Sunday, 19 March 2017

MCCANNS LATEST NEWS - SUNDAY 19.03.17

Retired police detective Sue Hill
The voice of sanity and reason
Ignoramus impressed by WHOPPING LIARS
Whilst the term 'hate site' has again reared it's ugly head, I should perhaps make clear, the purpose of my blog.  I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns are involved in their daughter's disappearance.  However, I did not start commenting on the parents and the case in general out of spite, but out of a strong sense of injustice.  Having studied this case in depth for many years, the only power I have to challenge this injustice, is by pointing out the fake news and the lies fed to the MSM by a very accomplished propaganda machine. Lies that can easily slip past the casual observers of this case.  

This week's news:

SUNDAY

EXPRESS  This week other McCann poodle James Murray is pestering the locals in the Algarve trying desperately to make something out of absolutely nothing.  We often forget the other victims of this sinister saga - the innocent men who's lives have been wrecked the heinous accusations of the world's most taboo crime.  Has James Murray gone soft (on the real victims), is he enjoying the sunshine or will Martin, Tracey et al shortly be joining him? 

SATURDAY

Tracey's spouting* off again on behalf of Kate, who spoke to her through an unnamed mum who runs the Facebook page as Webmaster.  Kate's furious apparently at people who are STEALING her book online - not on her own behalf of course, but on behalf of the publishers.  Touching as it is that she is concerned for her publishers, shouldn't her fury be directed at those who are shutting Operation Grange down?  Possibly her last hope of every finding her daughter?  The fact that your daughter is not your first and only priority arouses suspicion Kate.

Talking of ugly heads rearing, it appears Piers Morgan may be getting the 'exclusive 10 year interview'.  To be fair, I doubt there was much competition - fawning over the Mr and Mrs just before they are busted won't do anyone's career much good.  I'm so glad it's Piers.  Most of us know he is a colossal eejit, the 10 year interview will confirm it globally. 

The day before 16th March Tracey heaped more misery wrote an article on behalf of Kate and Gerry condemning the two crime experts who have come forward to state, in their opinion, Madeleine died in the apartment.  (Well done Pat, and nice pic!).  With friends like Tracey, I'm not sure the McCanns need enemies.  With this particular spinning roundabout, knives are being stuck in backs left right and centre.  It's difficult to keep track.  The easiest way, is to remember, money is the answer to every question. 

Yet again this week, the McCanns actions have raised suspicions about their involvement up several notches.  It is absurd that Kate is worried about people stealing her book - as the mother of a missing a child, 10 years on, she should be grateful anyone is reading it! 

Old hands who have followed this continuing saga, will recognise all the signs, a torrent of news stories usually means something is being hidden, or about to come to light.  In the old days it was sightings, these days, it's a shot in the dark that slipped through the net 10 years ago.  Nothing specific about it, no sources named, and absolutely no reason to fly out to PDL?  Or is something brewing?








*Now there's a word oft used on supporter sites such Stop the Myths and JATKY2.  It's the kind of word my mother would have described as having 'nae class'. 

274 comments:

  1. "it appears Piers Morgan may be getting the 'exclusive 10 year interview'"

    Organised through Scotland Yard, as Clarence Mitchell explained?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that what Clarence is claiming 08:48? Organised through Scotland Yard, hmmm.

      A few weeks ago Clarence said they had over 30 'offers' on the desk, in fact he began touting for the 10 year exclusive last year. I wonder why if all he had to do was consult SY's media department or the lead detective's showbiz agent.

      I suspect Gerry and Kate were buoyed by Piers' strong arm defence of them on Good Morning Britain. His words echoed exactly their own anger and outrage at the McCann critics, combined with a big auld dollop of treacly faux compassion for their plight. I have no doubt Gerry, Kate and Clarence were yelling at the screen 'that's our man'.

      Was Piers' pitching? Who knows, he's a seasoned old news hound, but his performance will assure the McCanns, they will get the soft, sympathetic interview they are looking for. They love nothing more than being told what absolute martyrs they are.

      Delete
    2. In case you missed it Ros,

      Piers Morgan is a MONUMENTAL fool with a very very short memory.


      Piers Morgan said that what the Mccanns did was fine and that he cant see the problem, only to be shown up by someone posting a video of him on GMB castigating a woman for popping to the shop a few meters from her house and leaving her 5 year old alone for a few minutes. He said, if you cant be bothered to look after your kids, then you shouldnt have them etc etc.

      link below,

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8mpVyEnHz0&feature=youtu.be

      With friends like that, who needs enemys.

      Also, it would appear that Ziggy Stardust is Insane from textusas blog. It flounced of from there when given no quarter, expect the same here.

      aFAN.

      Delete
  2. Arguição de Nulidade do Acórdão

    Below is a copy of the McCann's request for annulment of the Supreme Court´s decision, filed by the couple´s lawyer on the 16th of February, 2017. We understand that the filing of this appeal has a suspensive effect on the Supreme Court´s ruling.

    The request alleges that the Supreme Court´s decision "lacks a foundation (...) in stating that one cannot invoke the principle of presumption of innocence in order to restrict the right to freedom of expression, because it is based on the erroneous presumption that the archiving of the criminal investigation 'was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain enough indications of the practice of crimes by the appellants'".

    In case you are struggling with the legalese (we do), here is what we understand to be the reasoning behind the request:

    1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

    2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

    3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.

    http://pjga.blogspot.com/2017/03/arguicao-de-nulidade-do-acordao.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for posting that 08:57.

      I find it astounding to be honest that after all the time and money Goncalo Amaral has spent defending his freedom of expression, that the McCanns can suspend the decision of the Supreme Court with such a frivolous appeal.

      They are clearly playing for time because the legal costs of all their losses will almost certainly wipe out the Fund and indeed, all their personal assets.

      I think all their hopes were riding on the £1million+ they were demanding from GA. This loss for them is their biggest disaster. Not only did the Supreme Court fail to award them Goncalo's cash, they have lost everything.

      I sincerely hope their 'Appeal' is thrown out 08:57. They are demanding the kind of legal protection that isn't available to anyone. That they alone should have that kind of all encompassing protection of their 'good name' is a sign of their megalomania, that is, their insanity. It has no place in a Court of Law.

      Delete
    2. "I find it astounding to be honest that after all the time and money Goncalo Amaral has spent defending his freedom of expression, that the McCanns can suspend the decision of the Supreme Court with such a frivolous appeal."

      If you're innocent, this is not an unreasonable response.

      Delete
    3. Actually the case wasn't really about innocent or guilty 13:2, it was the McCanns' demand for the all the royalties from Goncalo's book and the proceeds from the [forced] sale of his family home. At the beginning of their action they demanded all his assets be seized.

      Gerry and Kate were not trying to clear their names with this case, they wanted hard cash.

      Delete
    4. I never mentioned the case or what it was about.

      The book accuses the McCanns of heinous things they didn't do. The McCanns, being innocent of the accusations, did what you would expect the innocent to do.

      Frivolous, the appeal is not. Whether it's wise is another thing.

      Delete
  3. Hi Rosalinda and others
    You write
    "Talking of ugly heads rearing, it appears Piers Morgan may be getting the 'exclusive 10 year interview'.
    I really hope so, because that might make people realise what a farce this really is.
    According to The Sun, this defender of the McCanns’ “mistake”, as he calls it, says;
    "The McCanns spend every day imagining their little girl being raped, tortured or murdered by a paedophile. There can't be anything worse”
    I dare say, that he has completely misunderstood the McCanns. They have, as far as I know, always believed that Madeleine is alive and they still do so. Has anybody ever heard the McCann couple say that they desperately want to find Madeleine’s body in order to find out who murdered her?
    When the S Y were digging in PDL, they didn’t even bother to go there, because they wouldn’t make people even consider the possibility of Madeleine being dead. The McCanns have vehemently rejected any suggestions about the alleged abduction of their daughter being a murder case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think we can safely judge Piers by the company he keeps Bjorn and the repugnant views he defends, most recently the belligerent, bratty, behaviour of Donald Trump towards Chancellor Merkel.

      I don't think I have ever heard Gerry and Kate talking about bringing Madeleine 'home', in the sense of her remains, Bjorn. Yet this need is just as powerful in families of the missing, as the need to find them alive. Winnie Johnson, the mother of Keith Bennett, spent her entire life searching the Moors for his body. She was there at every dig, bless her.

      Piers will no doubt help Gerry and Kate boost the idea that Madeleine is alive and findable. He has no problems in taking up unpopular causes, he seems to feed off the hate as much as his orange friend. But, as you say Bjorn, it should prove interesting!

      Delete
  4. The Mccanns know there is no evidence that can link them, in any physical way, to the fate of Madeleine.

    This has been confirmed to them by many officials in the UK and Portugal.

    They are not persons of interest and were 'cleared' of any involvement, by the PJ lifting their arguido status, in 2008.

    But in 2011 Kate writes a book in which she disparages sniffer dogs over many pages.

    She confirms Gerry spent many weeks researching where dogs had given false alerts. He arranged meetings with experts that would provide ammunition regarding sniffer dogs veracity.

    Why would a man whose daughter is missing waste so much time doing this?

    Not content, Kate cites two examples in her book to make a gullible reader think, there is a great doubt over sniffer dogs. But if one examines the details of both her quoted cases, the dogs had rightly alerted, in both cases.

    What a strange thing for two entirely innocent people to involve themselves in.

    If there was nothing for the dogs to detect, why do the dogs trouble the McCanns so much?

    Perhaps Mrs McCann could explain to her supporters, why she felt the need to lie over the dog cases she quoted, in her book.

    Is this why she is threatening to sue anybody questioning and quoting her drivel?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JJ. I think it has finally hit home that Kate's book is, on close reading and deconstruction, the longest confession in history, as I believe Blacksmith put it.

      But back to those darn dogs. They are the McCanns' Achilles Heel JJ. Whenever the dogs are mention Team McCann monitors go into overdrive. Even as we have seen here on my blog, they are prepared to go to any lengths to convince readers the findings of the dogs have been discarded.

      But as you have said, the more they try to discredit the dogs, the more suspicion they arouse. Kate's book is damning, she confirms that she and her husband were hostile to the findings of the dogs straightaway. She even recounts being shown the video of the dogs and sitting there like a belligerent yob, chanting 'f*cking to**er'.

      I suspect that far from being dismissed by Scotland Yard, the findings of the dogs will be used to lead any future prosecution. Gerry revealed just how important the dogs' evidence was to them, when he used his closing moments in the witness box to inform the Judge how useless they were.

      Scotland Yard would be the laughing stock of the world's police if they ignore the findings of the dogs JJ. They might just as well add the words 'Cover Up' to the label of their closing file and their final press release.

      That they have spent so much time and money following up so many leads that were exhausted ten years ago, is inexplicable JJ. Whilst I can see the McCanns can in their defence, blame Madeleine's disappearance on the 'one lead' that wasn't followed, it does appear they have followed any old wild goose chase simply to appease the parents.

      It could of course be, that it has taken so many years because there is a large number of defendants and a large number of cases to build?

      Delete
    2. JJ @10:40

      It's on a par with Kate's acknowledging the presence of 'body fluids' by coming up with excuses as to why the might have been found in a car's boot then later perjuring herself into oblivion in denying their very existence.

      Rosalinda @12:17

      "Scotland Yard would be the laughing stock of the world's police if they ignore the findings of the dogs JJ. They might just as well add the words 'Cover Up' to the label of their closing file and their final press release."

      Which is why we await the denouement of the case with such eager anticipation.

      Delete
    3. I think the man Jane Tanner saw looks remarkably like Richard D. Hall. I know he time-shifts, so it's as good a theory as anything the police have come up with so far. Can I have £85,000?

      Delete
  5. "I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns are involved in their daughter's disappearance."

    Why is Ros always so wishy washy, so vague, so imprecise? Because it's nonsense, that's why. No doubt she'll say it's because the McCanns are litigious, but that just proves my point - she can't back anything up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no proof of anything and there never was. The McCanns are not stupid and wouldn't have lied under oath at Leveson, they didn't need to.

      Sure a big story was told but that doesn't make it anything dark or sinister.

      I don't believe in abduction but Kate and Gerry are quite harmless and ordinary in my opinion.

      It was surely a terrible tragedy whatever happened and no matter which way one looks at it.

      In short, I feel sorry for the McCanns, the wider family and their true friends.

      Delete
    2. @14:50

      "There's no proof of anything and there never was."

      We're all figments of our own and others imagination.

      "Kate and Gerry are quite harmless"

      Except when it comes to inanimate objects like bed heads and walls it seems.

      "a terrible tragedy whatever happened"

      For the child, yes.

      Delete
    3. "Kate and Gerry are quite harmless"

      My punch bag certainly came in handy at times.

      Copyright © Kate McCann 2011

      Delete
    4. Surely she wasn't being serious.

      Delete
    5. @20:19

      Of course she wasn't being serious.

      “There have been many times when I’ve felt God has deserted me or that He has let Madeleine down. I’ve occasionally doubted His existence altogether. And yes, I’ve been angry with Him. I’ve shouted out loud and on occasion I’ve hit things (I’m afraid even the church pews have had the odd thumping!).” © Kate McCann

      Well, at least she didn't call him a fucking tosser.

      Delete
  6. I have always followed Piers Morgan but seeing him on GMB this week,I went off him and what I always thought was the voice of truth and reason.He was right about the guns in America and I thought he was so courageous.The McCann interview...I hope so much he will get to the truth about why Maddie's medical files were withheld and why the McCanns have always tried to discredit the findings of our dogs.I hope Piers has seen the honesty of Goncalo Amarel and maybe do an in depth interview with him.

    Piers is a very intelligent,perceptive man and what I ask of him is that after the interview he will let us know what he truly thinks happened to Maddie.Is that possible? Nowadays,we,the ordinary people just cannot trust anybody in charge. All those missing children and all that has been done for one,ignoring the others. Please do give us reason to trust the powers that be once again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Copyright question: If I were to copy an extract from Kate's book onto social media having found the extract elsewhere online, would Kate sue me, my source, the source of my source or all of us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kate McCann won't sue anyone. The plan is risky, but in terms of marketing, it is a good ploy.

      Delete
  8. Anonymous19 March 2017 at 08:57

    Good post. I said right after the decision and the ensuing online orgy celebrating Amaral's 'success' that the McCanns would go for the innocent until proven guilty route . Common sense I'd say, not frivolous at all . Logic alone says that if their assumed guilt is due to there not being enough evidence to charge them, then everyone else questioned is no less guilty. Amaral made the decision to spend time and money composing his literary work, he didn't have to. He should have been advised by his legal team that the content that basically calls the McCanns liars, and that they are at least party to their daughters real fate was a dangerous route to take if he couldn't back it up with evidence he could call upon in a court of law.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 March 2017 at 11:06

    ''I sincerely hope their 'Appeal' is thrown out 08:57''
    ''They are demanding the kind of legal protection that isn't available to anyone. ''

    Human Rights are available to everyone, no matter how deep your sincerity is to see them have none.

    ''That they alone should have that kind of all encompassing protection of their 'good name' is a sign of their megalomania, that is, their insanity. It has no place in a Court of Law.''

    What was their name before Madeleine disappeared ? Do you know ? Unless they've actually done something nasty or, as you and the crowd prefer- 'evil', then their name and reputation deserve to be upheld. Should it ever be proved that they were party to the death of their daughter and subsequent cover up as to her final resting place, then yes, your comments are valid.

    Björn19 March 2017 at 09:15

    ''When the S Y were digging in PDL, they didn’t even bother to go there, because they wouldn’t make people even consider the possibility of Madeleine being dead''

    The police have a duty to cover every base.That includes death.They don't have a duty to put on a show.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 March 2017 at 11:26

    ''I suspect Gerry and Kate were buoyed by Piers' strong arm defence ''

    You suspect.

    '' I have no doubt Gerry, Kate and Clarence were yelling at the screen 'that's our man'.''

    No doubt at all ? How come ?

    ''They love nothing more than being told what absolute martyrs they are.''

    Martyrs or victims ? If they display upset or anger over losing a daughter, that's normal.If they display it when accused of being liars and party to her abduction or death by the detective removed from the investigation, again, it's normal. If they are guilty of what bloggers say, then they deserve no sympathy.

    ''I suspect that far from being dismissed by Scotland Yard, the findings of the dogs will be used to lead any future prosecution.''

    The 'dogs' lifleline (again). If it IS used, will those who rejected the findings be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice ?Surely they should. I see no criticisms of them now though.

    ''"I believe beyond reasonable doubt that the McCanns are involved in their daughter's disappearance."

    What do you know that several detectives and scientists don't ? How do you think they all missed it ? Or do you think that they didn't miss it,and that they found it but were told to conspire to hide it-if so who by and why ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ziggy, do you also write inder the name Insane??

      Delete
  9. Rob19 March 2017 at 15:13

    ''I think the man Jane Tanner saw looks remarkably like Richard D. Hall. I know he time-shifts, so it's as good a theory as anything the police have come up with so far. Can I have £85,000?''

    And I think Richard D Hall is remarkably like Jonathon Ross. Never see them together either come to think about it.Get the dogs..we're on to this now...

    Anonymous19 March 2017 at 14:50

    Level headed, common sense thinking ( do you know where you're logged into ?).Refreshing.

    Anne Slade19 March 2017 at 14:30

    ''Piers is a very intelligent,perceptive man and what I ask of him is that after the interview he will let us know what he truly thinks happened to Maddie.Is that possible? ''

    He has never, in any of his 'guises'- including that of a judge on BGT(his true level) demonstrated any intelligence. He's an establishment puppet and he'd dance for loose change if they told him to. He can't say 'hello' unless somebody's passed him it on a script beforehand.

    Rob19 March 2017 at 14:52

    ''Copyright question: If I were to copy an extract from Kate's book onto social media having found the extract elsewhere online, would Kate sue me, my source, the source of my source or all of us?''

    No.You're including the original source.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Frivolous, phoney and false. Oh what a wonderful interview it will be with Morgan. Presume after Monday's Crimewatch (again) reconstruction, wonder who's behind that one, doesn't sound like the MET will be performing, or will they. Is this another grand stand gesture. But I would ask them sincerely to concentrate on 9.45 pm to 10.15 - amazing what happened in the time frame - the rest is just noise.

    '' he's a seasoned old news hound'' !

    It's strange, Morgan & Mitchell have so much in common. But for Morgan - is he the new bandwagon driver, he needs to watch out, since so many fall by the way side. Never to be seen again, except those who get 'the' well publicised email - now that was a bit of McCann oddball.

    But wait, folks does this mean we will get to see recent images of the McCanns. I mean MSM must find it so difficult to their cobble together 'Blue Peter' aka copy and paste storylines, with so much old material. Will we actually recognise them?

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only in my opinion- is no excuse against defamation and idiocy.

      Delete
    2. The McCanns' list of people to sue must run to thousands 17:56. They can't stop people having an opinion.

      Delete
    3. "The McCanns' list of people to sue must run to thousands 17:56. They can't stop people having an opinion."

      They don't have a list and they don't stop people having an opinion. For evidence of this, see Twitter, Facebook, this blog. In the past, they have drawn a line when opinion became libellous.

      Delete
    4. Oh, Moana.

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 March 2017 at 20:53
      "They can't stop people having an opinion."

      Indeed and you will agree that you can't stop me having an opinion about you and your blog with a donate button trying to make money by posting lies and allowing libel to be posted day after day.

      My opinion of you is that you are beneath contempt.

      So there you are Ros - my opinion of you which I am free to pass.

      Delete
    6. Good 22:04, I do hope that has made you feel better.

      I don't lie 22:04, I actually find lying abhorrent, and sometimes a little sad.

      In the case of Madeleine, the lies are evil, they are not to assist a small missing child or indeed any missing children. They are to protect the very people who made the child disappear. The crime doesn't become less heinous because the main suspects are respectable and middle class.

      That the McCanns have failed to convince the public is their fault not mine 22:04, and lord knows they have had enough help.

      I dispute that my blog is libellous. The McCanns choose to live a public life - they even paid Lord Bell £500k to keep them on the front pages for a year. The idea that they can give interviews, issue statements and press releases, then demand that no-one can discuss the contents negatively, is absurd. It is crazy to think that they do, and people like you are not helping them. They can no more shut down discussion on social media than King Canute could turn back the tide.

      Delete
    7. @ Ros 23.48

      "I dispute that my blog is libellous"

      Look at the comment MOANA19 March 2017 at 17:56

      adding "this in only my opinion" does not mean it is not libel.

      Delete
    8. I suspect your post may be more about libel than a genuine contribution Moana, especially as some seem to be here to goad me into saying something libellous. I've seen it all before, lol. Anyway, apologies Moana is you are genuine, but I have deleted your comment.

      Delete
    9. @ Ros 00.12

      why did it take you 6 hours to delete the comment?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To late insane. Textusa has already busted you on her blog. Not that anyone was buying your crap anyway

      Delete
  13. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 March 2017 at 11:52

    I think we can safely judge Piers by the company he keeps"

    Oh yes Ros - we certainly can judge people by the company they keep/kept!

    ReplyDelete
  14. @18:47

    You keep her company. Can we judge you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:22
      "You keep her company. Can we judge you?"
      I'm really impressed by some of you Britons, who can respond so brilliantly to nasty comments.

      Delete
    2. @ Anonymous19 March 2017 at 21:22

      I have never been in the company of Ros. I have never been for lunch and drinks with Ros - remind me who Ros had lunch and drinks with.

      I post on a newspaper website - do I "keep company" with all the other people who comment there?

      If you think that by making comments on here means you are being in company of Ros - then you are deluded.

      Delete
    3. Thanks Björn @22:03, I'm Dutch, lol.

      Delete
    4. @ Björn19 March 2017 at 22:03

      What was nasty about the comment at 18:47 which agreed with Ros?

      Delete
  15. Ros you say:

    "Having studied this case in depth for many years, the only power I have to challenge this injustice, is by pointing out the fake news and the lies fed to the MSM by a very accomplished propaganda machine. Lies that can easily slip past the casual observers of this case."

    So how about explaining the lie that you posted recently about there being "blood splatter" on the wall. If it was not a blatant lie by you who has studied the case in depth for years then you will have no problem in linking to the forensic evidence in the files of such "blood splatter" on the wall.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ok 22:15, what would you describe the spatter as? Ie. name that substance that was marked out with flags on the walls, the curtains, and the back of the sofa?

      I don't need to cite links 22:13, just google Madeleine McCann blood spatter, apartment, all the information appears.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton19 March 2017 at 23:20

      No Ros - just because areas where marked for testing is not good enough - it is the results of the tests that are important - show me the results of the 10 spots of "blood" that you say is "blood splatter" on the wall. Yes there are plenty of photos - but it is the forensic results that are important.

      If you want a truth blog that counters fake news then you must agree that showing facts is the only way to proceed.

      Delete
    3. Unknown at 23:50.

      Your facts 'there was no blood' is not the truth! It's part of an alternate reality created by the McCanns!

      The PJ files give a full and detailed account of all the samples taken - and with pictures! The blood dog, who was specifically trained to alert only to human blood, alerted behind the sofa. The cadaver dog, separately, alerted in the same place. The floor tiles were taken for analysis, along with swabs from the wall spatter, the curtains and the back of the sofa. It's all in the PJ files and available online 23:50.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous19 March 2017 at 20:02

    ''Ziggy, do you also write inder the name Insane??''

    No, I'm afraid not. I'll add that to the ever -growing list of names that have been attributed to me on this non-paranoid blog. I only contribute here now. I gave up on social networks in 2012. Too much crap, too many fools.Big haystacks, tiny needles =too much hard work.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I should also add Ros - yes this is a Mccann hate site/blog - and you encourage that hate and then try to hide behind "opinion".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Err, I'm not the one hiding 22:25.

      And I don't encourage hate. The opposite in fact. I'm the one calling for understanding and compassion, and I take a considerable amount of personal abuse for my stance.

      Truth is not hate 22:05, and on this blog, truth is all we are aiming for.

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @00:07

      Amen to that!

      Delete
  18. There's far too little to actually study 'in depth' in this case. If there was, it would have been solved by now. We have the alleged incident of the evening of May 3rd 2007. The McCanns statements to the detectives.The Murat statements. The eye witness statements ( all incredibly variable ). There's the forensic evidence that failed to pass muster with the Police and forensic teams. That's it. Everything else has been the speculation of thousands about what THEY suspect happened. Calling to the evidence of dogs to support their theories yet refusing to call the scientists liars or wrong. Referencing guitar tutors who are part time speech interpreters detecting lies for a small charge.Photoshop experts who have watched too many episodes of CSI and the like. Reading written words or listening to spoken words and, rather than just stopping there, adding subjective meanings to them( that fit their theory).Studying body language to spot the 'tells'. It's 20% facts 80% guesswork.Yet they wonder why ten years has failed to bring justice.

    Questions avoided ?

    1- If the 'dog's don't lie' then scientists must is that right ? They can't both be telling the truth can they ?

    2- If blood was visible on photographs it must have been hard to miss in the room-why the dogs to detect blood ? And what were the 'official' conclusions of the 'blood spatter' ?

    3- If evidence thus far rejected and left for ten years was used as evidence against the McCanns-do you think that would be realistic ? Or a strong case for the prosecution ?

    4-If you think politicians have been over-involved, police have sold us red herrings and other detectives wrongly removed and then we were subjected to 'spin' via MSM- can you really dismiss conspiracies ? Is it possible to hold those two positions simultaneously ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why would anyone believe the scientists and the police are lying? They haven't said anything! The scientists and police haven't ruled out the findings of the dogs Ziggy. That they may not be enough on their own to bring a case, doesn't mean they have been discarded. Every bit of evidence in this case will count.

      Nobody other than yourself is saying the old evidence has been rejected Ziggy. It is captured and preserved in time, ready no doubt, to be brought forward when the time is right.

      Read the police files with regard to the blood spatter Ziggy - it's all carefully detailed, photographed and annotated. Both the blood and cadaver dogs (separately), alerted to the tiles behind the sofa. The spatter was on the curtains and surrounding walls.

      Delete
  19. Anonymous19 March 2017 at 20:52

    ''To late insane. Textusa has already busted you on her blog. Not that anyone was buying your crap anyway''

    So somebody called 'anonymous' has told a stranger he thinks he 'knows' under another name (yet still can't see) that they have been 'busted' by another stranger calling itself Textusa. Brilliant. There comes a time when you need to sit down and ask yourself a question : ''Should I stop living online in a pretend matrix and get out more''.. What 'crap' are you referring to of mine ? Questioning the 'crap' i see ? Don't call it crap-destroy it and show it as crap. Alternatively, just stop typing it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 March 2017 at 15:39
    Did they check out the success rate of Eddie and Keela? British dogs, highly trained by Scotland Yard"

    I asked you before but you didn't answer Ros - were the dogs trained by Scotland Yard - or is it just another lie?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They were trained by their handler Martin Grime, a police snigger dog trainer with 35 years experience who now works with the FBI.

      I can see why you want to discredit the dogs 00:11, but given their reputation, you really are clutching at straws.

      Delete
    2. LOL, I did not mean a laughing 'snigger' dog, ha ha - it should have read 'sniffer'.

      Delete
    3. @ Ros 20 March 2017 at 08:01

      So you were wrong when you said the dogs were "highly trained by Scotland Yard"

      Delete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 March 2017 at 00:02

    ''Why would anyone believe the scientists and the police are lying? They haven't said anything! The scientists and police haven't ruled out the findings of the dogs Ziggy. That they may not be enough on their own to bring a case, doesn't mean they have been discarded''

    If the chorus is ''dog's don't lie'' it implies that the scientists do-or that they are wrong. There may be anomalies regarding the DNA and it's apparent failure to meet the requisite criteria, and it could even be argued-albeit at a stretch- that the scent of cadaver may be evidence of a body but it doesn't 'prove' that the body was that of Madeleine. But blood tells more truth than the barking dogs. If that blood-if it IS blood has Madeleine's DNA in it, the other 'ambiguous' evidence looks less ambiguous. That's enough to feed to a prosecutor to go to war with.

    ''Nobody other than yourself is saying the old evidence has been rejected Ziggy. It is captured and preserved in time, ready no doubt, to be brought forward when the time is right.''

    Nobody has changed their stories or recollections of the event in ten years.The evidence hasn't morphed into anything else either.I don't think it's off the wall to call that a rejection.I don't think I'm a lone voice when i say that. If it's strong enough to bring to the fight now, it was then too .

    ''Read the police files with regard to the blood spatter Ziggy - it's all carefully detailed, photographed and annotated. Both the blood and cadaver dogs (separately), alerted to the tiles behind the sofa. The spatter was on the curtains and surrounding walls.''

    I have. What do we make of the so-called 'conclusion' though ? As soon as the parents were named as official suspects, the BBC were allegedly reporting that blood splatter found was consistent with a broken neck or larynx. The picture painted was of carnage.That leads to the online sleuths pouncing on some 'emergency tracheotomy' as it's a good medical term and they were all doctors etc(none of whom managed to see the blood and think of cleaning it up before getting the police and hiding the body). Medical procedures aside, if that blood was the blood of Madeleine, it would have been a smoking gun.No dogs needed.And no feasible reason to say it was inconclusive. If they ( various investigators) were waiting for a 'right time', they should have used the growth of the tax payers money mountain as a gauge, not a clock.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scientists haven't said anything other than the DNA results were too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion. Ten years on, it's possible, imo, that advances in science may now make the result clearer. Should add, before you go off on one, the blood spatter is part of the evidence, not all of it. And btw, efforts had been made to clean 'it' up Ziggy, that's why the results were inclusive.

      Using tax payers money mountain as a gauge. Interesting. It could be those dogged detectives of Operation Grange, and indeed the PJ, are so determined to get their man (or woman), that they will do so at any price. We are all familiar with fictional police detectives begging for 'just another 24 hours.....'. OK that's not the same as begging for another 6 months and £85k, but hopefully you will get the gist.

      Delete
  22. Hi All,

    Reading some of these posts a few things I would like to mention. With reference to the Supreme Court rulings, they are right to say the McCanns have not been cleared due to the fact they have not been charged with anything. In my view they can only be cleared if they stand trial. Therefore I would agree that they are innocent until proven guilty. Also mentioned is they are more concerned about their own reputations than finding their missing daughter. Also they haven't sued Pat Brown, Peter Scharrenberg or Chelsea Hoffman who also debunked the abduction theory. One thing that has come to mind, with big names getting involved, why did they allow the sniffer dogs to investigate? Big mistake on their part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As Jim Gamble said on the release of the Summers and Swan book John, multiple British police agencies were falling over themselves to help the McCanns in those very early days.

      Something changed however, when British search expert Mark Harrison was brought in. I'm curious to know who gave him a call, Gerry claimed the dogs were brought in at HIS request (yeh, right, lol).

      I think this was the point where it all went horribly wrong for the McCanns, but it didn't stop them giving interviews saying the police were looking for a like child and an abductor. Most famously, the interview where Gerry went into meltdown when asked about the blood and dogs.

      Delete
    2. Hi John, Rosalinda and others.
      Yes, I too John, really did believe, that Gerry had asked for the sniffer dogs. Eventually, I realised that it was just another lie of all the McCanns' lies.

      Why would he bring Martin Grime's dogs to PDL, I thought to myself, when "those dogs" in particular, as he told Sandra Felgueiras are so "unreliable". If he did have a say in this matter, which he couldn't possibly have had, he could at least have chosen some "reliable" dogs instead.

      Delete
  23. Gerry and Kate's reaction to sniffer dogs hitting on McCann holiday apartment and rental car 'didn't make sense'

    http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/03/20/14/18/madeleine-mccann-cadaver-sniffer-dogs-reaction-apartment-car-didnt-make-sense

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mentioning the dogs certainly brings the pack out.

    If dogs are so notoriously unreliable why, on page 267/268 of her book madeleine, didn't Mrs Mccann cite two cases which prove that?

    Did she and her husband think that people would be too stupid to check?

    Mr Mccann knew, when speaking under oath at Leveson, that he was lying about what was in the book but still went ahead.

    Kate does not want anybody quoting her words in the book, as it proves she is a liar but read them for yourselves, top paragraph page 268.

    Is she barking mad, what is she on about?

    Does anybody know?

    Whoever wrote, the book is the longest suicide note in history, is very perceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hungary

    http://www.life.hu/csalad/20170320-madeleine-mccann-szulei-felnek-hogy-felelossegre-vonjak-oket.html

    “Egyesek szerint azonban a kislány eltűnése csak egy mese, és valójában a szülők gyermekük halálát akarják így eltussolni.”

    (Some say, however, that the disappearance of the little girl is just a fairy tale, and so the parents actually want to cover up the death of their child.)

    ReplyDelete
  26. Has it occurred to anyone that Robert murat could have been (or still is) a mi5/mi6 operative whose job was to cause confusion and even bring suspicion on himself to further muddy the waters?
    He could also have helped to hide and or move the body.
    In addition has anone thought that some pro mccann posters on questioning websites could also be spooks helping to keep the cover up going by influencing public opinion?
    A certain David Bowie fan perhaps lol?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @13:41

      "Has it occurred to anyone that Robert Murat could have been (or still is) a mi5/mi6 operative..."

      Yes.

      Back in the day, when children knew how to write they had 'pen pals'. No one thought to question the authenticity of their correspondent.

      Things are different now. Unless it's a known personal contact, we have absolutely no idea who we're dealing with. Avatars of dogs, 'creative' names and deliberate mis-use of language mean that little if anything can, or should, be taken on trust. The irony, however, is that words emanating from a computer screen tend to be, almost instinctively.

      The situation is a sophisticated analog of ELIZA, a very early example of programmable deceit.

      Hence we have a Blacksmith (who considers other peoples' work shoddy) and someone whose nom-de-plume has to do with wood shavings (and for all we know works at B&Q).

      Akin to our perceptions of the world around us, the character behind any of the words you see here is literally a mental construct on the reader's part.

      'We met on-line' (yeah, right). I think Rosalinda had a story of her own to tell in that context.

      Delete
  27. Hi everybody
    Talking about the dogs, I believe it's worth remembering, that one dog alerted to blood in the apartment, in the very same spot as the cadaver dog alerted for scent of death. They did so independently of one another. The DNA- profile of the blood residues matched that of Madeleine's (4 DNA markers were tested). If it wasn't Madeleine's blood, then it could have been that of Madeleine's sister, according to the laboratory report (their final report).

    However, Gerry himself said, that Madeleine sometimes had nose bleeding, but not anything about any of her siblings having had that. So he didn't deny the existence of blood (which one of the "unreliable" dogs had found), nor that it could have been Madeleine's, but dismissed the findings of the cadaver dog, whose findings he believes must have been the scent of fish (sea brass), which one of his children must have eaten in exactly the same spot, where Madeleine's or possibly her sister's blood was found. Is this one of Gerry's popular fairy tales, which he has read for so many years to their two children, making them fall asleep in a "natural" way.

    I haven't the files in front of me just now, so anyone may correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, this little part of the sniffer dogs' work and Gerry's attitude is quite enough to make me suspicious about the McCanns' innocence, even if I should disregard all other similar coincidences in this case, and there're a lot of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know how anyone can discard the dogs findings Bjorn. It wasn't one or two alerts, it was 11, and they only alerted to the McCann's property. The PJ files give a very detailed account, all the apartments were searched with the dogs, they only alerted in 5A.

      Delete
  28. #brendaleyland

    ReplyDelete
  29. Björn20 March 2017 at 09:54

    ''Hi John, Rosalinda and others.
    Yes, I too John, really did believe, that Gerry had asked for the sniffer dogs. Eventually, I realised that it was just another lie of all the McCanns' lies. ''

    Almost every comment that you make regarding the McCanns borders on obsessive hatred and irrational distrust.You comment about an interview you read in some tacky news rag or on some video and you then colour it with your bias.OK, you-like most- have made your opinion and feelings clear with regard to the McCanns.You think they're murderers and liars. And that's the positive part. Can you ever just read something or watch something and share your thoughts about the validity of what's said and why you think it ? Time and again you lose an apparent struggle to name call.You say how the McCanns 'appear' or how they 'seem'. You know that they're just guesses your making, right ? You sing the same song whatever the topic ; they /he/she lied or 'lied again' or 'another lie'. How about identifying these lies, then explaining why they're lies and what the actual truth is.Not guesses or speculation. You don't seem too shy about stating their lies, how about you stop being so shy about explaining to us all how you know for a fcat that they're lies. Back your claims up. Don't make snipes like 'yet another lie' or 'lying again'-back the comments up. I know 'evidence' is a dirty word, but sometimes it needs to be presented. Anyone can name call.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 March 2017 at 08:46

    '' Ten years on, it's possible, imo, that advances in science may now make the result clearer''

    I'm not sure but I think i read somewhere in the last year that DNA analysis had progressed.It can be analysed more deeply now.But, as i say, I'm not sure. If it does exist, there has to be a reason that SY /PJ and Leicestishire Police haven't looked again.
    When you say efforts had been made to clean it up, do mean the bleach ? I would have thought it would be easy enough to seperate bleach and blood under a microscope surely. That blood may not have been wet, but it was still relatively fresh.No smear or smudge marks ?

    The extra time required seems unrealistic on all fronts. It's time for a penalty shoot out and to stop pissing about. There's a loose cannon somewhere.It can't stay quiet much longer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ziggy
      In the Leveson inquiry Kate McCann declared and assured us all that there was no body fluid in the car, just the MSM telling lies, but there surely had been what we call body fluid, otherwise the cadaver dog wouldn’t have alerted for the scent of death.

      Did Kate ever mention anything about that? Certainly not, because she wasn’t explicitly asked about what the dogs had found, or if there had been any dogs at all. I claim that Kate McCann here deliberately and maliciously tried to mislead people, who listened to her, by withholding what was important in this specific question regarding her criticism of the British MSM, and that was of course, two dogs’ findings. Not telling the whole truth is also a LIE especially under oath.

      Delete
  30. John10020 March 2017 at 04:54

    Hi John 100

    '', they are right to say the McCanns have not been cleared due to the fact they have not been charged with anything. In my view they can only be cleared if they stand trial.''

    Technically, what would they be cleared of ? You can only be cleared of a charge or charges. They haven't been charged; nothing to clear.A trial isn't needed to clear-just a charge.I think it might be a matter of semantics being as we're talking about to different countries. maybe somethings lost in translation. A charge can be 'dropped' if one is made.It can be 'cleared' following a trial should the charge not be dropped.As we stand, with no charges made they are protected by the Human Rights act of innocent until proven guilty.

    ''Also mentioned is they are more concerned about their own reputations than finding their missing daughter''

    I've seen that too. It's madness.I think if i'd murdered someone i'd hide the body because i was concerned about being put in jail for the rest of my life-not because of my 'standing'.

    ''Also they haven't sued Pat Brown, Peter Scharrenberg or Chelsea Hoffman who also debunked the abduction theory''

    They're more subtle than the likes of hate blogs and their ilk.But, let's be clear here, they've ATTEMPTED to debunk.

    Pat Brown hedges her bets more than Ladbrokes.To give her some due credit, apart from her insane exploration of 'holy' sites in PDL and surrounding area, she's put some work in.And she does emphasise that she's theorising and not stating her claims as written in Pat Brown stone. She likes a lot of 'Ifs'.

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 March 2017 at 08:15

    ''Something changed however, when British search expert Mark Harrison was brought in. I'm curious to know who gave him a call''

    Thanks to a link from 'T', i trawled through his 'report'.I almost turned to drink.OK 10 out 10 for being 'thorough' but Jesus aitch Christ... I think at one point he tunnelled his way to Australia and started looking in their wheelie bins as well. Conclusions ?
    ''probably droipped in the sea''. So, nothing to see hear...move along....( some 'expert').

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anonymous20 March 2017 at 13:41

    Has it occurred to anyone that Robert murat could have been (or still is) a mi5/mi6 operative whose job was to cause confusion and even bring suspicion on himself to further muddy the waters?
    He could also have helped to hide and or move the body.
    In addition has anone thought that some pro mccann posters on questioning websites could also be spooks helping to keep the cover up going by influencing public opinion?
    A certain David Bowie fan perhaps lol?''

    Yes, you sussed my game. I might as well tell you all. I'm not Ziggy Sawdust- I am in fact.....( pause for effect)...Johnny English.

    I was sent by 'Q' as Bond is minding my sniffer dogs for a few months.I got he text 'Operation Online Paranoia'. I didn't need any other information.I knew what the rest of the briefing would be. I slapped Agent Sikorvsky on her back cheeks as she lay on my water bed weeping and lovelorn.I frowned handsomely and winked, 'i'll be back in time for the European Champions Cup Final, Shuggalips, I have to go see the boys in PDL..something about a bodge up''


    ReplyDelete
  32. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3133605/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-delete-find-maddie-faceboook-trolls/#comments

    From one of the comments:

    "Hi Tracy, I see you are back again.

    (...)

    In the meantime, its another day of posting about the McCanns source. Until tomorrow."

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hi Bjorn@14:00

    The cadaver dog was only trained to sniff out human cadaver, which gives off a scent after the body has been laying in the same spot after a number of hours. Hence the scent which was picked up in the rental car, which again Gerry explained was rotten meat. It's a shame the dogs didn't sniff out a lot more of the resort ie the parish church, the findings could have been interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Amaral the dogs went into the church

      Q: There was a story in a newspaper that the dogs followed a trace to the beach, is that true?
      A: No. Mark Harrison had made a schedule, a plan, for the dogs, where they should search. They have searched all the apartments, the villa, the cars, the church, the sewer pipes near the church, the beach, fields, but the only traces the dogs found were in the apartments and the car of the McCanns, some clothes, and the soft toy.

      Delete
    2. Hi John
      I've always thought that the church and their priests should have been more investigated than it "seems" they were, not just by the dogs.

      Delete
  34. Hi Ziggy@15:23

    Technically, what would they be cleared of ? You can only be cleared of a charge or charges. They haven't been charged.

    Exactly what are the McCanns looking to be cleared of?

    Are they going for the double jeopardy ruling?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Official archiving press statement 2008.

    Statement from the General Attorney Office


    NOTE TO THE MEDIA

    Through a dispatch dated of today (21.07.2008), delivered by both magistrates from the Public Ministry responsible for the case, the archiving of the inquest concerning the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann was determined, for not having obtained evidence of the practice of any crime by the arguidos.

    II

    Therefore, the arguido status of Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, ceases and the coercion measures that were imposed on them are declared extinct.

    III

    The hierarchical complaint, the request for the opening of an instruction process or the reopening of the inquest, may take place, if required by those who have the legitimacy to do so.

    IV

    The inquiry may be reopened by initiative of the Public Ministry or at the request of anyone interested, if new elements of proof arise that give origin to new serious, pertinent and consequent diligences.

    V

    After the legal deadlines, the process may be consulted by anyone who reveals a legitimate interest in it, given that the formalism and limits imposed by law are respected.

    Lisbon, July 21, 2008

    The Press Cabinet

    Ana Lima

    ReplyDelete
  36. Soon in your bookshop:
    THE BIBLE OF TRUTH
    by Ziggy Sawdust
    (with a foreword of Summers and Swan)

    ReplyDelete
  37. John10020 March 2017 at 16:30

    ''Exactly what are the McCanns looking to be cleared of?
    Are they going for the double jeopardy ruling?''

    I don't think that would come into play until a first charge had been made.

    It looks like 'Anonymous20 March 2017 at 17:02' up there ^^^^
    Has cleared things up, however.


    'Anonymous20 March 2017 at 18:21'

    ''Soon in your bookshop:
    THE BIBLE OF TRUTH
    by Ziggy Sawdust
    (with a foreword of Summers and Swan)''

    Bless you my child. May whoever you are being today go in peace. And may your paranoid delusions never darken your fragile mind again.For mine is the Kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever, amen.

    Namaste

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I wanted to read. Thx.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Björn20 March 2017 at 19:17

      ''Hi Ziggy
      In the Leveson inquiry Kate McCann declared and assured us all that there was no body fluid in the car, just the MSM telling lies, but there surely had been what we call body fluid, otherwise the cadaver dog wouldn’t have alerted for the scent of death.''

      Bjorn, In her opinion that was true. She was asked and gave her answer.She can't give anyone elses answer. If the MSM were being accused of lying, the MSM have a right to report that they weren't lying and clear it up. Did they ? Or had the MSM reported something they had been told that wasn't scientifically provable, thus making it 'technically' untrue rather than a deliberate lie ?

      Cadaver scent and bodily fluids are separate things. Often , each area has it's own specially trained dog. It's possible to detect the scent of death and no blood-and vice versa. it's possible that two dogs can spot blood or death scent. It's also possible to detect neither if neither are present. The questions are the domain of forensic scientists and the police. Not a GP or Dr of any kind and definitely not a member of the public.Only experts in the field-specifically those who had examined the findings in this case- should be called to answer those questions. Any 'accused' or 'suspect' will always deny the findings.But so would any 'innocent' witness.

      ''Did Kate ever mention anything about that? Certainly not, because she wasn’t explicitly asked about what the dogs had found''

      Why are you condemning somebody for not answering a question that nobody asked them ?

      ''I claim that Kate McCann here deliberately and maliciously tried to mislead people''

      Yes, I gathered that a few dozen times.Claims need supporting evidence if they are to be taken seriously. Opinions are ten-a-penny.If, as you say, she was trying to 'maliciously mislead' it would be to stay out of jail.That's not malicious-her lies don't hurt you, me or anyone outside of her circle.They would be for self preservation only.

      ''Not telling the whole truth is also a LIE especially under oath.''

      True to a point. But it's also dangerous.A half decent prosecution could then set about the suspect and publicly dismantle the lies and all that would be left would be the truth. Why is that such a mountain to climb when so many statements, confessions, lies, and forensic evidence are ALL standing against the McCanns ? Any ideas ? Anyone ?

      Delete
  39. Sure. In a blue bag. :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it has been discussed in depth on the cesspit Ziggy. I gave it no credence then and I give it no credence now.

      It is yet another conspiracy theory to spice the story up from the usual loons.

      Delete
  41. A photo taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background, has never been published. Why not? Surely they wouldn’t want further conspiracy theories to fester, would they?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why do you or Bennett have the right to know?
      The police have the necessary information, end of.

      Delete
  42. Hi Ziggy,

    I find your posts if you don't mind me saying quite contradictory, either the dogs in question did or didn't alert the authorities.What was their speciality human blood or human cadaver. I believe this will be the crux of this investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Anonymous@21:29

    Can I ask which photo, never been published?

    ReplyDelete
  44. John10020 March 2017 at 21:48
    ''Hi Ziggy,

    I find your posts if you don't mind me saying quite contradictory, either the dogs in question did or didn't alert the authorities.''


    ''What was their speciality human blood or human cadaver. I believe this will be the crux of this investigation.''

    No problem, John 100. You can have different dogs with different specialities ; cadaver;blood;bombs;sausages, and so on.

    I say they alerted the police detectives and those who witnessed the performance( it was filmed too). What I'm questioning is whether the findings alerted or impressed the forensics team who then studied the evidence.If it would have done, that would have been the smoking gun-or close to one- that brought a case to court. They said it was 'inconclusive'. Hence me questioning if they are /were telling the truth, if the dogs didn't lie.Sometimes, 'inconclusive' is a cop out. It's the scientists equivalent of the MSM's ' a source close to'. It's bad form either way. If it was inconclusive, they should have looked deeper or more closely. I'm reminded of part of the 'daddy' of them all- the JFK assassination.
    A shell was found in the School Book Depository 6th floor and had a print on it. It wasn't in Oswald's 'snipers nest'. It was passed to the top man in the business for analysis. The measure was something like 15-18 specific markers would be needed to use it as a definitive identification. It had around 30. Unfortunately, it belonged to a close friend ( personally and in business) of L B Johnson, who had just been sworn in. Who it belonged to was later to face jail for other similar crimes and then face an 'accident'.

    The shell finger print was rejected without explanation by that fine body of incompetent criminals we know and love as the F B I .

    ReplyDelete
  45. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  46. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. seen all of the events first hand?

      Wow. Now he sounds like someone the PJ should have interrogated good style if he had 'seen all of the events first hand.'

      If his photos are genuine, and they really did capture Madeleine in the background, maybe that's why Amaral was confident that Madeleine did die early evening on May 3rd.

      And those photos would blow out of the water all the theories that she had died earlier in the week (Hall, Bennett, Hide Ho etc).

      Delete
    2. One of the first things the police in a missing person case establish, is the last time the missing person was seen alive. It is kind of integral to, well, everything.

      Those claiming Madeleine died earlier in the week are a shower of eejits, to even think they know better than Goncalo Amaral and his team of detectives who were there on the ground. They are researching 10 year old evidence from their armchairs in Canada and the UK.

      The idea that these people carried on with their holiday for 5 (?) days with the body of a child in the wardrobe is absurd - and also a bit sick.

      Delete
    3. @01:23

      "They are researching 10 year old evidence..."

      The evidence to which you allude is not bio-degradable and was not filed with a 'valid until' sticker attached.

      Every cold case anywhere begins with a review of the known evidence, no matter how old (with perhaps one exception).

      "Those claiming Madeleine died earlier in the week are a shower of eejits..." In your opinion. Hardly a balanced viewpoint.

      I would suggest, with respect, that you give a little more thought to what you say, as well as that '10 year old' evidence on which you base your accusation.

      "The idea that these people carried on with their holiday for 5 (?) days with the body of a child in the wardrobe is absurd..."

      That would depend entirely on the location of 'the wardrobe'.

      Delete
    4. Rosalinda @01:23

      How about some 9 year old hearsay then...

      EXCLUSIVE TRUTH ABOUT THE McCANNS: BY TOP UK CRIME CRACKER

      By Marcello Mega and Daniel Jones

      Daniel.Jones@People.Co.Uk
      27 January 2008

      "The couple met Wyre, 56, to discuss setting up an international taskforce to help cops trace missing children.

      "They poured out their hearts to him and his wife Charmaine over dinner at the ace criminologist's home in Milton Keynes, Bucks."

      (meanwhile, further down the page)

      "He said: “For three days, all they could see in their minds was Madeleine lying dead. They were in complete agreement she'd been taken by a predator, abused and killed.

      “They were certain they would never see her alive again.

      January 2008 and the couple are in 'complete agreement' their daughter has been 'killed'.

      The 'find maddie' fund has been fraudulent ever since, if not sooner. (There's already an American outfit calling themselves 'Necrosearch'. I don't believe the McCanns' intention was to found another such).

      Delete
  48. @Anonymous 20 March 2017 at 22:09

    "The police have the necessary information, end of."

    In the McCann PJ files?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do a Bennett and write to the PJ/Leicester police for confirmation.

      Delete
    2. I get the feeling this line of discussion is being encouraged to be shut down.

      Delete
  49. Key to the case perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ros

    You may not like censorship but you are responsible for the latest drivel on this blog.

    To draw attention away from the dogs, the latest crap is direct from CMOMM, including Bennett's actual letters.

    The moron Ziggy among others, points out people fleeing PDL and other nonsense. Phillip Edmonds is NOT Margaret Hodge's son but Ziggy cannot read so why does he post lie after lie?

    This is not reasonable discussion, it is a campaign to shut down this blog.

    Please sit and think about it. Are you really reading this nonsense? A solicitor may well be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you JJ, I was having a bit of moral dilemma with those comments, I have deleted them.

      I think I am presently under attack from those who would like to see my blog shut down. Thank you for your help JJ, much appreciated.

      Delete
    2. I posted Bennett's letter because postings were made concerning Edmonds and the photograph.

      Under attack by who, I am not, nor ever will be a member of Haverns.

      If you are that worried about being shut down you had better stop blogging, one doesn't need legal training to see the potential libel that is continually posted by yourself and others.

      Delete
    3. Truth is not libel 15:39, when I say I don't believe the McCanns, I am telling the truth! Ditto when I say WHY I don't believe the McCanns.

      Quite clearly, many others don't believe the McCanns either, and despite all their efforts, the McCanns have failed to make not believing them a criminal offence.

      I deleted your post, because you, like CMoMM were dragging in bystanders and trying to implicate them on the spurious accusations of Richard Hall and Tony Bennett.

      Richard Hall and Tony Bennett are trying to fabricate a paedophile network that runs from PDL right through the British establishment. They have got nothing on which to base this, therefore THEY ARE MAKING IT UP. They are professional liars hung up on deviant sex. So too Textusa, who has it in her head, the family resort of Warners, PDL, was Orgy Central.

      My blog will continue exposing the lies, not only from the McCanns and the mainstream media, but also the lies of those morally bereft shysters who are stalking and intimidating names they are cherry picking from the PJ files.

      Delete
  51. Can I just say that I have never posted anywhere else on this subject but the deleted posts of mine are in no way to close down any blogs but merely to put across things that have been bothering me for years. And yes I pointed out the possibility that murat is mi6 and am concerned someone who left the resort has not to my knowledge made any statement.

    ReplyDelete
  52. My Bad

    I should have said nephew - not son.

    That doesn't make me a moron.

    The dogs are in discussion again and always will be. Apparently they're 'pivotal' to everything( even after 10 years).Discussing them in a bit more depth and questioning why scientists and police haven't delved deeper or given up is relevant. If nothing else it opens discussion up and makes it less tiring.

    I don't appreciate having words put into my mouth by people who have little or no control of those that pour from their own mouth. Just because they hate and i don't, doesn't make them right or me wrong.

    I made a mistake i'm admitting to-nephew /son. The rest of what i've said, including the post not published and the posts removed, i stand by.I'm big enough to admit that. I haven't come across anything from anyone on the blog that i can say qualifies the author to call me a moron or the usual immature 'mentally ill'( etc etc) bullshit.

    Often, oddballs and obsessives do more damage than shills.

    On censorship. Ros wouldn't need to consider censoring if self control and self censorship were considered by a minority of 'experts' who have things wrapped up nicely and can't see the wood for the trees and their own ego. Their facts and their conviction in their theories have contributed nothing to the case in ten years. Nothing and nobody has.Discussion and debate require alternative views. refusing to consider this isn't discussing or debating -it's preaching. It's mutual backslapping by those who share a view- even if that view has never been proven to be the right one.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Apologies 15:37, it was not my intention to offend you. Sadly, as much as I try to keep my blog a paranoia free zone, there are dark forces out there and something is brewing!

    Your final sentence - '.......someone who left the resort has not to my knowledge made any statement'.

    This sums up my argument that the armchair detectives are 'working on 10 year old files'. You don't know, I don't know, in fact no-one outside of the official investigations, knows, what lines of enquiry have been followed since the original investigation was shelved.

    They also don't know the contents of all the files that were withheld. Those involving bystanders who's names they took from the original files are 'working' on pure speculation and supposition. And by those, I mean Bennett, Hall and HideHo. And by working, I mean harassing and stalking witnesses.

    As for Robert Murat being MI6? Seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  54. They don't all look like 007.It's the ones you least expect. All part of the cover.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous21 March 2017 at 16:40

      ''They don't all look like 007.It's the ones you least expect. All part of the cover.''

      I couldn't agree more. But I can't see Murat as an'asset' to MI5 , MI6 or MoD, Home Office etc. He was made too high profile in this case and that would have been dangerous.Yes, as a distraction or decoy, i see your point. But Murat 's statements and apparent lapses of memory don't add up to someone slick enough or sharp enough to be placed in any situation that would equate to a threat to national security( that already old chestnut) or politically sensitive areas.

      It's a convenient term -'asset'- when talking all things espionage. It often means little more than the 'asset' was merely towing the official line. A newspaper editor or mogul can be considered an 'asset' if they promote or suppress what the Government tell them to.It doesn't mean they lead a double life involving slipping out under the cover of darkness in a Tux and sunglasses to hit the Roulette tables. It just means they're puppets and will be 'paid' off -grid; favour for a favour and so on. You could probably fill Wembley Stadium with MI5 / 6 assets when you look at the UK's antics from Blair onward. Our intelligence and the CIA make the SS of Germany look quiet.

      As i've stated here, i have been interested in the involvement of so many politicians from day one. I've wondered often about their apparent determination to 'keep it dark'( a secret in other words) regarding the real 'facts' that surround the McCann case. Their presence has been too loud and too efficient for a run of the mill 'incident abroad' .

      Blair, Brown, Beckett and May are the four biggest names in the area you're interested in.That's my opinion.

      You might have this site already bookmarked, if not have a walk around it. It's interesting.

      http://www.darkpolitricks.com/david-shayler-tony-blair-was-an-mi5-spy/

      Delete
  55. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 March 2017 at 16:14

    ''And by those, I mean Bennett, Hall and HideHo. And by working, I mean harassing and stalking witnesses. ''

    I don't know about any of that, but it sounds right.What i would say is the referring to Bennett, Hall and HideHo ( I admit I haven't heard about the last -named) and their blinkered view / tunnel vision is giving them a sort of free promotion, even though that isn't the intention. I've saw, a long time ago, the 'flavour', shall we say, of the Bennett hate site and i watched Hall's vids a long time ago.I didn't need to spend much time in the former to see what it was, and the latter, while ( i believe) is well intentioned and less angry,can still mislead and shut down alternative views if over - promoted. Should you, or anyone who contributes on this blog, really be giving 'free advertising' to them ?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rosalinda & others,

    A matter of information pollution with association I think. Independently of persons and their theories, the fact remains it has been confirmed that information, including photos with Madeleine in the background (taken on the day she disappeared), was passed to the police and to the McCanns. I don't do Bennett, Facebook and Twitter. It’s all in the public domain.

    Also in the McCann PJ files, I wonder.

    NL

    ReplyDelete
  57. This blog is now a laughing stock - you allow JJ to post rubbish and bjorn to say whatever he/she wants and delete comments that simply state the truth.

    Any conspiracy is acceptable here the truth is not.

    Just to make things clear - I don't diss the dogs - I look at the files and see what Grime says and accept it.

    The anti Mccanns dismiss what Grime says and say that the dogs prove that Madeleine died in the apartment. There is not one shred of evidence that even if she did, the Mccanns were responsible for her death.

    The anti/haters of the Mccanns are in denial - if the dogs were so fantastic and were never wrong then the Mccanns would have been locked up long ago - cue the only answer they are not - conspiracy to hide what happened.

    Take away conspiracy, look at the simple facts and work from there.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Complaint to Supreme Court rejected!

    INDEFERIDA

    http://www.stj.pt/ficheiros/tabelas/Decididas/Civeis/1s-2017-03-21.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  59. Mccanns appeal of the verdict has been rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  60. If the reported news about the aplication for review/annulment being rejected is true (and I suspect that it is) then the Mcanns have complied with all requirements to complete all action in Portuguese Courts and can now proceed to ECHR.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks EF - and I'm glad to hear it.

      Are the McCanns really going to the ECHR? They have no case, they have no support, and more importantly, they can't possibly have the money.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 20.30

      They have my support.

      Delete
    3. @ 21:22

      And mine. Ros bases her statement on what she finds in the dustbins she rakes around in.

      Delete
    4. Kudos on your wit there 23:00 - hope you feel better for that :)

      Delete
  61. Anonymous21 March 2017 at 17:35

    ''Any conspiracy is acceptable here the truth is not.''

    How do you know, or how can anyone know, that conspiracies were never agreed upon in this case ? It could be political ones, it could be within the Met, it could be the forensics teams or even the Tapas group. The face of the case tells nowhere near enough for anyone to say what is 'truth' and what isn't. The ten year span is the clue.

    ''Just to make things clear - I don't diss the dogs - I look at the files and see what Grime says and accept it.''

    Somebody, somewhere questioned it and must have thought differently. Like you, I question who and wonder why.

    ''There is not one shred of evidence that even if she did, the Mccanns were responsible for her death''

    This is the crux of it all. The 'if' she died and the 'evidence that incriminates'. The official narrative as composed by the PJ who eventually were installed to investigate, the Met, and forensics haven't found anything concrete- or so they tell us. So we're left with no more than (officially) circumstantial evidence and suspicion.
    ''Take away conspiracy, look at the simple facts and work from there.''
    Square one. The engine failed.We're still at the starting line, unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @19:53

      "We're still at the starting line, unfortunately."

      You might be. No one else has heard a 'recall' though.

      Delete
  62. It was always going to be routed to the Human Rights people since the judge in the libel hearing made the decision in Amaral's favour. This is just the wheels of bureaucracy turning.It will be overturned. The McCanns and, hopefully, Amaral, will come out of it with minimal financial damage and a lot wiser. The McCanns can prioritise Madeleine's fate and Amaral can talk more about how he feels he was treated and why.Now that's a book I'd read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye rite dream on Ziggy they have tried for years to try and force a Portuguese court to make them look innocent. It's the end of the road for them. The ECHR will chase them

      Delete
    2. I don't know much about the ECHR [and would be grateful if anyone does?], but the criteria to be accepted is pretty high. That is, the McCann will have to compete with equally worthy, or more worthy, lost legal cases from all over Europe. There is no guarantee it will ever be accepted.

      That happy ever after where all parties go away with minimal costs will ever happen Ziggy. The costs have already been incurred, over 8 years. All those high price lawyers, who failed to get Gerry and Kate what they wanted, still have to be paid. So too all those lawyers that GA and his producers had to employ to defend their property and assets from the McCanns.

      Perhaps the McCanns have a case against their lawyers for giving them frivolous advice?

      Delete
  63. McCann’s “frivolity” complaint rejected. Gonçalo Amaral’s ‘libel win’ confirmed for 3rd time

    http://portugalresident.com/mccann%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cfrivolity%E2%80%9D-complaint-rejected-gon%C3%A7alo-amaral%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%98libel-win%E2%80%99-confirmed-for-3rd-time

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton21 March 2017 at 20:30 :

      ''Many thanks EF - and I'm glad to hear it.
      Are the McCanns really going to the ECHR? They have no case, they have no support, and more importantly, they can't possibly have the money.''

      Dare I ask - why glad to hear it ? Every human has rights , or supposedly have rights. I don't think you need support to make an appeal, just a decent case.

      It's very trendy for right wingers to slate the rights of people. The same people,incidentally, who call Hitler and other despots psychopathic dictators. Cameron used to look like Hitler if the subject was raised( he made no secret of his mission to remove them bit by bit, just as America have. Nazism as an aspiration- that's what we're living with now, nice innit ?). You could see his lizardy little lips tighten and his shiny face turn maroon.

      At the end of the day, an appeal will succeed or fail depending on how sturdy it's legs are.That's the bottom line here. It isn't in Portugal or the UK.

      on rights :

      http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf

      on hypocrites :

      https://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/dec/22/britain-european-court-human-rights

      Delete
    2. The McCanns have been told by numerous Portuguese Courts and appeal Courts that Goncalo Amaral's book is not libellous and they are not entitled to compensation.

      Their refusal to accept the decisions of all the Courts is merely prolonging the agony for everyone.

      Their last appeal was a farce, one they tried to duck out of a couple of years prior to the hearing because they knew it had no legs. Their witnesses were poor, and probably did more damage than good. And that is a situation that will not improve for any hearing before the ECHRs. Time has not been kind to the abduction story Ziggy, many people are looking back and asking wtf were we thinking, ie. how did we fall for it.

      The idea that the European Court of Human Rights will force a former detective to pay vast amounts of money to former suspects in serious crime that has not been solved, is ridiculous. Particularly as those former suspects were never cleared by the police investigation.

      But of course, it's not just a matter of whether the parents are implicated or not, it's a matter of freedom of speech. If a former detective is not allowed to write about his life and work, then every European Country will have to clear out the Crime Sections from their national libraries and bookshelves from their shops.

      These former suspects who refused to answer questions and co-operate with the police are demanding that only their side of the story (Kate's book Madeleine)should be available to the public. They can and have accused Goncalo Amaral and the PJ of botching the investigation into their daughter's disappearance, and they want it written into the Law, that none of these detectives, who's reputations they have smeared, should have the right to reply.

      They haven't a hope in hell Ziggy and I suspect they know it. They are of course putting off, what must be, record legal costs. I would love to know what the final figures is, I can imagine it's mindblowing.

      Delete
  64. Anonymous21 March 2017 at 21:27

    ''Aye rite dream on Ziggy they have tried for years to try and force a Portuguese court to make them look innocent. It's the end of the road for them. The ECHR will chase them''

    It's a bit more subtle than that ( surprisingly).They've tried to have what they consider smears about them removed from a publication as the courts ( in any country) haven't seen them charged and brought to trial up to now. Their 'case', for want of a better word, is that they have yet to be charged by anyone in ten years for a crime.This being the state of play, they contend that any accusations of them either being responsible for the death of their child, or the covering up of her whereabouts following an accident, are libellous and defamatory. The book was published on the grounds that the author is allowed to write a 'literary work'. In other words, but it, read it, draw your own conclusions, but bear in mind that you're only coming to conclusions based on somebody elses opinions-not proven fact. He got in through a side door, basically.

    The word 'frivolous' is quite fashionable in this little battle.It could also be argued that it applies to someone publishing a book of opinions that is obviously intended to be taken as facts.They're just dressed in the clothes of 'literature'.Some would say that's clever. Some would say it's lucky. It will, ultimately, be decided by the ECHR. This is the laws of Libel on trial as much, or even more, than possible suspects of an abduction or worse crime.It's a sorry state of affairs that somewhere, miles away for all we know, a little girl got lost.

    I'm shocked that the recent 'headline' about the investigation 'concentrating on one man ' and needing six months only (as they have only that one suspect in mind) hasn't been joined to the other dot of today's apparent 'loss' suffered by the Mccanns only days later.I suspect the elite detective agencies of Twitter have put their heads together en masse and put this through it's paces. Be careful in there. That's an awful lot of sawdust to breathe in. I'm the only sawdust that's good for you.You know it makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "I think I am presently under attack from those who would like to see my blog shut down."

    Nonsense. The greater threat to the blog is that it goes the way of the #McCann tag, where the pros got bored with the nonsense and left to get on with their lives, leaving the daft bats to incite each other to increasing lunacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "the pros got bored with the nonsense..."

      I detect a misspelt possesive

      Delete
    2. And a misspelling of my own (must be catching).

      Make that a possessive if you please.

      Delete
  66. "Truth is not libel 15:39, when I say I don't believe the McCanns, I am telling the truth! Ditto when I say WHY I don't believe the McCanns. "

    LOL. Good luck with that! I think you have to be able to prove a 'truth' in a libel case.

    PS When can we expect you to tell us what you believe happened rather than simply saying why you don't believe the McCanns? Libel, that's why!

    ReplyDelete
  67. So in order to say I don't believe the McCanns I have to prove they dunnit? LOL right back at ya. These are not medieval times where people can be forced to believe with thumbscrews and a hot poker. I don't believe them and you can't make me!

    I believe the most likely scenario is the one described by Goncalo Amaral in his book 'The Truth of the Lie'. A theory that perfectly fits the findings of the dogs behind the sofa, in the hire car and on cuddlecat and Kate's clothes.

    Goncalo Amaral is a detective with over 30 years experience and a highly educated man. I respect his wisdom, his knowledge, his natural compassion and of course the fact that he was actually there!

    If you, the McCanns, or indeed their lawyers, are watching everything I say, then you truly have lost the plot. Shouldn't your priority be searching for the missing child?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 00:48

    ''I believe the most likely scenario is the one described by Goncalo Amaral in his book 'The Truth of the Lie'. A theory that perfectly fits the findings of the dogs behind the sofa, in the hire car and on cuddlecat and Kate's clothes.''

    And, if your theory is right, the evidence will be presented and it will be a home run for Amaral. I'll give you 20 / 1 on that happening. it's too late to present all of that and say 'whoops' when asked why the delay.

    ''Goncalo Amaral is a detective with over 30 years experience and a highly educated man. I respect his wisdom, his knowledge, his natural compassion''

    His natural compassion is debatable depending on which rumours you buy regarding his tangled love life and leisure activities.His 30 years experience, wisdom and high education didn't dissuade his superiors from removing him from the case. Don't get me wrong, I think they were wrong to do that.I think they have more to answer than Amaral has. Why hasn't anyone grilled them ?

    ''Shouldn't your priority be searching for the missing child?''

    And the rest of the members of the circus..same question to all


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeez Ziggy, you have got some kind of thick skull that it still hasn't entered your head that the dogs findings ON THEIR OWN are not enough to bring a prosecution.

      The case was shelved in 2008 because there was not enough evidence Ziggy, is it the NOT ENOUGH that is confusing you? If, as you claim, you are a watcher of real crime documentaries, you will know that evidence for the prosecution is made up of any components. Particularly where there is no actual 'smoking gun' or, as in this case, a body.

      I don't condemn anyone for having a tangled love life and 'leisure activities' (whatever they might be, lol), in fact I would go so far as calling it an admirable trait. I don't actually trust sober, god fearing, obedient husbands, they kind of freak me out. Goncalo I understand. He's a tough old thief taker who has probably seen and heard stuff that would give the rest of us eternal nightmares. Not everyone unwinds by going for a run.

      We don't know who has been questioned Ziggy, everything is guesswork, including your suggestion that GA's superiors haven't been questioned. How do you know?

      Your final sentence makes no sense Ziggy. We can't search for Madeleine. Most of us would not be so impolite as to scrutinize random 13 year old blonde girls. That's just creepy.

      The only logical place to search for Madeleine would be those 'barren wastelands' of PDL. It may be that Gerry and Kate still have enough support to organise a search party of volunteers to comb the area?

      At what point will Gerry and Kate accept that Madeleine is not alive? At what point does hope cross over and become delusion? Is it morally correct to keep saying 'there there' to the deluded? Does shutting out reality ever really work?

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda @05:01

      "At what point will Gerry and Kate accept that Madeleine is not alive?"

      A: 27 January, 2008

      (See up thread 21.3 @12:48)

      Delete
    3. Hi Rosalinda

      "At what point will Gerry and Kate accept that Madeleine is not alive?", you ask yourself Rosalinda.

      Perhaps we should instead ask; when will Gerry and Kate stop pretending not to accept that Madeleine is dead?

      The answer to that would be, that they gave up their faked hopes of finding Madeleine two or three years ago I'd say, as they haven't even tried to use MSM or other channels to talk directly to Madeleine, which would be the most reasonable thing to do for any parent, who believes their missing daughter is still alive. FGS Madeleine would be 13 now if she were still alive. Wouldn't it be reasonable, from the McCanns' perspective, to turn to all girls, who are about that age today, who have, or have had an eye defect and who haven't been shown any photos of themselves from their early childhood. Thus, an appeal to every girl in the world who thinks she might be Madeleine. The only parent who can refrain from such an action is a parent who's absolutely certain that their child is dead and the McCanns have always known that Madeleine is dead, but, as I say, for the past two or three years they've even stopped pretending, at least in a convincing way that they believe that Madeleine is alive.

      Delete
    4. "and the McCanns have always known that Madeleine is dead"

      Only haters spit such bollocks.

      Delete
    5. "The only logical place to search for Madeleine would be those 'barren wastelands' of PDL. It may be that Gerry and Kate still have enough support to organise a search party of volunteers to comb the area? "

      A truly bizarre suggestion.

      Delete
  69. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 00:00

    ''The McCanns have been told by numerous Portuguese Courts and appeal Courts that Goncalo Amaral's book is not libellous and they are not entitled to compensation. ''

    The ECHR isn't Portugal or the UK.It's Europe. They might see it differently as a neutral body. They might not. Time will tell. I think the McCanns would do themselves a favour if they( or legal team) stated that they would be happy to receive no financial compensation as their sole aim was to have the claims against them made null and void. The punitive damages have made this bone of contention distasteful for all involved except the MSM and knuckle-biting online experts in all things McCann.

    ''Their refusal to accept the decisions of all the Courts is merely prolonging the agony for everyone. ''

    If it's agony that they're prolonging, it would ultimately be their own and nobody elses.

    ''Time has not been kind to the abduction story Ziggy, many people are looking back and asking wtf were we thinking, ie. how did we fall for it. ''

    The only 'people' whose thoughts on it that matter are a large number of well paid policemen / detectives. If they ask that question, we should ask the same one . But to them-''wtf were you playing at. You can't ALL be idiots surely...''

    ''The idea that the European Court of Human Rights will force a former detective to pay vast amounts of money to former suspects...is ridiculous''

    As above ^^^. The fiscal element is nasty.They should be happy to be cleared if that's all they truly want.

    '' If a former detective is not allowed to write about his life and work, then every European Country will have to clear out the Crime Sections from their national libraries and bookshelves from their shops. ''

    That depends on the content of individual cases they record.If they are factual and ended in convictions, that's not defaming anyone or libellous.

    ''These former suspects who refused to answer questions and co-operate with the police are demanding that only their side of the story (Kate's book Madeleine)should be available to the public...''

    If they didn't co-operate they shouldn't have a say in much else. Does the book by KM accuse anyone of anything illegal ? I know she wasn't happy with the investigation or the tweedle dee (etc) detectives,but that's only her opinion. Has she made any accusations ? Amaral has.Hence the legal bullshit they've been fighting about.Who can he call for a character reference ?

    ''I would love to know what the final figures is, I can imagine it's mindblowing.''

    Probably.As big as the bill served to the taxpayer ? I doubt it. It's two instances of mega money being thrown about in a Europe that's sinking like the Titanic.The leaders of two of those European countries, ten years ago, prioritised the interfering and take over of an investigation and 'incident abroad'. No wonder the f**d both up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you saying the Portuguese Supreme Court is racist Ziggy? Good luck with that one.

      As for your peace making suggestion, do behave. The McCanns lost! And btw, they already suggested all of the above when trying to worm their way of this case several years ago. Goncala and his co-defendants wouldn't accept it then and I'm darn sure, having won, they won't accept it now. As if! lol. The time has come for Gerry and Kate to pay up.

      As for your final paragraphs, blah, blah (do try to edit yourself a wee bit), the leaders of two European countries did not make Madeleine McCann disappear. I'm sure their whereabouts on the night are accounted for.

      Delete
  70. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Questions_Answers_ENG.pdf

    What is the European Court of Human Rights not able to do for me?

    The Court does not act as a court of appeal in relation to national courts; it does not rehear cases, it cannot quash, vary or revise their decisions.

    The Court will not intercede directly on your behalf with the authority you are complaining about. In exceptional circumstances the Court may, however, grant interim measures.
    As a matter of practice it only does so where there is a serious risk of physical harm to the applicant.

    The Court will not help you find or pay a lawyer to draw up your application.

    The Court cannot give you any information on legal provisions in force in the State against which your complaints are directed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Portugal's highest court dismissed Gerry and Kate's bid to overturn a ruling that Goncalo Amaral did not libel them in tell-all book"

    By Danny Collins

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3149599/madeleine-mccann-parents-kate-gerry-lose-libel-case-goncalo-amaral-maddie-book/amp

    ReplyDelete
  72. The first paragraph here looks like they will not be able to delay payment of costs by appealing.
    if i apply to tHe court, does it mean i do not Have to comply witH tHe final Judgment given by tHe domestic courts?
    No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

    can tHe court Help me to find a lawyer?
    No, the Court cannot help you find a lawyer. Contact your local Bar, for example, and ask them for a list of their members.

    can tHe court Help me fill in tHe application form?
    No, the Court cannot help you with the application form. The Court must remain neutral in all proceedings brought before it. All it can do, therefore, is refer you to the application pack, which you can find on the internet and which contains all the documents and information you need to lodge an application.

    is tHere a legal aid system?Yes. However, you cannot request legal aid from the very start of the proceedings, but only when the case is communicated to the Government concerned. And please note that legal aid is not automatically granted to all those who request it.

    if i go to tHe court in person, can i explain my case directly or do anytHing to Have it dealt witH sooner? Definitely not. The proceedings before the Court are in writing and going to the Court serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It is a waste of your time.

    ReplyDelete
  73. This looks like they cannot delay payment of costs if they do apply

    if i apply to tHe court, does it mean i do not Have to comply witH tHe final Judgment given by tHe domestic courts?

    No, applying to the Court has no suspensive effect. You must comply with the final decisions of the national courts even if you lodge an application with the Strasbourg Court.

    can tHe court Help me to find a lawyer?
    No, the Court cannot help you find a lawyer. Contact your local Bar, for example, and ask them for a list of their members.

    can tHe court Help me fill in tHe application form?
    No, the Court cannot help you with the application form. The Court must remain neutral in all proceedings brought before it. All it can do, therefore, is refer you to the application pack, which you can find on the internet and which contains all the documents and information you need to lodge an application.

    is tHere a legal aid system?
    Yes. However, you cannot request legal aid from the very start of the proceedings, but only when the case is communicated to the Government concerned. And please note that legal aid is not automatically granted to all those who request it.

    if i go to tHe court in person, can i explain my case directly or do anytHing to Have it dealt witH sooner?
    Definitely not. The proceedings before the Court are in writing and going to the Court serves no useful purpose whatsoever. It is a waste of your time.

    ReplyDelete
  74. The McCanns have no choice. They can't give up on Maddie.
    The investigators also have no choice. They can't give up on the dogs.
    Interesting times. As always.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 05:10

    ''Are you saying the Portuguese Supreme Court is racist Ziggy? Good luck with that one. ''

    If i said that you would have read ''the Portuguese Supreme Court is racist'' in my post. I'm saying the ECHR are overseers and neutral and outrank individual courts.Hence it being the final port of call.

    ''As for your peace making suggestion, do behave. The McCanns lost!''

    They lost a battle to suppress a book.A lot of us are more concerned with the actual case it discusses. Behave.

    ''As for your final paragraphs, blah, blah (do try to edit yourself a wee bit),''

    Childish snipe. I'll edit a 'wee bit'' when you pull off a half decent impression of somebody who is willing to entertain views that oppose yours( and Bennett's, Hall's etc bla bla). I realise that the dismissed evidence, the evidence of the dogs being rejected, and the lack of decent witness testimony have little value to you (and the rest who have actually solved the case that's baffled two police forces for ten years),but they're actually important points to factor in to your theorising. Pointing fingers and calling names and making insinuations do nothing. They don't strengthen any case. Don't take my word for it. Ask the man who was removed from the case.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 05:01

    ''Jeez Ziggy, you have got some kind of thick skull that it still hasn't entered your head that the dogs findings ON THEIR OWN are not enough to bring a prosecution. ''

    I've mentioned in a number of your threads that the evidence of the dogs needed corroborating evidence for it to have value( blood sample /DNA etc).That was stated by the handler of the dogs as well as the top professor of DNA anylysis in the UK. I haven't got a thick skull- you have selective amnesia.I wonder how that selection process works.

    ''I don't condemn anyone for having a tangled love life and 'leisure activities' (whatever they might be, lol), in fact I would go so far as calling it an admirable trait. I don't actually trust sober, god fearing, obedient husbands''

    I mentioned that area not to judge or condemn. How much he drinks or where he 'hangs his hat' of a night is his business. I just didn't think it fitted with your proposed canonisation of him.

    ''We don't know who has been questioned Ziggy, everything is guesswork, including your suggestion that GA's superiors haven't been questioned. How do you know? ''

    I don't know-that's my point. Hence me saying that i'd happily buy a book he writes discussing that incident. I want HIS take on why he was removed and why. There's probably more of value in that then looking at photo shopped pictures and 'analysing' behaviour of people in interviews.

    ''Your final sentence makes no sense Ziggy... to scrutinize random 13 year old blonde girls. That's just creepy.''

    I think you'll find my final sentence was quoting you. I was making the point about prioritising solving the Madeleine case-not a libel case. You bent it out of shape like some kind of Bennett fan. Very distasteful.But becoming par for the course on here.

    ''The only logical place to search for Madeleine would be those 'barren wastelands' of PDL''

    Nonsense. There is NO logical place to search.That train left PDL hours after May 03.

    ''At what point will Gerry and Kate accept that Madeleine is not alive? At what point does hope cross over and become delusion? Is it morally correct to keep saying 'there there' to the deluded? Does shutting out reality ever really work?''

    If they're as guilty as you hope the question isn't valid.If they're innocent( until proven guilty, that is), it's a personal and subjective process.Denial might be the only thing keeping their heads stapled up.That's what a psychologist would hypothesise. A 'people watcher' would call them deluded.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Björn22 March 2017 at 15:31

      ''Perhaps we should instead ask; when will Gerry and Kate stop pretending not to accept that Madeleine is dead? ''

      Give me a shred of evidence that they're pretending.

      ''The answer to that would be, that they gave up their faked hopes of finding Madeleine two or three years ago I'd say,''

      Why would you say that exactly ?

      '' they haven't even tried to use MSM or other channels to talk directly to Madeleine, which would be the most reasonable thing to do for any parent, who believes their missing daughter is still alive.''

      Care to explain why ?

      ''Wouldn't it be reasonable, from the McCanns' perspective, to turn to all girls, who are about that age today, who have, or have had an eye defect and who haven't been shown any photos of themselves from their early childhood. Thus, an appeal to every girl in the world who thinks she might be Madeleine.''

      She was almost 4 years old, not 4 months.

      ''The only parent who can refrain from such an action is a parent who's absolutely certain that their child is dead''

      Or isn't mental.

      ''the McCanns have always known that Madeleine is dead,''

      How would they know that ? They might have feared it from early on.But we can only guess as it's their personal, private thoughts we're talking about. You state it as fact again- have you any proof to back it up ?

      ''the past two or three years they've even stopped pretending, at least in a convincing way that they believe that Madeleine is alive.''

      The past two or three years mark 7 or 8 years on from the event.That would be a probable time span for any parents to face the reality that they didn't want to face early on. That wouldn't be 'pretending'. It would be normal. You're blinded by hatred.

      Delete
    2. The dogs findings have value Ziggy, they told the police the child they were looking for was dead. So valuable were there findings it changed the entire course of the investigation and made Gerry and Kate arguidoes.

      Just because a body is no longer in situ, doesn't mean it wasn't there Ziggy. Somebody died in Apartment 5A and Madeleine has been missing for 10 years.

      Your inferences re GA were quite clear Ziggy, we should believe the clean living, god fearing, McCanns over the far more human, and believable, Goncalo Amaral.

      The immediate area around apartment 5A was always most the most obvious place to search Ziggy, especially on the night of the 3rd May. The only ones driving that [search] train AWAY from PDL were the McCanns and their entourage. And you can add that to reasons why people were/are suspicious.

      Guilty as I HOPE? WTF? Hope doesn't come into it. If it did, I would hope that was I wrong so at least part of my faith in human nature could be restored.

      The McCanns aren't in denial for their emotional well being. They are in denial because they are doing their utmost to avoid criminal prosecution. You are confusing denial with deceit.

      The McCanns were claiming over £1million in financial compensation from Goncalo Amaral Ziggy, and it is the cash they have been pursuing for the last 8 years.

      No Civil Court can give Gerry and Kate that official 'innocent' clearance they crave. If anything, with every Court case they bring, the public like them, and believe them, even less.

      Delete
  77. Anonymous 21 March @12:48

    ‘The couple met Wyre, 56, to discuss setting up an international taskforce to help cops trace missing children.’

    [...]

    ‘He said: "For three days, all they could see in their minds was Madeleine lying dead.

    "They were in complete agreement she'd been taken by a predator, abused and killed.

    "They were certain they would never see her alive again. The image of her lying murdered hardly left them and they expected at any time to receive the news that her body had been found.

    "When three days passed and that had not happened, they began to feel the stirring of hope.

    "They reasoned it was most likely that if someone had seized her to abuse and kill her, her body would probably have been nearby and would have been found.’

    ------------------

    When three days passed, they were confident that the body had been taken away (‘abducted’) by someone else?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An informative account one way and another, don't you think?

      Delete
    2. Hi Anon 21 March 12:48
      I really don't know who this Wyre is but if he refers to the McCanns when saying; "For three days, all they (I suppose the McCanns) could see in their minds was Madeleine lying dead.

      May I just add; For three days the McCanns neither searched for Madeleine's body, nor for Madeleine alive. Stating this fact I refer to what Jane Hill asked Kate on BBC, I think it was in 2008. Something like this; Didn't you Kate as mother sometimes feel that you should go and join the other searching for Madeleine THAT WEEK. JH refers to the remaining days of that week, which were 3 days. No need to quote what Kate answered. Anyone can look it up, but it should be made perfectly clear that the McCanns did not search at all for Madeleine these 3 DAYS. Nor did the ask anyone to do so. They were from the very first moment preparing for what they were going to do, namely make as many people as possible believe that Madeleine had been abducted, that she was alive and that she shouldn't be searched in far away places around the globe and they still stick to that plan.

      Delete
    3. Indeed Bjorn - keeping the idea that Madeleine is alive, is a constant, a theme that developed as their campaign took off. They were probably surprised at how easy it was to sell this story of hope and keep the Fund going prospering.

      That 'not searching' sticks in my craw too Bjorn. I can't imagine any parent not searching until they collapsed from exhaustion. There is absolutely no way to normalise the fact that Gerry, Kate, their friends, their relatives etc, did not join in the searches. It goes against every natural human instinct.

      Has it ever been known for a missing child search to go global within 24 hours? Are borders closed immediately a child goes missing? It seemed to me they were doing everything to move the search away from PDL.

      If the McCanns accept that Madeleine is dead, the Fund will end. I suspect that's what keep the 'noooo evidence' mantra alive.

      Delete
    4. Yes Rosalinda, the McCanns' not searching the first days is really crucial for the understanding of this case.
      PS
      (correction of my post 22:17, my second last line should of course be;"that she should be searched")

      Delete
  78. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 20:29

    ''The dogs findings have value Ziggy, they told the police the child they were looking for was dead.''

    So, they did their job and told the police a body had been there.Not Madeleine's, but, if it was a body, it would be foolish to believe a coincidence that somebody else had died there.But death scent is transferable. It can travel on furniture, it can travel on clothes of anyone who has been near death recently( police etc) or even on the clothes of someone who had it on them( an abductor or killer).The dogs didn't name Madeleine. Either way,the police listened to what the dogs told them and failed to act.If the blood and DNA ( the requisite corroborating evidence) were accepted then it's only 3 pieces to complete a jigsaw.What happened ?

    ''Your inferences re GA were quite clear Ziggy, we should believe the clean living, god fearing, McCanns over the far more human, and believable, Goncalo Amaral. ''

    Like you quite liking a 'rogue', shall we say, rather than a repressed bore, I like someone who isn't God -fearing( does he fear God when he's enjoying his 'leisure' by the way ?).I have no truck with established Religion or those who role play it in churches and seeing priests etc. Pietism is for the deluded.That's my opinion- i don't care if it's Amaral, KM or Joe Bloggs.

    ''The only ones driving that [search] train AWAY from PDL were the McCanns and their entourage. And you can add that to reasons why people were/are suspicious. ''

    Tell me...if you and hubby returned to find your toddler wasn't in the apartment-what's your next move? To stay put or run like a headless chicken all around the area ?

    'Guilty as I HOPE? WTF? Hope doesn't come into it.''

    Every argument you make is against anything that casts doubt on the guilt of the McCanns.All accusations of them meet with your approval and encouragement.It doesn't matter if they're peppered with juvenile idiocy or have no foundation.All alternative 'possibilities' are challenged , often blindly.Knee-jerk instinct.

    ''The McCanns aren't in denial for their emotional well being. They are in denial because they are doing their utmost to avoid criminal prosecution. You are confusing denial with deceit. ''

    If they're guilty-it's deceit.If they're innocent, it's denial.As things stand, they're not charged.Ergo- denial is an acceptable theory.

    ''The McCanns were claiming over £1million in financial compensation from Goncalo Amaral Ziggy, ''

    I find all talk of that battle tiresome.Nobody should have been chasing cash.I said If all they wanted was a cleared name and for Amaral's book to be blocked, that's all they should have gone after. Amaral should have fought his corner when he was removed before sitting at his writing bureau.

    ''with every Court case they bring, the public like them, and believe them, even less.''

    And if your theory that they're murderers is ever taken to a court, fair enough.But, as things stand they're living the same life as all of us-free.Public opinion is wrong more often than it's right. The madness of crowds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your transference argument is rubbish Ziggy, the dogs only alerted in the McCann apartment and the McCanns' hire car, nowhere else.

      The police didn't fail to act Ziggy, the dogs findings changed the course of the investigation. They acted, the McCanns were made arguidoes.

      No-one is suggesting they should run around like headless chickens, how absurd. They should have joined Warners staff, holidaymakers and locals in the organised searched around PDL. Their friend Jane Tanner saw a man WALKING away with a child. No planes, trains and automobiles, he was on foot!

      'IF' they are innocent Ziggy. The question of their innocence lies at the heart of this controversial case. Many people don't believe they are.

      You say 'all they wanted' as if blocking Goncalo's book was a reasonable request, rather than the affront to freedom of speech and insult to police detectives the world over, that it is.

      I'm sure you do find talk of the cash Gerry and Kate were demanding tiresome Ziggy. Financially compensating the parents with the former detective's family home and assets, won't endear them to anyone, least of all the current police detectives working on the case.

      Not my theory Ziggy, the theory of the lead detective who investigated the case. And he didn't say murder, he said accident.

      Gerry and Kate believed they could control the media and public opinion Ziggy, they can't. No doubt it is among many harsh lessons they are learning.

      Delete
  79. @Anonymous22 March 2017 at 19:48
    @Anonymous22 March 2017 at 22:02

    It sounds like two parents who feared the worst at first( like any one of us would too if we're honest) and then began to hope. it's all speculation on the part of the parents, but it sounds a feasible train of thought.I think, if they were 'in on it' as the popular opinion seems to have decided a long time ago, they'd have kept their thoughts quiet for fear of inviting the crowd of magnifying glass carriers.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton22 March 2017 at 22:49

    ''Your transference argument is rubbish Ziggy''

    It happens.It isn't my theory, it's scientific fact.I didn't say it DID happen, I said it COULD have happened.

    ''The police didn't fail to act Ziggy, the dogs findings changed the course of the investigation. They acted, the McCanns were made arguidoes. ''

    If the dogs' evidence and the corroborating evidence were presented as one, they would have been made more than mere suspects.That's a case. They made Murat a suspect too(twice he was interrogated i believe).

    ''No-one is suggesting they should run around like headless chickens, how absurd.''

    (I'll add 'absurd' to 'rubbish' and 'thick skull' shall i, Miss Marple?)

    I didn't suggest anyone should run around like headless chickens. For your own not -so -mysterious reason, you've said i did. I didn't state anything, I asked a question.I asked if you'd stay still and await instruction if you discovered your toddler was missing or would your instinct(especially that time of night) have been to run out and look around in a state of panic.

    ''Their friend Jane Tanner saw a man WALKING away with a child. No planes, trains and automobiles, he was on foot!''

    And how was that little nugget treated by the detectives.Filed with the rest of the excellent eye witness testimony.Did Tanner inform the McCanns as they discovered their child missing ? If so, is it so crazy to imagine them running to try and catch up? Or is it crazy to expect them to wait for instructions..

    ''You say 'all they wanted' as if blocking Goncalo's book was a reasonable request, rather than the affront to freedom of speech and insult to police detectives the world over, that it is. ''

    I said 'if all they wanted was their name cleared that's all they should have went after' -rather than financial gain.They didn't fight Amaral on the grounds that he was exercising his right to free speech, they considered the free speech that called them liars and party to a cover up of their child's death defamatory and libellous as no charges had been made and no arrests.He had no evidence that he could call upon to back his accusations up.If it was just an author or member of the public, its defamatory and libellous, if it's a policeman who was on the case and then removed, it's irresponsible .It isn't 'inside information'.

    ''Not my theory Ziggy, the theory of the lead detective who investigated the case. And he didn't say murder, he said accident. ''

    He then said ''cover up'' followed by ''by the parents''

    ''Gerry and Kate believed they could control the media and public opinion Ziggy, they can't. No doubt it is among many harsh lessons they are learning.''

    You constantly play this card.Yet you know the Governments man was installed at great expense to control and influence all media output and Q and A sessions.But it feels better to blame his spin on the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Ziggy, if someone ran off with your child you would stand around and wait for instructions? Astonishing.

      Any detective who writes a book could be said to have insider information Ziggy. A law can't be created specifically for Gerry and Kate. Any decision made in the ECHR will affect every judiciary in every European nation.

      Effectively Gerry and Kate want it written into the statutes that they can criticise and destroy the career of the former detective who investigated their daughter's disappearance, but he has no right of reply because he has inside information. Will the same apply to the detectives currently working on the case, in the event they should ever have to defend themselves against a torrent of negative propaganda?

      The government man wasn't in PDL on 3rd May Ziggy, nor was he in apartment 5A that night while the McCanns and their friends were phoning the UK and calling in favours. Nor was he putting out stories to all the news agencies, saying that the apartment was broken into and the shutters were jemmied. That was down to the inner circle of Team McCann.

      Delete
  81. Ros you say "I think I am presently under attack from those who would like to see my blog shut down. Thank you for your help JJ, much appreciated."

    It is perfectly clear to everyone - apart from yourself - exactly who is attacking this blog to see it shut down.

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be honest, I don't give any credence to any of the theories of Richard Hall, Tony Bennett and CMoMM, and they can argue about them until the cows come home as far as I'm concerned.

      It's all a huge distraction and has little to do with what's going on now. Their theories don't mean anything, they won't have any effect on any trial or any outcome.

      I can't even be asked to discuss them 00:49, and would prefer others ignored them too, the theories of Bennett and Hall simply don't matter.

      Delete
    2. What is this - Comic Relief?

      'Andrew' wants to put 20 Questions to CMoMM - so he posts them on MMM (as you do).

      Anonymous (00:49) thinks the questions good ones, but can't just say so and provide a link. Instead he repeats them all here (not CMoMM).

      In response to which Rosalinda says she 'can't even be asked to discuss them'.

      Except in a manner of speaking she just has (been asked).

      (Invitations as Question Time panellists are in the post)

      Delete
    3. Apologies 09:19, there was a typo in my reply, it should have read I can't be arsed to discuss them. I don't care if Bennett doesn't believe GA's theory or the evidence of the witnesses - no-one does.

      Delete
    4. "I don't care if Bennett doesn't believe GA's theory or the evidence of the witnesses - no-one does"

      Goncalo doesn't appear to have much support these days, does he?

      Delete
    5. http://pjga.blogspot.nl/2017/03/supreme-court-rejects-appeal.html

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

      Delete
  83. @anon 22 March 2017 at 23:59

    There's only really been myself and Ros exchanging opposing views about a small amount of topics. Or is that what you're driving at ? Challenging a 'norm' isn't attacking it.It isn't attacking the person who holds the view either.On a blog set up for discussion, it's a benefit -not an attack. Grown ups should be able to debate and discuss whatever they like and keep it adult. That's what I see. What do you see ?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Anonymous22 March 2017 at 23:59

    ''Ros you say "I think I am presently under attack from those who would like to see my blog shut down. Thank you for your help JJ, much appreciated."
    It is perfectly clear to everyone - apart from yourself - exactly who is attacking this blog to see it shut down.''

    It's strange that this comment appears at the end of a day that's seen ( for the most) exchanges between myself and our hostess, Ros. We represent opposing views, neither of which can be proven by herself or me. It's called debating, considering, discussing. it's something grown ups should be able to do in an adult way.

    To challenge a view isn't to attack it. Nor is it an attack on whoever holds it. On a blog set up for discussion ,it's a benefit- not an attack. The only things in danger of an attack are ideas that might turn out to be mistakes. But that's not dangerous. it's part of our education as we go about our journey. That's how a civilised society was built- healthy discussion and debate.Enjoy it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's strange that this comment appears at the end of a day that's seen ( for the most) exchanges between myself and our hostess, Ros."

      Not really. The story ends with Holmes and Moriarty plunging together into the raging torrent.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 March 2017 at 09:26

      “Not really. The story ends with Holmes and Moriarty plunging together into the raging torrent.”

      Oh, how true…:)

      T

      Delete
  85. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 March 2017 at 01:56

    ''So Ziggy, if someone ran off with your child you would stand around and wait for instructions? Astonishing.''

    No, what is astonishing is that you keep reading my questions then repeating them back to me as statements.If that isn't poor enough form, you than criticise the statement and me for making it.What's that about ?

    '' Any detective who writes a book could be said to have insider information Ziggy.''

    If he's reporting documented facts, of course.

    ''Effectively Gerry and Kate want it written into the statutes that they can criticise and destroy the career of the former detective who investigated their daughter's disappearance''

    I don't think that was the crux of their complaint.If it was, they'd be suing a lot more policemen.I think it was more because he accused them of covering up their daughters death without showing proof.

    ''but he has no right of reply because he has inside information''

    He knew the law before he wrote the book.The McCanns told him to 'put up or shut up' before it all blew up. If they challenge the validity of his assertions, it's then his shot.


    ''The government man wasn't in PDL on 3rd May Ziggy, nor was he in apartment 5A that night while the McCanns and their friends were phoning the UK and calling in favours''

    Favours from who ? Is there proof or rumour ?There wasn't much time allowed to pass before Government intervention post May03. Mitchell was soon on board. From there, he ran the media side of things .

    '' saying that the apartment was broken into and the shutters were jemmied. That was down to the inner circle of Team McCann.''

    Who used the word 'jemmied' and was it someone surmising ? who was 'Team McCann' on May 03 ?



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The McCanns told GA to put up or shut up. He 'put up', he did exactly what they suggested, he wrote a book. He responded to their challenge, but they wouldn't read it, and they didn't want anyone else to read it either. That's just not cricket.

      As we know the Law has, quite rightly, upheld GA's right to reply and his Freedom of Speech, it's not his fault they are such sore losers.

      I would imagine on the night of 3rd/4th May, Team McCann were those telling the news channels and the newspapers, that the McCanns' apartment had been broken into, because that was the news we all woke up to.

      I don't blame you for trying to blame Mitchell, I expect many do, he's not the most likeable chap, but the Team McCann campaign was well underway by the time he arrived.

      Delete
  86. @Björn 22 March 2017 at 22:17
    ("I really don't know who this Wyre is")

    http://fbga.redguitars.co.uk/aLiveWyre.php

    "False Allegations Action Scotland" re: Ray Wyre, the "Expert"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Anon 23 March 06:29
      Thanks. Now I've learnt quite a lot about who Wyre was.

      Delete
  87. Thank you 06:29, I had meant to add in my reply to Bjorn that Ray Wyre makes for very interesting reading. He was an expert on child sexual abuse and sex offenders with a very strange approach to the subject. Eg. treating paedophiles with a saturation of child abuse images.

    Unfortunately, I am already at risk for my views on the case of missing Madeleine, my explosive views on child protection, I'll hold back. For now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It's a wise thing to hold back", said Julian Clary.

      Delete
  88. Although I have grave doubts about the mccanns story it would be in there interest to take the case to Europe.
    I would if I was them as it will drag the case out for years until people get bored and i'm sure more 'sympathy' donations can be found to cover the costs from the (maybe dwindling) people who believe them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Depending on the appearance of the invisible abductor.

      http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/COURtalks_Inad_Talk_ENG.PDF

      "The European Court of Human Rights rejects around 90% of all applications received as inadmissible. It is clear from both this statistic as well as from our practice that most individual applicants and many of the legal advisers need a better knowledge of the admissibility requirements."

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 23 March 2017 at 11:21

      “…it would be in there interest to take the case to Europe.
      I would if I was them as it will drag the case out for years until people get bored and i'm sure more 'sympathy' donations can be found to cover the costs from the (maybe dwindling) people who believe them.”

      Meanwhile the McCanns still have to pay what they owe for the services that have already been rendered + Amaral’s costs (‘costs in the cause’). They litigated in their own name. Might not be easy…

      T

      Delete
    3. I don't think it would be in their interests 11:21, the opposite in fact. Their legal actions have made them very unpopular because people cannot understand why their focus is on revenge rather than the search for their daughter.

      Having lived through 5 years litigation myself, I can tell you it is unbelievably stressful and debilitating, it eats you, and all those around you, alive.

      Their focus now should be on the twins and enjoying with them what is left of their childhood. That is, creating happy memories that will carry them through whatever life throws at them. So far their childhood have been dominated by the search for their sister and endless Court battles. Ditto their relatives and friends. Their lives too have been on hold, whilst waiting for a modern day miracle and a large payout from Goncalo Amaral.

      At some point Gerry and Kate will have to accept reality - the road to the ECHR will bring more humiliating losses and further alienate them from any public support they might have left.

      And do they have the money? Looking at the comments sections of the popular newspapers, they are unlikely to get public donations, and billionaire friends have more sense than to back vexatious litigants.

      As others have posted, any appeal to the ECHR won't the judicial process of the Supreme Court's ruling. The legal costs will still have to be paid.

      Delete
  89. Comments take too long to appear on this blog except those from a certain B&Q worker who likes a dead pop star.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Let's be honest here, if as a lot of people who doubt the mccanns story suspect the goverment is involved in keeping this case under wraps for whatever reason, then we will never know what really happened.
    Not in our lifetime anyway as I think as in David kelly and Dunblane for example the files will be locked away for 100 years.And if the darker theories on this case have any credence (not me, but Hall benett etc) then they may never be released.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Just like jack the ripper and such like, our great grandchildren will be discussing this case and an equal of Ros or two will be writing who Dunnit books.


    ReplyDelete
  92. Hi Ziggy 22nd March@22:09

    Back to the dogs again. This is where reading GA's book would come in handy for you.

    1. The PJ looked into the history of apartment 5a and the hired car and established no one had died in both locations prior to the dogs findings.

    2. For the scent of death to transfer, the body must be in contact for a couple of hours. Hence the dogs picked up on Kate's clothes and Madeleine's cuddle cat. Also in the hired car.

    3. That's the reason why GA came to the conclusion in his excellent book, and why the McCanns wanted it shut down. He has never accused them of murder but has said he believed it was a tragic accident.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "the McCanns' not searching the first days is really crucial for the understanding of this case"

    The issue of whether or not they searched, whatever meaning you put on 'searched', is totally irrelevant to understanding 'the case'. It's just a handy cliché for the haters to bash the McCanns with.

    ReplyDelete
  94. John10023 March 2017 at 15:49

    ''Back to the dogs again. This is where reading GA's book would come in handy for you.''

    ''That's the reason why GA came to the conclusion in his excellent book, and why the McCanns wanted it shut down. He has never accused them of murder but has said he believed it was a tragic accident.''

    Had he resisted claiming that the McCanns were aware of her death and that they then concocted an abduction story to redirect suspicion, fair enough. But he didn't did he. By him concocting his own story, he insinuated that the McCanns lied.By extension, he is implying that they know how she died and then , to prop up their abduction story, they hid their child's body. By further extension, he has implicated the Tapas 7 in a conspiracy to withhold that information and obstruct the course of justice. His 'theory' frames the Tapas 7 as accessories after the fact. Using terms like 'tragic accident' may make him appear, in the eyes of the biased, 'compassionate', but it doesn't deter from the fact that he is implying that, accidental or otherwise, the death of Madeleine was already known to the McCanns and friends. So, how does he(or anyone involved in the investigation) explain that Madeleine was not considered dead. Officially, she still isn't. It may well be unrealistic now to consider that she's alive, and it may well have been as unrealistic within 48 hours of May 03. But SY and PJ are yet to pronounce her as officially dead.

    ''For the scent of death to transfer, the body must be in contact for a couple of hours. Hence the dogs picked up on Kate's clothes and Madeleine's cuddle cat. Also in the hired car.''

    This information is important to, and known by, the police.They had the findings of the dogs, the dna and the blood samples. Each one may need corroborating evidence, but they sit together as corroborators for each other.And yet, the PJ and SY said it wasn't conclusive proof.That's not me dismissing the findings. It's not those who refuse to hate either.It's two police forces and a forensics team.So, as 'excellent' as Amaral's book may be, the claims he makes, and accusations, are his alone( officially and publicly).While those who chew their knuckles as they simmer over the parents point to the 'support' Amaral has received from fellow coppers home and abroad, it means little or nothing. If they voiced their support of his accusations and theory, he'd have more of a case.They just think he was unfairly dismissed from his job.To be fair, I agree with them.I don't think he was given anything like a fair amount of time to investigate. I trust him more than i trust SY or his bosses . But the state of play is that he was removed and no evidence has supported his claim and no officers have offered to stand up and agree with him. I would throw my support behind him if he showed the same amount of fight against those who removed him from the case.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The McCanns created the case. The MSM turned it into a circus. Circuses are so 'vieux' these days, with exception of Cirque du Soleil. But that's another league, of course. I'm following all this fuzz and buzz from another point of view. As a former journalist in another country. And it strikes me that only lower-class writers such as Mrs. Tracey Kandohla and co. are reporting on the McCann case, based on what the PR machine considers as being useful to report. The day an investigative journalist who is worth that name thoroughly delves into this mess, the McCanns have a big problem. But I think that day will never come. The British press has been muzzled by fear of persecution by the Carter-Rucks and tutti quanti. In the UK this is apparently 'bon ton', not only in this case. What a waste of time. And paper.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 March 2017 at 09:59

    ''I don't blame you for trying to blame Mitchell, I expect many do, he's not the most likeable chap, but the Team McCann campaign was well underway by the time he arrived.''

    Blame ? I said he took over the control of all media.He spoke FOR the McCanns even if they were present.He rubber stamped which questions could or couldn't be asked ahead of time. He decided what the MSM could or couldn't say.He had the McCanns in front of him, the Government behind him and the MSM all around him awaiting instruction. He decided on which spin to run with and when. Mitchell is the 'Winston Wolfe' working for the Government and MSM.; the 'clean up guy'. It's machinations again in my book. He has done enough to look over protective of the parents, thus raising public suspicion of them via the MSM. This has successfully achieved the prevailing situation ; two camps-one saying 'abduction' and one saying 'parents, but protected'. The former leaves everything wide open and unsolvable.The latter has the potential for at least some kind of closure ( but the evidence that could do that has been conveniently shelved, thus leaving this scenario as open as the first-hence 10 years).
    Scenario 3 is buried deeper than we'll know.In my opinion, naturally ..

    ReplyDelete
  97. In 2016 there were a total number of 19 Judgments relating to Portugal. 17 of those Judgments found there was at least one violation of Human Rights.

    So 89% of Judgments relating to Portugal find a violation.
    UK for the same period it was 50%

    http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2016_ENG.pdf

    ReplyDelete