. He also 'believed' they'd hidden her in the coffin of a lady who was soon to be buried and that it was in the church that they held the keys to( thus implicating the priest).

'' I know he thinks Smithman is important and that the Smiths are credible eye-witnesses.''

And if 'Smithman' saw the McCanns putting Madeleine in the fridge or freezer-or the coffin- then he'd be right. In fact, Smithman would be more than a mere witness if he's kept that quiet.

Anonymous29 March 2017 at 06:10 - 'T'

''How do you (“we”) KNOW that the McCanns left their children unsupervised?''

No nannies were hired. The McCanns were seen at the tapas bar.Witnesses confirmed that members of the T7 took turns leaving.

''How do you (“we”) “know as actual fact that” “leaving their children unsupervised” “was the fault of the McCanns”?''

Fault ? Decision? Either way, they left them. Or are we saying that they didn't leave them and it was two doppelgangers took their place at the tapas bar ? I suppose if we entertain 'the good Dr's ' theories of fridges, freezers and coffins then -why not.

''What does ‘that’ in your “They admitted that in their statements.” refer to?''

'That' they had left the children unsupervised that night and not for the first time. There also exists the statements made by a passing couple who saw Madeleine alone one night in the apartment and that of the neighbour who lived above the apartment who had heard the child calling for her parents ( on the night GM stated that they had left their children unsupervised also)
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 20:01
Anonymous29 March 2017 at 18:50

''Bullshit !''
''Like a two-year old let loose on a scrabble board.''

''Whereas proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (proposed in 1637)only took 358 years.''

The intellectual referencing doesn't erase the childish outbursts. Try to control yourself before you address me.

''I know! How about proving Madeleine McCann was abducted. That would be pretty powerful under the circumstances.''

This will probably be too simple for you, but I'll humour you as i have a spare five minutes.

Madeleine was in her bed(cot or whatever) when the parents went to dinner. The accepted story is that later, on the return of one of them to check in on the children, one had gone.It is highly unlikely that she'd popped out to do some shopping or to build late night sand castles, so it would be natural to assume somebody had taken her away.No witnesses have witnessed anybody taking her and leaving the apartment.That's the worst thing about abductors and burglars alike, they always do these things when nobody's watching for some reason.

The alternative view of events of course is that the child had been killed-or died- earlier than we've been told and that the parents had been aware or responsible for that and had hidden her.They then set about contriving an elaborate alibi which involved them and their friends enjoying dinner and laughs in full public view and even went as far as taking turns to disappear from that scene to appear that they were going to check in on the children.This also implicates their circle of friends as accessories before and after a crime and conspiracy to obstruct and pervert the course of justice.

Any forensic evidence of Madeleine's 'death' has failed to pass muster to support the case against them or their circle of friends in ten years.

Conclusion/s ? She was abducted ( she wasn't their any more). Death - a cover up of all incriminating evidence against the McCanns has taken place and the politicians of two countries-for some unknown reason- were complicit in that cover up along with the superiors of Amaral. Whichever way you slice the cake, the blame shouldn't be aimed so vehemently in the direction of the McCanns alone.

''Only please don't come back with something resembling 'Klingon' logic dressed up as English.''

You need more bran in your diet. Learn some manners.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 March 2017 at 22:28
@20:01

"Try to control yourself before you address me."

Of course, your lowness.

"This will probably be too simple for you"

You're right. It is.

"Conclusion/s ? She was abducted ( she wasn't their any more)."

And that is your proof?

I'm embarrassed for you.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust29 March 2017 at 23:18
Anonymous29 March 2017 at 22:28

''Of course, your lowness.''
''I'm embarrassed for you.''

You don't learn do you ?

Read more, concentrate more,and save the juvenile attacks for someone who thinks your opinion is as important as you do. Don't discuss 'proof' with me. There isn't any proof to support or condemn anyone for anything in this case. If there was, the case would have been closed a long time ago. Why can't you understand that ? The 'proof' as discussed among haters and online sleuths, such as yourself and 'buddies,' is little more than a series of conclusions arrived at after repeated attempts to add 2 and 2 and ignoring that the way you all go about it, it never comes to 4 unless you add several opinions and theories based on impressions you read in faces and slips you hear in speech. Unfortunately for you all, in a court of law, 2 plus 2 is only conclusive if the answer is 4 -with no 'add ons'.

''A thing is diminished by being added to, and added to by being diminished.''

There's some wisdom for you to absorb and pass on to your friends. You're welcome.

Now, be a good egg, and bother somebody else. K ?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 00:48
23:18

"A thing is diminished by being added to, and added to by being diminished."

When did you first coin that phrase, I wonder? It sums you up perfectly.

"Don't discuss 'proof' with me (just accept what I say without reservation)"

"There isn't any proof to support or condemn anyone for anything in this case."

Which begs the question why you spend so much of your time here wasting other peoples.

You come across as a verbal parasite, who won't be satisfied until the comments at this blog consist of nothing more than a dialogue between yourself and the host. If that should represent 'mission accomplished' then it'll be 'back to the job centre' I imagine.

Still, it's gratifying to discover that you too can be 'bothered'. I can't be any longer.

Bon chance Einstein. Que?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 14:09
There is very little public support now for the McCanns - that is evident from the overwhelmingly negative comments about them that follow any PR they churn out. A 10th anniversary interview would be excruciating for them. I would love to see one though! It would be a complete farce with the interviewer flailing around trying to find one positive thing to say about the case and the McCanns failing to looked 'bouyed up' by latest developments. Even the 'sightings' have dwindled away thank goodness. And what would Kate say apart from the oft-quoted mantra: 'There is no evidence Madeleine has come to any harm.'

But the point it, there is. The dog findings for a start plus the findings of a police investigation. I would say that is pretty damning. There may not have been enough evidence for a conviction but there was enough evidence to convince an entire police force that Madeleine was dead and the parents covered it up and simulated an abduction.

End of mystery, really.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 14:10
Totally agree with your comments above Cristobell, Ziggy is using your blog to try out arguments for the defence. Unfortunately, there really aren't any, as Ziggy has so well illustrated. There is literally not one shred of evidence that an unknown abductor or several sneaked into the bedroom and stole her. The ONLY evidence for the abduction story is that Madeleine went missing.

Ziggy states that it is a fact that the children were left alone in the apartment. That's about the only fact s/he can come up with. But it's not a fact - it's what the McCanns and their friends have stated. It might be true, but then again it might not be true. There is no EVIDENCE that the children were left alone. No doubt the McCanns would jump in and say: 'But if there had been an adult present, then there could not have been an abduction.' It's true it would have made an abduction more difficult but not impossible. The babysitter might fall asleep on the sofa while watching TV. The babysitter wouldn't remain in the children's bedroom all night watching them. Or the babysitter could have nipped onto the balcony for a quick cigarette or to use her mobile. While the babysitter is otherwise engaged, the abductor jemmies the shutters and uses the bedroom window as the entry/exit point. Of course this didn't happen with or without babysitter but just demonstrating that it is not impossible.

The ONLY evidence that the McCanns have for their abduction theory is that Madeleine disappeared.

Tanner-man has been ruled out and he never had a leg to stand on. Robert Murat was ruled out. Malinka was ruled out. (But I think they are still people of interest in the case - why were they ever ruled in as it were?) The photographic 'evidence' of Madeleine being there that week is flimsy APART from the airport bus and boarding sequence which I think looks genuine and I think can be taken as pretty conclusive proof that Madeleine did go on that holiday as I know some have questioned whether she ever went in the first place. The film will surely have been scrutinized by police and there would be eye-witnesses not just other holiday-makers but airport staff. The McCann children would stand out - two very blond twins and a pretty older sister. They would not pass unnoticed.

I think that the airport bus sequence also demonstrated that, despite what Kate claims, Gerry was most definitely not a family man. He is quite disengaged from his children and even swears and says he's not there to enjoy himself. Quite the charmer! And in front of other families with children and captured on camera! No shame it would seem.

I still maintain that GM fancied the buxom quiz host who would have been at the welcome meeting on Saturday which lifted his spirits and all hell broke loose when he invited the quiz host to join the TM table on Tuesday evening.

The evidence for this is in the PJ files. Jealousy and the associated emotions of humiliation/revenge are often a motive for crime.

Of note, neither Kate or Gerry mention quiz night/s in their rogatories. The other Tapas are asked about it but are extraordinarily vague about it to the point that it looks suspicious. It is in my opinion a very sensitive subject indeed. It is touched upon in that hilarious interview with the Irish broadcaster who I think played the pair beautifully. It really is worth watching as he literally rubs his hands together with what looks like glee as he asks the pair about a row they had that week. How ill-advised the gruesome twosome were to go so public.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 16:44
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2017 at 08:46

'' Why would complete strangers hate Gerry and Kate? Where is the logic?''

Logic ? Logic isn't welcomed in such places populated in the main by people who aim endless accusations and snide remarks at two people who are 'complete strangers' to them.

''Your 2+2 analogy is ridiculous given that in this case 2+2 does equal 4 - that is the theory of Goncalo Amaral fits like a glove.''

''No add ons necessary Ziggy and it is supported by the findings of the specialist blood and cadaver dogs.''

If it's ridiculous and Amaral's theories( whichever one you choose) fit like a glove-why are we waiting still after 10 years ?

Anonymous30 March 2017 at 00:48

Academic or juvenile insults? Concern yourself less with me . Choose either but direct them elsewhere. Your opinion of me isn't important. Nobody's opinion is. I thought this was a blog to debate a case of a missing child.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2017 at 09:24

''Don't worry 00:48, I still have control of the helm. Ziggy can stamp his feet as much as likes - it is his own argument he is destroying.''

Stamp my feet ? Because i dare to consider that the case going unsolved for 10 years might suggest the McCanns might be telling the truth, suddenly a barrage of personal abuse and insinuations are directed at me. But it's not a McCann hater blog...

Anonymous30 March 2017 at 12:10

''You may be right. I prefer to think of him/her as a troll (which amounts to the same thing in the long run).''

Based on what ? This is typical of the panic and desperation displayed by people who feel their spiteful and wild accusations challenged by cold logic. Ten years. Long time, ten years.

One day, the shelved evidence will prove that every politician and detective involved in the case, along with the scientists, were all lying. The dogs were telling the truth so were retired by the same people. Hyatt was right about the 'embedded confessions' and it was all a cover up because two killers were doctors.Bennett and fans (and his imitators) will all dance in the streets and every blogger and tweeter will congratulate themselves and each other and we can call on them again should a mysterious case with no evidence or witnesses emerge.The days of detective work and forensics are numbered..

But, back in the real world.....
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 17:32
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 14:10

''Totally agree with your comments above Cristobell, Ziggy is using your blog to try out arguments for the defence. Unfortunately, there really aren't any, as Ziggy has so well illustrated.''

That bizarre statement alone sums so much up about anti-McCann movement( I'll call it a movement because I'm polite like that).
Your phrasing '' arguments for the defence'' is only the beginning. The defence ? You are presenting a scenario that has actual 'suspects' in a dock. How many times does it have to be said ? There are NO official suspects now and there hasn't been for years. So, i'm presenting no 'case for the defence'. Because you, and the 'movement' have decided that they're suspects, and guilty, doesn't mean that is real. it's real only in the collective unconsciousness of the anti McCann movement.

'', there really aren't any, as Ziggy has so well illustrated.''

See above. Even better, if we cling to your prosecution V defence scenario, can you 'illustrate' the case for the prosecution and then explain why there's never been one ?

''I still maintain that GM fancied the buxom quiz host who would have been at the welcome meeting on Saturday which lifted his spirits and all hell broke loose when he invited the quiz host to join the TM table on Tuesday evening. ''

So, Gerry, like a lot of us chaps, was fond of a fine pair. I admit i was caught more than once in my married days accidentally admiring the same. My missus was philosophical and suggested it would be more worrying if i stopped noticing such things.I took advantage of that.

To suggest that GM's spirits were lifted( keeping it clean) and that 'all hell to break loose' is bordering on black comedy. You criticise me because i point to a lack of arrests and trial and series of rejected evidence as an argument that suggests that maybe an abduction could have taken place then offer up this scenario as( to keep your trial metaphor alive) a case for the prosecution.

( ''I put it you Mrs McCann that you did indeed feel threatened by the rack of the quiz host and that this enraged you to the point that you left the tapas bar in a fit of jealousy. I further put it to you that, while lost in this red mist, you decided to teach your husband a lesson.Your child paid the ultimate price.The prosecution rests, your honour'')

Priceless.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 18:18
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2017 at 08:17

''Your sarcasm doesn't make for pleasant reading Ziggy, in fact it makes you a bit of an ass.''

Would you rather i 'blended' and threw idiotic swearwords around and personal insults ? Or are they acceptable if penned by a hater ? My reality testing of rumours and unfounded allegations makes unpleasant reading.Not the sarcasm.If a dog bites me, it gets a kick.

''The 'accepted story' is Madeleine was abducted? LOL, you wish. If the story were accepted why do the McCanns have to sue everyone? ''

Capitalising a 'lol' doesn't diminish facts. Whether or not I 'wish' the abduction story is the accepted one isn't important. You and your like state that it isn't. That's one opinion versus another.The decider is in the fact that nobody has been arrested for murder .Nobody has been arrested for anything. The McCanns aren't suing everyone, they're suing anyone who tells what they consider are lies about them if the accusers can't support their accusations. It's called libel.

''The alternative view, that Madeleine died in the apartment and the parents were complicit in hiding her body, is equally as valid. More so, some would say, because statistically that would be more likely, and because in 10 years there is no evidence of an abductor. ''

There's no evidence of a murder.So the concealing of a body is void.If the evidence is ever allowed to stand and the DNA /scent/blood stands as a case, you're right. I'm wrong.But this is now. On your last thread you said you found people who quote statistics untrustworthy and 'creepy'. That was just after you told me 99.99% of abductions are carried out by family members or friends of them.

''The fact that the forensic evidence has failed to pass muster doesn't clear anyone, it simply means there is not enough to prosecute at that time. ''

It hasn't incriminated anyone either, which is a more valid point.

''But cold cases never really go cold Ziggy, advances in technology can solve cases years and even decades later. I would imagine in a high profile case such as this, the police will never give up.''

I agree with all of that except the final assertion. Science has moved on in the last 10 years. I don't know enough about the scientific analysis of the blood and DNA but i clearly remember, not too long ago, reading that it has dadvanced and that it can now 'read' at a deeper level. If that's the developments within the forensic community, then it is in the police community too. Which is why i don't agree with your final statement about the police never giving up. They might not WANT to give up, but police are under orders from above and those above are under orders from above them. Look at the children's homes case in Wales( Wrexham I think) and the copper who spoke out after it and who pointed the finger at the Freemason police involved. Look at the statements of police now who wanted to hang Savile by his eyelids. There's reasons things have to be stopped.And it has nothing to do with doctors or being a Brit.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 22:05
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 21:12

Ziggy Sawdust @16:44
....and it was all a cover up because..."
"But, back in the real world.....
"The Government have provided an unholy amount of money and iron-clad protection of the McCanns.
"...mission accomplished by those who have been pulling all the strings since May 04 2007"
What's the difference?''

When all is said and done there isn't much difference other than which cover up has been in place and why.
If the McCanns are ever charged and found guilty of what rumours suggest, it also implicates their friends. That would indicate that all the shelved evidence was discarded for no good reason other than to protect them. Those who made that choice would need to have a good reason to do so for a mere pair of holiday makers. The swiftness of the Government involving themselves-especially Gordon brown- would indicate that they had reasons to keep this charade going for so long. It's been too long to suspect an agenda to introduce a DNA bank or RFID . If a 'mystery' man is exposed as her abductor or killer following the hackneyed 'death bed confession' or 'prison confession' then, again, there's been a cover up unless said confession is limited to 'it was me!'.

The MSM are 'prepping' right now. The gullibility of the masses and the zeitgeist are under scrutiny. An agreed upon decision won't be long in coming.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 23:25
"There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted."

So are you saying she wasn't abducted?
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 23:47
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 23:25

"There is no evidence that Madeleine was abducted."

So are you saying she wasn't abducted?''

No. I'm saying what I've said more than once on more than one thread. Nobody- those who believe the McCannas are guilty, or those who believe she was abducted- can call on any evidence to support their stance. There isn't any. We have all the statements and all the recordings of events from various people- that's it. We can only believe in something or suspect something.That's why neither 'side' could win a battle in a court and why it's been ten years.
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 23:51
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 23:12

Scoff as you may, you'll see if i'm right or wrong :-)

''Oh dear, Ziggy. I much prefer the sensible Ziggy.''

( sensible Ziggy ? You realise in some quarters that would be considered libel ?)
ReplyDelete
Replies
ZiggySawdust30 March 2017 at 23:54
Anonymous30 March 2017 at 00:48

Your bitterness is disturbing. You should keep an eye on that.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

CRISTOBELL DECIDED

Saturday, 25 March 2017

MCCANNS LATEST NEWS UPDATE 27/3/17

132 comments:

About Me

Blog Archive

Donate button