Much has been made of the libelling of former Arguidoes 2 and 3 in this case, but little of the heinous accusations that were aimed at helpful bystander Robert Murat. Probably because he received a big libel payout (quite rightly, and I hope some of it came from Lori Campbell personally), and partly because he has had the good sense to get on with his life.
Robert Murat was named as the first Arguido on 14th May 2007. I have no doubt this was because of the enormous pressure being placed on the Portuguese to 'find the abductor'. In those early days, Gerry and Kate were practically Saints, and the world was waiting with baited breath. The 'evidence' against him was pathetic and appears to have been based on a criminal profile drawn up by fans of the US TV drama. Single man, local, lives with his mum, likes a bit of online porn, pin on map closest to Apartment 5A. Guilty, obviously. The rest of the 'evidence' came from an anonymous call to the Portuguese Police alleging RM was a freaky kid who had a thing for animals. The icing on the cake came from prissy tabloid journalist Lori Campbell, who claimed he had a dodgy eye and made her feel uncomfortable, and it was on this basis that she was quite happy to throw the poor man to the hounds.
Does, the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that makes public the fact that the McCanns were never cleared even mention the final status of Robert Murat? I confess I have only read the highlights, but it would certainly make Gerry and Kate feel better if he wasn't cleared either. I'm guessing the silence on this matter is because RM was (un)officially relieved of arguido status long ago. Was he even asked to return for the proposed reconstruction?
Sadly, despite the fact that Robert Murat hasn't been arrested (for anything) in 10 years either, and there being absolutely nothing to connect him to Madeleine's disappearance, there are still headcases out there intent on including him in their
Robert Murat has my sympathy. As soon as he realised English compatriots needed assistance, he stepped forward. He was the good Samaritan. The words of Lori Campbell actually made me cringe. It is that kind of attitude that prevents people from showing kindness to others. Why assume the very worst in someone then splatter it all over the tabloids?
RM may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I like him. I think it was very kind of him and his mother to rush to the McCanns aid, and what a horrible twist of fate, that they somehow became the villains. The fact that Robert is such a sociable, affable guy, should have negated the rest of his 'profile'. Psychopaths are not usually popular with their neighbours.
Bizarrely, some researches (head cases), have gone to extraordinary lengths to implicate Robert Murat in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The mention of porn on RM's computer has led to them to create an imaginary paedophile network that runs from RM's laptop to number 10. For their information (because I know they look in), RM's misfortune was the tin tac on the map that made him the nearest single man.
Detailed account of how Robert Murat came to be named Arguido. Chapter 7, The Truth of the Lie. Goncalo Amaral
http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Amaral%20The%20Truth%20of%20the%20Lie%20Chapter%2007
Robert Murat - '.... the victim of the biggest fuck up on the planet.' I think his quote was in an interview.
ReplyDeleteWhat does he know?
Interviewer to Gerry McCann : 'Have you met Robert Murat?'
Gerry's answer in his best Jimmy Crankie voice : 'I'm not going to answer that!'
According to some, he flew back to Praia Da Luz faster than Superman at ultra-short notice on 1st May?
Whoooosh!!!! Was he involved? Keys to properties? Fridge Freezers?
Lunatic Birch claims Madeleine is buried in Murat's mother's back garden.
Bit of a central character Mr Murat. But hey, the PJ had nothing on him and don't they know best?
Gary Sweeney.
These headcases have cut six degrees of separation down to 2, and performed gymnastic feats that would get them a starring role in a circus, to implicate Robert Murat.
DeleteAnd the strangest thing is, it is not even coming from the McCanns the ones with the most need for a 3rd arguido. It has come from very strange people to whom the internet has expanded their stalking range. People who have used the information available on this case to pursue and harass those witnesses named. As if that were not bad enough, they have stood as judge, jury and executioner with their online kangaroo courts. It is hardly any wonder that even reasonable people who do not believe obvious lies, are seen as 'haters'.
With respect, Murat's "fuck up" remark and Gerry McCann's "We're not going to answer that" are not fabrications on the part of 'very strange people' but matters of public record.
DeleteThese statements alone represent reasonable grounds for suspecting Murat's involvement in something untoward (there are others).
I seriously doubt the 'something' in question was abduction of a living child however.
I think Gerry was having one of his first 'I'm the King of the World' moments during that particular press conference 22:28. He was facing a huge crowd of journalists who were hanging on his every word - he had them quite literally, in the palm of his hand.
DeleteThe reality is, 'we're not going to comment on that', translates to 'I know something you don't you know', with an optional 'neh neh'. I doubt he realised at the time that his ill chosen words would take on a life of their own.
Even supposing Gerry and RM had met, so what? You can't just phone someone up out of the blue and say 'remember me, we met in a golf club 10 years ago, I bought you a pint - I need a bit of help to dispose of a body'. Seriously? Who does that for a casual acquaintance?
Rosalinda 11:58
Delete"Even supposing Gerry and RM had met, so what?"
Then why not acknowledge it if so?
"You can't just phone someone up out of the blue and say 'remember me, we met in a golf club 10 years ago, I bought you a pint - I need a bit of help to dispose of a body'. Seriously? Who does that for a casual acquaintance?"
Indeed. But you are once again extrapolating in a specific direction which I for one did not indicate.
You see hiding it, I see Gerry showing off 12:29.
DeleteAs for why not acknowledge it? In fairness to Gerry, so much is made of so little in this case, any nod towards RM would have set off another media storm.
However, my scenario is hypothetical 12:29. In 10 years no-one, not even flying saucer man, have come up with one possible good reason for RM to be involved. There is certainly nothing in the archiving report that connects the 3 arguidoes.
As for your final paragraph, I'm not really sure where else I could go with that. Please enlighten me! :)
Rosalinda @12:46
Delete"As for your final paragraph, I'm not really sure where else I could go with that. Please enlighten me! :)"
?
If it's enlightenment you want, you pointed the torch. I merely switched it on.
But back to the subject in hand.
On 1st May, occasional traveller Robert Murat set off, unhurried some would argue, for Portugal - more than two days before Madeleine McCann was, err, taken. His objective was to sign some legal papers in connection with his impending divorce apparently.
Given that context, would you care to attempt a convincing, or even plausible, explanation as to why he might have carried with him letters of recommendation as an interpreter/translator from Norfolk Police?
Beats me. Unless of course he thought they might just come in handy.
Anonymous 15:59
DeleteEither he took them with him to Portugal when he moved house or they were addressed to him there.
Who first put Robert Murat in the frame?
ReplyDeleteLori Campbell on Sunday 6th May.
She reported her suspicions to the Leic police in England.
The Leics police had officers on the ground in PDL, who could have, along with the PJ investigated that day and possibly found Madeleine.
Did they act, no, they did not.
The Leics police in England just sent an email to the PJ incident room, on Sunday Evening 6th May, to be picked up on Monday.
Why was there no urgency or action? Simply because the Leics FLO's were there without the knowledge of the PJ and were acting unlawfully and did not want their presence known.
It is a matter of public record John Reid, the Home Secretary, authorised this mission.Why is less clear.
Was it the Leics police that made Ian Woods of Sky News and Lori Campbell lie over this on national television? (still on Youtube to view at this time).
Lori Campbell insists to Ian Woods, she first raised her suspicions on Monday 7th May. Ian Woods of Sky News investigated and found this to be true.
Unfortunately for the lying pair, the PJ released the emails which clearly show Sunday 6th May. But of course this would show the Leics police were deceiving the PJ and so the day was changed to Monday, when the Leics police legally arrived.
A cynic may suggest the British police had secret meetings with the Macs, Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield that weekend to bring Murat into the farce.
It cannot be said often enough their signed police statements state ,He came up to me shook me by the hand and said I am Robert Murat
Hall/Bennett have spent years trying to cover this up stating the tapas all retracted their statements by the end of 2007.
How then to explain FP/RO rogatorys of 2008?
JJ @20:24
DeleteYou are right. Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield didn't change their statements. I think they are telling the truth as for seeing Murat that night (around midnight). NL
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
"Comments- I am troubled by MURAT’S denial of being there on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance and assisting in the translations. This has troubled me he would have an alibi had he have been honest about being there. The statements given in Portugal are true and accurate, other people put MURAT there on the night one of those being Sylvia head of house keeping. I would like to point out that I do not wish to change the statement given to the PJ but have reservations that the time may have been inaccurate and it may have been the following morning when I saw him.
Our statements have been previously given in good faith I am positive that he was there on the night. What I said in my statement was right."
I too get vexed with Hall and Bennett's distortion of the facts JJ. Unfortunately, as they are alleging the most heinous of crimes, they have an audience to whom the truth means little.
DeleteIt seems to me JJ, that all the evidence against RM came from the British. The psychological profile, the tip off from Lori Campbell and disgusting allegations from a supposed ex childhood friend. Goncalo and his team were not convinced.
It should also be noted, that RM didn't request a lawyer, and answered every they put to him. The ones not answering questions were arguidoes 2 and 3!
Strictly speaking 21:13, he does throw the parameters wide open with the last sentence of his penultimate paragraph; 'it may have been the following morning'. I'm thinking because it is a 'rogatory' statement, that it wasn't given until April the following year. At that time there were dozens of Writs flying around, including I think, threats from RM to sue Jane Tanner and those members of the tapas group who he accused of making false statements.
DeleteIt was always a ridiculous claim on the part of the Tapas group to be honest, and imo, more than a little malicious. Had RM 'just' abducted Madeleine, why would he back at the scene so quickly and why would be making a point of shaking each of their hands, giving them his full name and family history. What criminal, in the middle of a major crime, does that? Not exactly the actions of someone with something (pretty major) to hide.
I'm glad the Tapas are sticking with their original statements, because when it comes to the perverting the course of justice charges, that one is going to be near the top.
Hi Ros,
ReplyDeleteI felt sorry for RM as well. The Smith family have stated that on their sighting that night it definitely wasn't RM as they knew him by sight rather than personally. Don't forget the Smith family also lived in PDL on and off, so I imagine they would know who's who in the expat community. Coming back to RM, as stated he volunteered as I believe as an interpreter which was gratefully received, and yet Yvonne Martin who as a professional child protection worker who had doubts was rejected.
I think it was pretty darn decent of him to offer the McCanns his assistance John. Unfortunately, the outcome of his kindness could mean that in future, ex-pats and the bi-lingual will be reluctant to assist distressed tourists. It angered me all the more that the unenlightened Lori picked up on his eye defect. How ignorant is that?
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking John, I think Robert was welcome for his language skills, perhaps more by the Portuguese police than the McCanns. I imagine it was pretty chaotic in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, not only were the world's media flooding into PDL, the PJ had to carry out hundreds of interviews with non Portuguese speakers. A child was missing, I imagine the police welcomed all the help they could get.
As to Yvonne Martin. She arrived in an 'official' capacity, and was possibly the kind of expert the McCanns really didn't want to speak to at that time. She offered her assistance to Kate directly, with David Payne on hand to shield her. As Kate recounts in her book, she wanted rid of her.
I do think it is strange however, that YM didn't pursue the matter further, especially after having driven all that way. That is why didn't she voice her concerns to the police on the ground, or at least to the British or Portuguese Authorities?
Her suspicions are something that really should have been cleared up. Whilst I have no sympathy for David Payne, it must have been a nightmare having allegations of that nature hurled at him for 10 years.
However, my sympathy is with YM, I have a horrible feeling that key witnesses in this case have also had to live under a cloud. And I am sure they must wonder just how far does this rabbit hole go. With people like Bennett stalking witnesses and going all out to pervert the course of justice, I don't blame them for keeping a dignified silence.
you have been here before Ros - or did you forget:
ReplyDeletehttp://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2016/11/guest-blog-tapas-and-murat.html
I did forget, but no matter, it only adds to the discussion.
DeleteFor some, the First Arguido just will not go away 23:11. The myth created by Bennett has been repeated that many times, it has become part of the deceit. unfortunately it is not immediately discernible to those not so familiar with this case.
I'm happy to keep tearing those lies down, even if it is at the risk of repeating myself 23:11. In fact I feel compelled to. Bennett and Hall are not only lying, they are completely without any morals, scruples or social graces. It is deplorables such as these that the majority of McCann doubters a bad name.
"Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton8 March 2017 at 21:23
ReplyDeleteI too get vexed with Hall and Bennett's distortion of the facts JJ. Unfortunately, as they are alleging the most heinous of crimes..."
It is in the PJ files - whether true or not - it is in the files.
Ball and Bennett's little add ons are not in the police files 23:13 - they are figments of Hall and Bennett's freaky imaginations. For example, nowhere in the files, do the Portuguese police accuse the Smith family of lying on behalf of Robert Murat. Nor do they accuse RM of lying about his travel arrangements or go over a load of nonsense about a Devon connection. It is all conjecture on the part of two dodgy men who have reached their own conclusion and then have to make all the pieces fit. And they don't and they never will.
Delete@ Ros 01.07
DeleteIt was the "heinous crimes" that I was referring to - they are in the files.
I am not bothered about the other stuff they have made up.
"As to Yvonne Martin. She arrived in an 'official' capacity,"
ReplyDeleteIf she was acting in any sort of "official" capacity then she should have gone to PJ first and then be introduced to the Mccanns. She should not have just approached them in the street.
She probably imagine Kate and Gerry would be much relieved to see her 00:13. They had been appealing for help all night. Given the circumstances I doubt there was time to go through the niceties and the official route, the parents needed immediate help, or so she thought.
Delete@ Ros 00.56
DeleteHold on Ros - haven't there been numerous posts on your blog about how much help and how many "official" people arrived immediately to assist them? So why should they discuss things with someone who just nosed her way in on the street?
I think she took much more offence than the Mccanns did with her unfounded letter to the Police after being quite justifiably, turned away.
I don't understand the 'why should they' attitude 01:11 - they had spent the night sending out calls for help! Yvonne Martin responded. How do you correlate 'no-one's helping us' with turning away a British child protection expert?
Delete@ Ros 11.16
DeleteI am sure their "calls for help" was for people to search to try to find Madeleine!
Look back through your previous blog for all the responses from officials.
Hi Anonymous 9th March 12:28
DeleteI agree with Ros, YM did offer to help after I believe hearing about it on the radio or TV and went to assist. David Payne was the one who authenticated her credentials and said her services will not be required. My reasoning is YM has a lot of power as a Child Protection Officer, more so than the average Police Constable. So my question is why the need to raise her suspicions anonymously, and where did she recognised DP from?
Witness Statement
ReplyDeleteDate: 2007/11/14
Time: 10H30
Place: DIC Portimao
Name: YVONNE WARREN MARTIN
''Kate told her that the child had been taken by a couple. During the meeting they had, the details of which are contained in her previous statement, she did not have the opportunity to ask in depth about this question nor about any other.''
(Why not ? Contact is an opportunity.)
''She says that about two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man....she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.''
(How very professional.No wonder 'Child Protection Services' is so efficient.An event this serious and she writes anonymous letters ?That's integrity for you. She must have been moonlighting as a MSM 'source' too.)
'' Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home.''
(Yes, that makes sense.It wouldn't be at all wrong or suspicious if a couple of factory workers or office workers did it-they wouldn't understand that leaving your kids alone at night could be dangerous.)
''Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this. ''
(I bet they were dazzled. The famous 99.99% number(again).No mention of statistics concerning children left indoors with no adults around in a foreign country then.)
''She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media.''
(That's right - prioritise.Yes, a child could be lying dead, in the clutches of nutcases-anything.As a child protection officer you think about the media and yourself first.That's not what you're paid(officially) to do.)
''She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers''
(Yes, that sounds credible.It's not like the police would have checked without her pointing it out.Why wouldn't she identify herself directly to the police as a child protection officer as this would have the police treat it seriously?)
She sounds like Martin Brunt in knickers. Who brought her into it all ?
I think you are being a little harsh on Yvonne Martin. We don't know the situation she found herself in Ziggy or how she felt as she drove home.
DeleteI get the impression she was 'scared off' in some way. PDL was literally being invaded by the world's media and the McCanns' family and friends - all rushing to comfort the parents. To say her suspicions would have been unwelcome, is an understatement.
Exactly what happened to the information that Murat's Mum got from the stall that she set up?
ReplyDeleteWhy the hell did she think it was necessary to set up a stall???? Maybe something she knew about the PJ and how they treat witnesses/information???
I think most people were doing whatever they could to help Kate and Gerry, 01:50, including Robert Murat and his mother. I don't know what Jenny Murat had on her stall, but presumably she was doing the same as the McCanns, that is, 'raising awareness' through good quality wristbands, posters and collection buckets.
DeleteMy impression is, there was something of a carnival atmosphere going on in PDL that summer, I'm not in the least surprised that so many were suckered in.
''The myth created by Bennett has been repeated that many times, it has become part of the deceit. ''
ReplyDelete''I'm happy to keep tearing those lies down''
''Bennett and Hall are not only lying, they are completely without any morals, scruples or social graces'
''It is all conjecture on the part of two dodgy men who have reached their own conclusion and then have to make all the pieces fit. And they don't and they never will.''
Enlighten me, please Ms Unbound.
What is the 'myth' that's been repeated many times ? Is it a myth that can be exposed then replaced by the actual reality ?
I don't know about scruples or morals regarding Bennett and Hall.I can't say either are lying either.That doesn't mean i believe them.I've read about Bennet's bizarre ramblings, ideas and actions.He's a legend for all the wrong reasons.But, I have to say, hand on heart, I can't say anything bad about Hall.I was actually going to see him in Liverpool last time he was here but something got in the way.I spent a lot of time on his site.I watched the McCann vids.I was impressed by his industry I have to say.I know he has some bizarre topics on his site, but that's just variety and par for the course.He's an apprentice David Icke or Alex Jones.I don't buy the UFO and Alien stuff for a minute.David Icke's the same.But I respect and admire so much about Icke in more important and valuable areas to slate the UFo stuff.They might be right-i just don't buy it.I actually think Hall went into 'Alt' with good intentions.He chose the spectrum of popular interests on the 'big' alt sites and tried to do a sort of Netto version.His problem was Googling the 'names' to talk to and interview.He trusted the wrong people( the McCartney thing made me feel embarrassed for all involved.I actually debunked that myself a year ago).But he's reached that point of no return now.He can't back down.I hope he does,but he risks credibility problems.Theyr'e already an inbuilt time bomb in alt research at the best of times.
Isn't most, if not all( concerning the McCann case) conjecture ?I've read too many things by people who insist their conjecture is fact and all other conjecture is crap.Conjecture needs to be corroborated by physical evidence before it can be hoisted upwards into fact.Pointing a finger smugly in the direction of 'the pj files' isn't doing anything for the case.Pointing to KM's 'confession' in her book that points to her saying she had deceived(lied) to the detectives doesn't do anything either.If that 'confession' is of any worth-why hasn't she been hauled in ?If the PJ files contain the actual correct pieces of the jigsaw, why haven't so many detectives managed to make a picture ?
In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.
ReplyDeleteIn the centre of all theories, opinions and considerations the spaniels are there, sitting and waiting, wordless. They've done their job. It was all filmed, written down and will be there to see and to read forever. If they were able to think like us, they surely would never understand what's going on for almost 10 years now. A few sniffs and barks have led to hundreds of blogs, forumotions, facebook pages, books, MSM 'articles', interviews, tweets, even jokes ... Why can't we just do like these two. Sitting and waiting, wordless, knowing what we know. That a little British girl, called Madeleine McCann, has lost her life in Portugal, while she was there, on holiday, with her parents and her siblings. That nothing else matters. That the parents always will walk, until the end of their days, under that unbearable cloud of suspicion, depriving them of the light and the warmth of the sun, 'celebrating' life imprisonment.
ReplyDeleteTry to live like that. I would rather be a dog.
Thanks, Eddie and Keela, for everything you did. In the name of a little girl that never will have the chance to enjoy the unconditional love of a spaniel.
I totally agree with you 09:42, the parents are living in a prison but it is a prison of their own making, and indeed their own choosing. As the original archiving report states, they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence.
DeleteGerry and Kate are almost childlike in their inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. It is always someone else's fault. In this they are at complete odds with other parents of missing and murdered children, they blame themselves.
They have convinced themselves that a win in the libel court against Goncalo Amaral will somehow lift that unbearable cloud of suspicion. It won't of course, anymore than the massive payouts and apologies they received from the English tabloids, or their appearance at the Leveson Inquiry.
All the actions they have taken to win back the public's affection, has had the opposite effect. Their call to name and shame the online trolls who torment them, ended in disaster. No-one rallied behind Gerry, Jim and Martin, they were horrified at the abuse of power that resulted in the death of an innocent woman. The cloud thickened.
Yet still they are the agitators, the aggressors, the aggrieved. They responded to their massive loss in the libel trial, with yet more threats, not just against Goncalo Amaral, but against every publisher, distributor and newspaper in this country, if they dare to make The Truth of the Lie available in the UK. It's hardly endearing.
Agreed. It's a continuing shame.
Deletehttp://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JENNIFER-MURAT.htm
ReplyDelete"Relative to the facts concerning the disappearance of the English child, the deponent states that because she has been in Portugal for a long time and knows many people, she decided to mount a "post" to collect information in order to be able to determine things about the subject and thus could channel them to the competent authorities. For three days (Friday 11/05, Saturday 12/05 and Sunday 13/05) she was at the "post" mounted near to the cinema having obtained some information that she gave to Robert who, in turn, gave it to the Police.
--- Her idea was to try to sensitise people not to feel intimidated by the presence of police and lead them to give all the information that they knew."
Hi everybody
ReplyDeleteJust a few words about Robert Murat. I can see no reason as to why he would be a person of interest. Hadn't the McCanns' tapas friends tried to frame him, no one would have talked about him today
When Operation Grange came about, in the co-operation with the Portuguese P J, Robert Murat was once again asked question either as a suspect or as witness, like so many other, who in 2007, had been heard.
As for the McCanns’ and their earlier witness statements, everything must have been crystal clear for the detectives in the new investigation/review, even though there were, and still are, question, that have not been answered yet. However, Murat, in spite of, as you say Rosalinda, immediately and apparently also in the absence of a defence lawyer, answered every question he was asked in the first investigation, agreed to be asked further questions in 2014 and was even driven into Faro Police Station through a back entrance. Why did this not happen to the McCanns? Why was Murat a person of interest, and not the McCanns? Were the McCanns, although MSM didn’t report it, secretly taken to this police station as well?
What Kate really meant by demanding an independent review of the case, was of course that she wished the S Y to be in charge of it, otherwise she could just have asked the ”biased” Portuguese P J to do it. The latter, if they had been in charge, would certainly have asked her and Gerry questions, while the former, as it seems, did not
Clarence Mitchell’s motto in this review and in the search for Madeleine has always been ”we’re leaving no stones unturned” still the only stone under which I suspect the truth is being hidden, has remained unturned all these years.
RM was like a big auld puppy dog in his enthusiasm to help Bjorn, naively as it turned out, because it all came back to haunt him. He wasn't in the least bit concerned about his own protection, he was clearly confident in his innocence.
DeleteMy opinion is that 10 years on the McCanns and their friends are still not answering questions Bjorn, and there is nothing the police can do if the witnesses simply won't talk. That's why the Portuguese file was shelved in 2008. It's not uncommon, fans of 'real crime' will know that there are hundreds if not thousands of cases where suspects remain free for years if not decades.
For Gerry and Kate it must be really difficult because they have backed themselves into a corner. In placing all their faith in a British review and investigation, they can't now turn on the British police.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2017 at 10:57
ReplyDelete''I think you are being a little harsh on Yvonne Martin. We don't know the situation she found herself in Ziggy or how she felt as she drove home. ''
The situation she found herself in doesn't matter.As a social worker / child protection officer, she knows what comes with the territory.Some of them get beaten up and dog's abuse in the UK.It takes balls and she, and others in that job, know it.She came across a sobbing KM ,GM and 'friend'( Payne ?). She wasn't invited by the McCanns( or anyone else) and mysterious Payne was more than likely being protective of the McCanns when ushering her back to her car to go.( ''I get the impression she was 'scared off' in some way''). She was later 'tto scared'' to put her name and job description to a letter to the police, despite it being prompted by her alleged concern for a child and her suspicions of possible culprits.
''To say her suspicions would have been unwelcome, is an understatement. ''
How about unfounded too ?
@Bjorn 15:25
ReplyDelete''What Kate really meant by demanding an independent review of the case, was of course that she wished the S Y to be in charge of it''
You suspect (without foundation) because you refuse to accept that the McCanns didn't harm or kill their child- despite their status as free citizens of England and anywhere else.
Yes. Bjorn's claim is ludicrous.
DeleteRosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2017 at 12:32
ReplyDelete'' the parents are living in a prison but it is a prison of their own making, and indeed their own choosing. As the original archiving report states, they lost the opportunity to prove their innocence. ''
Their own making ?An army of lunatics ignore the findings of all those detectives over ten years to mount a campaign of undiluted hatred.And that's the McCanns 'own making'. That sounds about right .''They lost the opportunity to prove their innocence''. They didn't. They were(and are) innocent until proven guilty.The PJ and SY lost the opportunity prove that .
''Gerry and Kate are almost childlike in their inability to accept responsibility for their own actions. It is always someone else's fault. In this they are at complete odds with other parents of missing and murdered children, they blame themselves. ''
But when you and other haters are reminded of GM's quote 'we let her down' it's interpreted as an unconscious confession of the dastardly deed. Lose, lose for the McCanns.
''They have convinced themselves that a win in the libel court against Goncalo Amaral will somehow lift that unbearable cloud of suspicion. It won't of course, ''
They'd rather concentrate on the fate of their daughter, not Amaral's speculations in a book.The ones that went nowhere with his bosses.
''All the actions they have taken to win back the public's affection, has had the opposite effect. Their call to name and shame the online trolls who torment them, ended in disaster''
Win back affection ?Or try to introduce some sanity ?That trying to put a halt to online morons who have nothing but bile and spite inside them ended in disastter is not actually a positive.
''Yet still they are the agitators, the aggressors, the aggrieved.''
Yes, that's weird.Subjected to dog's abuse from thousands of strangers who are actually indirectly calling every policeman liars ( but they're too dim to realise that). If they think it's all about a massive cover up to make sure evidence wasn't allowed to be admitted and to keep the parents free- who should their poison really be directed at ?
As for the libel trial...This is the latest cheap thrill for the haters.Finally, after the stagnant years, something 'new' to get excited about because it can be used as more ammunition to fire at the parents who lost a child.Forget that the author wasn't deemed competent enough to continue investigating the case and was replaced.''She was in the fridge-no the freezer-no the sea-she was killed accidentally by sedatives and the dogs found blood'' etc etc
Ziggy at 12:32
DeleteGM's quote 'we let her down'?
Very well put, Ziggy.
DeleteAnonymous @ 17:35
DeleteWas it? if its to try and disrupt and turn it into another Amaral bashing rant then yes,if its to high light how the McCann took Amaral to court and failed miserably then it really really wasn't
Hi Ziggy
DeleteYou write;
"They'd rather concentrate on the fate of their daughter, not Amaral's speculations in a book.The ones that went nowhere with his bosses."
Yes, Ziggy they would rather or better perhaps, they should have done so, but the truth is, that they have spent at least 8 years persecuting and trying to destroy an ex police detective, instead of concentrating on the search for their daughter. Whatever outcome they had expected in the libel suit, it couldn't possibly help them find their daughter.
Ziggy, para 2. 'An army of lunatics ignore all the findings of all those detectives over 10 years'. What findings? The archiving report did not clear the parents Ziggy, some of us have known that for years. And the parents had the opportunity to prove their innocence by returning for the reconstruction and answering the police questions. They chose not to.
DeleteI am astonished that you refer to the Brenda Leyland tragedy as trying to introduce some sanity Ziggy. I would say for Team McCann and their helpers, this was the point that sanity left the building. Clearly for that escapade, Dr. Evil (and there are several contenders) was in charge.
Calling people haters and morons because they won't be taken in by obvious lies, doesn't assist the McCanns' Ziggy. People are entitled to hold different opinions without being insulted.
I have said many times, I am not a 'hater', my feelings towards Gerry and Kate are largely indifferent, for me they are a study in human behaviour. Why? Because they have kept themselves in the public eye for 10 years and they keep supplying endless resources.
Whilst your 100% belief in the McCanns' innocence may be admirable to some Ziggy, don't you ever consider for a moment that you might be wrong? I may be a 'hater' in your eyes Ziggy, but that very question troubled me for several years.
You are of course entitled to your beliefs Ziggy, as indeed are the religious, but it's when you try to force your belief onto others that it becomes a problem. For me it brings back the convent and the hundreds of beatings I received because I just didn't get the God thing.
Please feel free to air your views Ziggy, but do try to understand that non believers are not haters and morons, and our views are equally valid.
Dear Mr./Mrs. Ziggy Sawdust,
ReplyDeleteI am not a McCann hater. And I guess Mrs. Hutton isn't either. She gives you the opportunity to reply on everything you like, dislike or want to question vis-Ã -vis the facts, described in the PJ files. Unluckily our friends, the dogs, can't defend themselves in this case. They only did what they were trained for.
And the result was -my opinion! my opinion!- devastating for the parents.
RA
Hi RA
DeleteThe McCanns have never been interested in trying to seriously explain why Keela and Eddie alerted. Kate just discredited their work as non-scientific, after having seen the film clips of these dogs in action. People, who don't know how such sniffer dogs work get the impression that Martin Grime are directing the dogs to the objects he knows are, or have been used by the McCanns, but he doesn't. He just tells the dogs where to search, but not what object to alert. One dog alerted scent of death the other blood, nothing of it fit the McCanns' claim about a stranger abduction, or a Robert Murat abduction.
Right. RA
DeleteThose same dogs messed up at Haut De La Garenne in Jersey - please stop this nonsense about the reliability of their searching.
Delete13:39
DeleteAnother expert in anthropomorphism (look it up) who no doubt thinks collagen is found in coconuts.
I'd trust my dog's sense of smell over your sense of anything.
Dear Mr/Mrs/Ms Anonymous ( R A ) 9 March at 18:11
ReplyDeleteI'm aware of what Mrs. Hutton allows me and others, do here.So I do it. The 'facts' described in the P J Files haven't been enough to charge a single person have they ?
'Our friends', the dogs have no reason to defend themselves as they haven't been accused of anything.They did what they were trained for, I agree.Unfortunately, those who brought them in viewed their 'findings' as 'not enough'. If, as so many of you suggest, the dogs findings were ignored in order to hide the identity of somebody the police would rather not have incriminated-why ? Which Police Force, Political Party or even Country would suffer by charging and, eventually, jailing the parents ?Why would so many officials, scientists and policemen allow themselves to be party to perverting the course of justice to save two holiday makers ?
I think the only result that would be 'devastating for the parents' is being found guilty of ending their daughters life or assisting to end it, then conspiring to contrive an abduction scenario .The dogs findings being rejected was anything but devastating to the parents-and any other likely 'suspects' .
From what i saw of the Chinese water torture that is Mark Harrison's so-called in depth search, he rejected the findings because there was no corpse present.If there was a corpse present, they wouldn't need a fkng dog.The dogs are supposed to detect the smell of death if the idiots-sorry-police- have no idea where the corpse is.They did that according to witnesses, film crew and trainers didn't they ?But it was all shelved. The McCanns didn't tell anyone to shelve anything. Sorry- but they didn't because they couldn't.If anyone wanted that evidence rejected and have that decision supported by scientists, they are the targets for haters-NOT the parents or any other suspect.
Kudos in your attempts to underplay the findings of the dogs Ziggy, lol. As you well know, or should know, the findings of the dogs changed the entire course of the police investigation. There may not have been a body in situ, but the police were no longer looking for a live child. Eddie and Keela did way more damage to the abduction story than Goncalo Amaral.
DeleteThe findings of the dogs may not have been enough to bring a prosecution in Portugal Ziggy, but it is in some countries. And besides which, SY are not going to discard the findings of their own dogs!
The McCanns may not have told anyone to shelve anything, but they had the option to keep the file open. The police had reached an impasse. They needed the parents and their friends to return to Portugal to enact a reconstruction. They refused.
As I said in my reply to Bjorn above, once witnesses stop co-operating there is nothing the police can do.
Gerry and Kate never needed a campaign and Petition to re-open the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, all they had to do was co-operate with the Portuguese police.
Wouldn't ziggysawdust just have loved if those dogs were Portuguese but they weren't so he can rant and rave and throw all the insults in the world but it doesn't alter fact. British dogs trained to detect the cadaver odour detected that odour in places only connected to McCann. The same McCann who coincidently have been missing a daughter since 3rd May 2007. I afraid ziggysawdust gaves himself away far to easy. When topics like Murat or The LP are discussed he can stay calm and civilised but mention the dogs and we are all haters and the Portuguese are all 3rd world citizens. Similar to a Mr McCann remember with Sandra F, he couldn't resist trying to take nasty swipe at her " ask the dogs" remember at the Court when the judge told him to shut up when he tried to shout the court down about the dogs evidence. The dogs scare the bejeasus out of Gerry and it does the same to you Ziggy. maybe Ros you should revisit you post who are you ziggy
DeleteI'm thinking along the same lines 20:30, he is going ott trying to discard the evidence of the dogs. And only last week here was an academic study of McCann trolls, using a scientific report that trashes the dogs evidence.
DeleteMethinks the findings of the dogs are just as big a problem now as they were in the summer of 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm#p4p960
ReplyDelete"Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.
As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days."
I think everyone who turned up in PDL was displaying an unusual curiosity about the investigation etc, 20:39. It was the most sensational news story of the decade. They were all getting carried away, including Lori Campbell et al.
Delete( 1 ) Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2017 at 19:28 -
ReplyDelete''Ziggy, para 2. 'An army of lunatics ignore all the findings of all those detectives over 10 years'. What findings? The archiving report did not clear the parents Ziggy, some of us have known that for years.''
How can i explain the findings in a way that would introduce the old enemy called 'perspective' ? I'll try...
Picture if you will, a team of detectives( or two teams), and the reports as prepared by forensic scientists.
''Right, the dogs have spoken- blood and the smell of death- can we make arrests and use this as evidence ?''
''Not according to the Forensics report.There's no collaborating evidence that says Madeleine died in the apartment.''
So, as the sun began to set on the case( and nobody told us), everyone was free.Nobody is out on bail.Nobody has an impending trial coming their way-after ten years.But, in spite of this, thousands are saying that the evidence DID prove something and DID implicate someone.In my books, that's 'ignoring' the official 'findings'.
''I am astonished that you refer to the Brenda Leyland tragedy as trying to introduce some sanity Ziggy. I would say for Team McCann and their helpers, this was the point that sanity left the building''
Not as astonished as I am.I didn't mention her. Her tragic death implicates Sky TV and their 'standards' .The McCanns wanted trolls to be curtailed.They had a right to want that.Free speech is all well and good-but there's a line.If GM or Km named Brenda Leyland I'll take that back.But that's all i'll take back.You alleging i referred to her is a cheap shot and wasn't needed.
''Calling people haters and morons because they won't be taken in by obvious lies, doesn't assist the McCanns' Ziggy. People are entitled to hold different opinions without being insulted.''
Lies that are 'obvious' are easily exposed by producing evidence and the truth(also with evidence). Calling unproven allegations 'facts' because they implicate somebody you hate or dislike is the act of a hater who's lost perspective.It mightn't assist the McCanns but that's not important.They're merely observations.I see people talk and yell insults here at anyone who dares to show a defence of a McCann and nothing is complained about.If I call people who yell about allegations nobody can prove(which just happens to be implicating the McCanns) I'm 'insulting'. Where's the 'open discussion' and free speech and non-censorship you keep championing gone ?
''Whilst your 100% belief in the McCanns' innocence may be admirable to some Ziggy, don't you ever consider for a moment that you might be wrong?''
I didn't say i believed they are innocent to 100%.I said i 'believe' they could be innocent as I believe an abduction isn't as insane as people want to believe.I also stated more than once i couldn't swear if called upon that anyone is guilty or innocent.I emphasise my 'opinions' but never claim them as fact.
(2)Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2017 at 19:28
ReplyDelete''You are of course entitled to your beliefs Ziggy, as indeed are the religious, but it's when you try to force your belief onto others that it becomes a problem'
Nobody on this blog is trying to force the belief that the dogs were right, the mccanns are liars, the police were heroes and the parents were behind Madeleine's disappearance then. I see.
''Please feel free to air your views Ziggy, but do try to understand that non believers are not haters and morons, and our views are equally valid.''
Views are views;facts are facts.All views are valid but they need to be put forward as views and not as claims of fact.Anyone who advances a view and won't hear an alternative as it's 'bullshit'' or 'garbage'' (as it has no evidence) devalues that view due to it being unbalanced.The view of course..not the 'viewer'...
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 March 2017 at 20:13
ReplyDelete''Kudos in your attempts to underplay the findings of the dogs Ziggy, lol. As you well know, or should know, the findings of the dogs changed the entire course of the police investigation..''
I can't take credit for that-it wasn't me that threw the dogs findings away.I actually thought they were good and that they actually found something important.I would have taken it further-not said that they shouldn't be used as important evidence.Yes, it changed the course of the investigation.Or to be clearer, that decision changed it.
''There may not have been a body in situ, but the police were no longer looking for a live child. Eddie and Keela did way more damage to the abduction story than Goncalo Amaral. ''
Are you saying that operation this and operation that were all over the globe after a corpse had been spotted ?Amaral hasn't done any damage to the McCanns beyond his 'printed theories'.If they were guilty-he should have nailed them.
''The findings of the dogs may not have been enough to bring a prosecution in Portugal Ziggy, but it is in some countries. And besides which, SY are not going to discard the findings of their own dogs!''
You'd think the police would have been told PDL was in Portugal, really.That's just shoddy work.So, if they haven't discarded it, what are they going to use it for ?
''The McCanns may not have told anyone to shelve anything, but they had the option to keep the file open. The police had reached an impasse.''
Then the police should have come up with a solution.
''They needed the parents and their friends to return to Portugal to enact a reconstruction. They refused. ''
Too painful ?Maybe-maybe not.It doesn't matter, as the Government's man was head of the McCanns media appearances by then.The reconstructions happened using lookalikes from an acting agency and everyone involved was sworn to sign a gag order by Clarence.That's not the McCann's fault-but why did Clarence do it and who for really ?
''As I said in my reply to Bjorn above, once witnesses stop co-operating there is nothing the police can do. ''
The jails are full of murderers who didn't co-operate.It didn't help them.
'' all they had to do was co-operate with the Portuguese police.''
So they didn't co-operate and the police just let them go.No fkn wonder we've waited ten years for a result.
Nobody has thrown the dogs findings away Ziggy, and spare me the sarcasm. It really is the lowest form of wit and always makes the user look somewhat desperate.
Delete'Too Painful' - by that do you mean it would have been too painful for Kate and Gerry to return? Wtf? There daughter was/is missing. What's more painful than that?
The reconstruction by Operation Grange was farcical Ziggy. As you say, they used lookalike actors and it wasn't even filmed in Portugal. To the public it appeared that the McCanns and their friends were still refusing to return to return to PDL.
The police are obviously still looking for that smoking gun Ziggy, the case isn't closed. Some might say, it is only a matter of time.
"Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.
ReplyDeleteAs an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days''
Shades of Ian Huntley at Soham( another Clarence hijack coincidentally) ...
Remember the baby faced quietly spoken caretaker ? Spoke highly of the two girls and of how fond his girlfriend( Carr) was of them and how he was just around that day hoping there was just something he could do.Butter wouldn't melt etc. And then a staged 'walkabout' by( yet another) Sky Anchorman saw him interviewed again as he happened to be walking from his doorway.Same story.
The Anchorman later explained with 20/20 hindsight how he'd thought 'there was something just odd about him''( Huntley had no squint so the reporter was having to be a bit vague).
The rest is History. But it just shows you really.Millions had seen Huntley in two interviews for over a week and nobody anywhere ( even online) and failed to spot his 'tells' and 'body language' or 'embedded confessions'.
Footnote. A family liaison officer( copper) was also arrested shortly after while counselling the families of poor Hollie and Jessica. Child porn on his computer.
Spookier ans spookier....
Lots of people were loitering around 5A Ziggy, including the world's journalists and anchor men/women, including the exuberant Nancy Drew, Lori Campbell.
DeleteRobert Murat had a genuine and altruistic reason for being there - he was assisting the police and the victims as an interpreter.
I agree it took a while for the spotlight to fall on Ian Huntley, it was 2002 after all, but as soon as it did, the truth quickly unfolded. Robert Murat was named arguido on 14th May 2007, 10 years on there is still nothing to link him to Madeleine's disappearance. Do you see the difference?
Anonymous9 March 2017 at 17:53
ReplyDeleteAnonymous @ 17:35
''Was it? if its to try and disrupt and turn it into another Amaral bashing rant then yes,if its to high light how the McCann took Amaral to court and failed miserably then it really really wasn't''
Then , in that case, it was.I'm far more interested in the fate of a missing child and the failure to resolve it than I am in a book penned by a detective who led the team that didn't come up with a conviction.
Your aggression and your posts are becoming tiresome Ziggy, as is your stubborn refusal to consider the valid reasons Gerry and Kate still live under a cloud of suspicion.
ReplyDeleteYou display the same arrogance and obstinacy of those you support. Gerry and Kate demand their word be accepted, but offer absolutely nothing to back it up. It reminds of the last resort of every parent 'because I say so'.
Gerry and Kate have had years and ample opportunity to clear their names Ziggy. And yes it is down to them, no-one else can do it for them. Almost every news agency would have given them a platform to answer those 48 questions, and probably put them up in style while they attended a reconstruction.
Had the McCanns co-operated with the Portuguese police they could have been quickly ruled out, and that should have been their priority, it would be for most parents. Can you not see that they were in fact damaging the search themselves?
It seems to me that your anger is directed at Clarence Mitchell and the police, though I am not sure if you mean British, Portuguese or both. Please explain (in a nutshell).
Your use of the word 'hater' shows contempt both to myself and my readers, it makes assumptions about us that simply aren't true. I'm not going to make a fuss about it however, because the reality is, it is a poor reflection of you Ziggy, not my blog or contributors.
The same goes for your use of 'Ms.' as in Ms. Unbound. It's a tad patriarchal, you might just as well say 'Missy'. It matters not to an old battle scarred feminist like myself, because it amuses me to watch men like yourself reveal their inner misogynist.
Robert Murat may have been the first arguido but he was not the first suspect. That was likely the Polish couple who were reported for an attempted abduction at Sagres earlier in the week. Some of the information that led to them being followed home to Poland was supplied by Robert's relatives.
ReplyDeleteI'm in the camp that believes that many of the theories that surround this case are based on facts.
When Robert talked about the biggest F*** Up on the planet" he was not just talking about the death of Madeleine, he was referring to how her death had thrown some great scheme into disaray. Was Robert called back to PDL by his relatives to assist in the cover-up?
@03:08
DeleteInteresting post, thank you. Food for thought.
How can you say that Robert Murat was talking about 'some great scheme', when he used the words 'biggest f**k on the planet'. That is a massive assumption. He could just as easily have been referring to a massive scam being enacted in plain sight.
DeleteThe above theory (some great scheme)isn't based on fact 03:08, it is pure speculation.
And why on earth would Robert's relatives call him back to PDL to help some random strangers hide a child's body? Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it happened 03:08, there has to be some sort of reason and logic behind it.
A "F***-Up" is a scheme gone wrong, so if it was the biggest "F***-Up" on the planet it must have been a huge scheme.
DeleteThe first suspect's photograph was taken from the CCTV of a music shop in Lisbon after Robert's relatives told Police that they had suggested to the suspects that they visit that shop in their search for some particular music that they were interested in obtaining.
There is no suggestion that Robert's relatives called him back to help hide a body, but he might have been required to assist in the cover-up of whatever was being enacted that week.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 March 2017 at 00:48
ReplyDelete''Nobody has thrown the dogs findings away Ziggy, and spare me the sarcasm''
Maybe not physically thrown away, but for what good they serve they are all but dead in the water after 10 years.
'' It really is the lowest form of wit and always makes the user look somewhat desperate. ''
It isn't the lowest form of wit.I'm not desperate.Why would I be ?
'''Too Painful' - by that do you mean it would have been too painful for Kate and Gerry to return? Wtf?''
Wtf ? They lost a daughter there.When you suffer a trauma somewhere, it can be hard to go back and relive it.Just seeing the place can be enough to make the memories flood back.Why the 'wtf' ?
''The reconstruction by Operation Grange was farcical Ziggy. As you say, they used lookalike actors and it wasn't even filmed in Portugal.''
All of which was down to Clarence Mitchell-not a McCann.
''To the public it appeared that the McCanns and their friends were still refusing to return to return to PDL. ''
To the suspicious .They were under orders.Don't you find it odd that the Tapas 7 came up with the infamous 'pact of silence', the actors were made to sign one , and all Q 'n' A sessions had to be rubber stamped ahead of time by Mitchell ?But the McCanns take the flak.
''The police are obviously still looking for that smoking gun Ziggy, the case isn't closed. Some might say, it is only a matter of time''.
They should look in Whitehall.Before their intervention, there were witnesses, blood samples, and cadaver scent, and a police force who were confident they had it cracked.After they intervened-it all vanished.In it's place, like a genie, was Tory Politician Clarence Mitchell with his new job description- 'Media Controller' .
Kid yourself as much as you like about the dogs' findings Ziggy, but they won't ever go away. Not in the minds of the public, and definitely not in the minds of the police.
DeleteToo painful. Wtf stands. What about Madeleine's pain? Most mothers would crawl on their bellies over burning coals to reach their child Ziggy, Not even thinking of their own pain.
Finding Madeleine should have taken precedence over the mother's feelings Ziggy. That reason for not doing the reconstruction is among the most damaging - to Kate. It shows a selfishness that no mother on earth can empathise with.
It also shows lying for the sake of lying. I'm sure most would have had more respect for the McCanns if they had been honest and said they feared they were being 'fitted up'. And if you haven't got it yet Ziggy, it's the lies that make the McCanns so unpopular.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 10 March 2017 at 10:28
DeleteA mother talking! My hat is off and a tight lump sensation in my throat, Rosalinda…
T
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 March 2017 at 00:29
ReplyDelete''Your aggression and your posts are becoming tiresome Ziggy, as is your stubborn refusal to consider the valid reasons Gerry and Kate still live under a cloud of suspicion. ''
So, if halfwits hurl juvenile rants calling me 'a twat' 'mentally ill' and accuse me of all kinds of conspiratorial intentions, it's 'free speech'. I stick to logical reasoning regarding what 'facts' actually are as opposed to 'suspicions' and 'theories', it's 'aggression' and 'tiresome'. Is it a coincidence that I offer a defence for the McCanns and expose holes in allegations ?
''You display the same arrogance and obstinacy of those you support. Gerry and Kate demand their word be accepted, but offer absolutely nothing to back it up. It reminds of the last resort of every parent 'because I say so'. ''
What do most of your contributors say in their angry accusations of the McCanns when they're challenged ?Is it only arrogant and obstinate when it doesn't go against the McCanns ?Tell me again about that 'i like to hear the other side, it makes for interesting discussion'.
''Gerry and Kate have had years and ample opportunity to clear their names Ziggy.''
They think it's cleared.They haven't been charged yet.
''It seems to me that your anger is directed at Clarence Mitchell and the police, though I am not sure if you mean British, Portuguese or both. Please explain (in a nutshell). ''
In a nutshell? Ok. Mitchell's a professional spin doctor( legitimate liar) and two police forces combined have failed in the case.If they 'really' failed, they're useless.If it's been spun against them to look like failure, then Mitchell was close enough to the McCanns, the Police, the MSM and the UK Government.If you can't smell anything wrong amongst all of that, blow your nose.
''Your use of the word 'hater' shows contempt both to myself and my readers, it makes assumptions about us that simply aren't true. I'm not going to make a fuss about it however, because the reality is, it is a poor reflection of you Ziggy, not my blog or contributors. ''
I don't like hate or haters.How I'm reflected isn't important.If using the word 'hater' is seen by you as contempt for you- i don't know why.Contempt for some of your contributors-yes, i admit that.
''The same goes for your use of 'Ms.' as in Ms. Unbound. It's a tad patriarchal,..it amuses me to watch men like yourself reveal their inner misogynist.''
Lighten up.You started a thread asking who 'ziggy' is.I didn't call you an obsessive stalker- i took it as light entertainment with no deep meaning. Mysogynist? You couldn't be further from the truth in yet another swing and a miss at psychoanalysing fonts.
Ziggy I've been reading this blog for a while now could you tell me what you think happened to Madeleine.the cadaver alerts still haven't been explained how you dismiss them is beyond me tbh.do you think the mccanns or friends could have knowledge of what happened or do you 100 percent rule them out of involvement
DeleteGreat post John Wright, and perfect timing! I read JB's before I read your own and was relieved that you summed up my own perspective so succinctly. Yes, I want answers to those questions too!
Delete@Anonymous10 March 2017 at 03:08
ReplyDelete''I'm in the camp that believes that many of the theories that surround this case are based on facts.
When Robert talked about the biggest F*** Up on the planet" he was not just talking about the death of Madeleine, he was referring to how her death had thrown some great scheme into disaray. Was Robert called back to PDL by his relatives to assist in the cover-up?''
Interesting post.
I was convinced( due to a bias i had) a few years ago, that Madeleine had 'gone' or was supposed to, on May 1. All reports suggested that it wasn't, or couldn't be, prior to May 3. So my pieces of that jigsaw had to go. I wondered at Murat's 'f**k up' statement.I wondered about his Russian friend who, according to some reports, shot off sharpish and whose car was bombed later by someone or some party who weren't too fond of him for some reason.
Your mentioning a 'great scheme' took me right back to my first suspicions.Could it be that May 1 was the original 'plan' and it couldn't go ahead ?Then it happened on May3 and it was on again ?Hence Murat's comment ? I didn't know a Murat had been 'helpful' in another attempted abduction.That's interesting too.
Björn9 March 2017 at 18:20
ReplyDelete''but the truth is, that they have spent at least 8 years persecuting and trying to destroy an ex police detective, instead of concentrating on the search for their daughter. Whatever outcome they had expected in the libel suit, it couldn't possibly help them find their daughter.''
There were hundreds of foot soldiers searching, Bjorn. Mark Harrison didn't just leave every stone unturned, he left no grain of sand unturned and even the sea and cliffs. Everyone was on a payroll for it so it was thorough.It was just that they avoided the right place unfortunately. The expert, Harrison, after all the efforts and studies, suggested 'she was probably in the sea'. Priceless.The McCanns couldn't have added any more, idea-wise, to the search. 'Experts' were funded heavily from the fund too. They didn't spend 'the last 8 years persecuting and trying to destroy an ex police detective' - they spent it trying to destroy the allegations he was making about them.
Hi Ziggy
DeleteWhat I meant was, what's the point in so aggressively vehemently and persistent year after year defend their honor, when they could have done that by concentrating on assisting the S Y or the P J in the search for Madeleine and her perpetrator. If they are truly innocent, why bother so much about what a former and also a fired police detective says or believes. If, as they say, there is nothing in his research in form of evidence about their involvement, why worry about what he says. People who read his book can judge for themselves.
Bjorn mentioned earlier that RM was re - questioned by SY like many others who had been questioned. I enjoy your post Bjorn but that's not right. In comparison to 2007 very few people have been re questioned. I'm a good old fashion believer that the police in the course of their work generally are going in the right direction even though they may not get a conviction out of it. I don't believe for 1 minute that SY even if they were pulling of the farse some people so love to talk about have not interviewed the McCanns and their friends. The reason there has been no publicity is because it would have started s media and Internet frenzy.They couldn't have the same control over people they interviewed in Portugal. How cruel do you think the PJ and SY would have to be to bring RM back into the picture by interviewing him if he was completely innocent. I think he played some part that night.
ReplyDeleteI have a feeling the McCanns stopped talking to SY a long time ago 07:12. The 'stills' from the 2013(?)Crimewatch tell a whole new story of their own, especially the picture of DCI Redwood with Gerry and Kate and the giant picture of Gerry's doppelganger in the background.
DeleteSince that time, the McCanns' media appearances have been cut dramatically, possibly to avoid that awkward question 'so how is Operation Grange coming along?'.
Rosalinda @10:47
DeleteThat picture of DCI Redwood with Gerry and Kate and the giant picture of Gerry's doppelganger in the background has been photoshopped.
Thank you 11:11, I did not know that (blushing smiley). It did seem to capture the moment a bit too well! In any event, I didn't get any feelings of harmony from those interviews, Gerry and Kate appeared to be extremely stressed.
DeleteHi Anon 10 March 07:12
DeleteTanks for commenting on what I try to say.
RM was, at least according to MSM, indeed re-questioned in 2013 (Dec). So he was in fact in a way brought back into the investigation, although as a witness, if I've understood it correctly, and questioned by the P J, but I suppose the S Y must have had something with that to do. I thought it was strange then, because nothing leaked from the S Y/PJ investigation about the McCanns' being treated in a similar way, which of course doesn't mean they weren't, but perhaps secretly.
Christobell 10 March. 00.29
ReplyDeleteAt last !
Thank you Christobell.
Needed saying.
Hello Ros. Looking forward to reading/coming back when the trolling is over.
ReplyDeletejohn blacksmith 10 March 2017 at 10:58
DeleteI’m, for one, looking forward to your coming back.
Happy trolling! How about a fisherman’s pie and a drop of ale on you return?
Have a good weekend.
Peace.
T
When I mention the case to people in my country, the reactions vary from "The who?" and "Ah, yes, that little girl missing".
ReplyDeleteI mean, the world didn't stood still since 3 may 2007. In the UK it's a 'global issue'. Chez nous the press doesn't pay attention to it. Unless the papers are being fed with a message from a press agency about 'the win' of Mr. Amaral for instance, or the police focusing on 'a paedophilia gang'. And in that case you will find it somewhere hidden in the middle. We don't have a tabloid culture. Maybe that's the reason.
I'm not an addict to this case, but from what I have read in the online 'fact book' of Mr. Amaral I simply have to decide that a cover-up is the only conclusion that makes sense. And, yes, the dog findings are pivotal.
Many thanks for your contribution 11:27, it is always interesting to hear how the rest of the world this bizarre case.
DeleteIn many ways the UK is much the same 11:27, in that most people have moved on, the headline skimmers especially. This little corner of the internet is quite niche, mostly puzzle solvers who won't give up until the last piece in place, and those gripped by the continuing saga.
Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth of the Lie' is the biggest challenge to the McCanns' abduction claim. It tallies exactly with the Portuguese police investigation and the conclusions reached by Taveres de Almeida in his interim report.
Of course the dogs' findings are pivotal - thank you for confirming that :)
In normal circumstances your comment would have been an arrow to my heart John, but it was immediately followed by a very succinct and interesting post by John Wright, asking exactly the kind of questions (of the 'pros') that I and I'm sure many others, want answers to.
ReplyDeleteI like to 'know' the enemy John. As a commuter I used to read the Daily Mail every morning followed by a triple shot of expresso at London Bridge. Actually, in hindsight, that may be the reason for my alleged 'attitude problem', lol.
As 'T' would say: Peace :)
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 10 March 2017 at 11:27
DeleteFlattered, blushing… You spoil me. :)
Have a good weekend, you and all.
Peace.
T
"- Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions for this effect - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British lab Forensic Science Service -, whose final results did not positively value the collected residues, or corroborated the canine markings;"
ReplyDeleteArchiving report.
For some reason it seems impossible for the anti Mccann people to accept that fact contained within the files.
Anonymous 10 March 2017 at 12:31
DeleteDear friend
Your post appears to be uncomfortably beside the point in that in this case the dog’s markings stand, corroborated or not, unless they are explained away.
“Ask the dogs, Sandra” is not an explanation, is it?
T
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm#p4p985
ReplyDeleteMEMORANDUM RELATED TO INFORMATION ESTABLISHED VIA INFORMAL CONTACT WITH ROBERT MURAT ON 12/05/2007:
• Has lived in Almadena (Lagos);
• Has a brother who suffers from Dyslexia
• Questioned regarding the possible scenarios for the solution of the crime states:
1. that the recent offer of €1.000.000 may have the opposite effect of creating more abductions in Portugal in the future, namely carried out by Russians and Romanians; that the Russians are particularly cold when it comes to questions of money;
2. that the solution to the present case is in the resort and that the PJ have certainly come to understand this;
• States that the locale of Baroes is a locale where potential paedophiles exist interested in abducting children;
• He grew up in an area called Essen or Lessen, in the south of Norfolk and north of Southfolk (England);
• Related the case of an English abductor who due to media pressure released his victim, but in another case a 10 year old was murdered by a paedophile who buried her next to military base in Southfolk;
• Stated that he intended to rent a car as his car was being used for reasons he did not specify;
• That on this night he had a dinner booked in Lagos;
• That he served as a translator for the Northfolk police in situations where threats of a racist nature were made against Portuguese members of the community there.
Signed,
The Inspector Chief
Reis Santos
Björn 3 March 2017 at 21:47 ( at http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/innocent-until-proven-guilty.html?showComment=1488577658021#c8814125884579437838 )
ReplyDeleteMight be of interest (and pertinent):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyodor_Dostoyevsky#Siberian_exile_.281849.E2.80.931854.29
“Among Dostoyevsky's last words was his quotation of Matthew 3:14–15: "But John forbad him, saying, I have a need to be baptised of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness", and he finished with "Hear now—permit it. Do not restrain me!"[105] When he died, his body was placed on a table, following Russian custom. He was interred in the Tikhvin Cemetery at the Alexander Nevsky Convent,[106] near his favourite poets, Nikolay Karamzin and Vasily Zhukovsky. It is unclear how many attended his funeral. According to one reporter, more than 100,000 mourners were present, while others describe attendance between 40,000 and 50,000. His tombstone is inscribed with lines from the New Testament:[103][107] Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it dies, it bringeth forth much fruit. – John 12:24”
Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/magazine/nabokov-on-dostoyevsky.html?pagewanted=all
--------------------------------------------
'How would you say "delightful talk" in Russian?
'How would you say "good night?" '
Oh, that would be:
Bessonitza, tvoy vzor oonyl I strashen;
lubov' moya, outsoopnika prostee.
(Insomnia, your stare is dull and ashen,
my love, forgive me this apostasy.)
("An Evening of Russian Poetry")
Vladimir Nabokov
More later?
Have a good weekend.
T
john wright10 March 2017 at 10:45
ReplyDelete''Ziggy I've been reading this blog for a while now could you tell me what you think happened to Madeleine.the cadaver alerts still haven't been explained how you dismiss them is beyond me tbh.do you think the mccanns or friends could have knowledge of what happened or do you 100 percent rule them out of involvement''
Hi john
I think Madeleine was taken away by someone FOR someone.Child trafficking is rife and has been for years.Anyone who doesn't accept that should research it.It doesn't matter how I dismiss any scientific evidence, really. I have no qualifications in that area and no experience( unlike many who seem to think they have even more than the paid experts and can dismiss the scientists).If the scientists dismissed it the must have had grounds to.I either believe them or believe they were involved in a conspiracy to cover up a crime-why would they ?What would their motive be ? They risk the death of their career and a jail sentence.
The case has left more questions than answers.And they continue to grow in number and take us further away from a resolution.Who does that suit -logically ?
I don't know if the McCanns were 'in on it' or their friends'.There seems to be far more going on 'behind the scenes' than on stage.But, if they were guilty, why would so much effort by so many detectives and politicians have taken place just to make sure that two people on holiday were never convicted ?It makes no sense at all.
Anonymous10 March 2017 at 12:31 makes a good point :
''"- Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions for this effect - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British lab Forensic Science Service -, whose final results did not positively value the collected residues, or corroborated the canine markings;"
Archiving report.
For some reason it seems impossible for the anti Mccann people to accept that fact contained within the files.''
Do we accept the vaildity of that report composed by their experts -or the internet.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 March 2017 at 10:28
ReplyDelete''Kid yourself as much as you like about the dogs' findings Ziggy, but they won't ever go away''
If I've been kidded, it hasn't been by myself, it's been by highly qualified scientists who we're all supposed to trust.I saw the videos of barking dogs, like you did.I thought it was significant.Then the scientists said it wasn't.That's the difference between professors who are experts in their field, and the public who watch vids and arrive at their own conclusions.
''Too painful. Wtf stands. What about Madeleine's pain? Most mothers would crawl on their bellies over burning coals to reach their child Ziggy''
I said 'maybe' it was too painful to revisit the place where they lost their daughter to stage a reconstruction.You said 'wtf'.You've tried to alter the context here.
''That reason for not doing the reconstruction is among the most damaging - to Kate. It shows a selfishness that no mother on earth can empathise with. ''
Depending if you let your own anger interfere with your assessment of course.It's easy for anyone to go down the 'if that was me route' when they're sat in a comfortable pain-free seat.The phrase' walk a mile in her shoes' comes to mind.
''It also shows lying for the sake of lying. I'm sure most would have had more respect for the McCanns if they had been honest and said they feared they were being 'fitted up'.''
Mitchell was 'media and interview /appearance' controller. He should be your target.If you publicly say that you think you're being fitted up and have nobody to point to, it goes nowhere and people will cry 'paranoia'. Worse, with so much subjective 'reading'(lol@that) of the McCanns every syllable, it would backfire and the internet would break.If these people in high places are 'outed' publicly, shit hits many fans( see the dutroux affair).You might as well name names in mafia killings. I think the rock and the hard place is here somewhere.I think GMs anger will break and surface eventually.
''it's the lies that make the McCanns so unpopular.''
Again..lies can be exposed and replaced by truth. Proof is needed for both.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton10 March 2017 at 09:58
ReplyDelete''Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it happened 03:08, there has to be some sort of reason and logic behind it.''
Amen to that - on ALL fronts.
Hopkins to pay £24,000 + £107,000 court costs for 2 offensive tweets.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the freedom of speech warriors will be up in arms!
But hey - just carry on repeating your lies and libel about the Mccanns folks.
What has a row over tweets about damage to war memorial to do with the McCann case?
DeleteUpdate - someone has posted:
Delete"I understand the total costs to be claimed by @MxJackMonroe's lawyers from @KTHopkins will be in excess of £300k, in addition to £24 k."
@ Anonymous10 March 2017 at 17:08
DeleteAre you unable to read the third line of the post at 16.25?
Anonymous @19:15
DeleteYou should address your recommendation to the red tops.
@ Anonymous10 March 2017 at 20:05
DeleteI don't see any recommendations - in the posts.
(perhaps at this stage you should say "don't mention the dogs")
@20:52 "don't mention the dogs"
Delete"But hey - just carry on repeating..."
"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
ReplyDeleteDo people (including Sandra and Ros) have trouble understanding that?
People, please!
ReplyDeleteThey will sue neither Katie Hopkins nor Karen Danczuk because those two have been helping to settle -trying to settle?- their neclect theory.
That's why some tabloids-with-an-agenda suddenly publish so much reactions, knowing well that they are always coming from the same people, the so called 'haters'.
Do we read all those nonsense in the other media? No. Because they don't wait for people 'close to the family' to write their stories.
They will bark when the sniffing stops.
The dog findings are crucial. Don't forget. If you want justice to be done, speak in their name: Eddie and Keela, Madeleine McCann's only true friends.
@18:31
DeleteWho are going to throw the McCanns to the wolves? Operation Grange?
Ros - it is about time you published all posts (except those that are abusive about you personally) and accept freedom of expression or confirm that you filter out the posts that you don't like. Using the "spam box" overlooked items is not acceptable if, as you say, you are open to all opinion.
ReplyDeleteI have made two posts that have not appeared but a later one has. Neither were offensive in any way - just factual.
Nothing in my spam box since 5th March 18:38, and they are one line links that I am not sure of.
DeleteIf you still have the posts, please do try again :)
Anonymous 10 March 2017 at 18:38 wrote:
Delete"Ros - it is about time you published all posts....."
"I have made two posts that have not appeared...."
Same here. So I stopped posting.
Chez
Again, nothing in my spam box Chez, and as I said to the poster above you, please feel free to repost.
Delete@ Anonymous10 March 2017 at 18:31
ReplyDelete"speak in their name: Eddie and Keela, Madeleine McCann's only true friends."
--------------------------
"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
I suggest you speak to Grime when you have finished ranting about the dogs.
Anonymous10 March 2017 at 18:42
ReplyDelete@ Anonymous10 March 2017 at 18:31
"speak in their name: Eddie and Keela, Madeleine McCann's only true friends."
--------------------------
"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
I suggest you speak to Grime when you have finished ranting about the dogs.
That sounds reasonable to me..
john blacksmith10 March 2017 at 10:58
ReplyDelete''Hello Ros. Looking forward to reading/coming back when the trolling is over.''
Blog comments: On some popular blogs and news sites that have comments enabled, you can sometimes find trolls cursing, name-calling and just causing trouble for the heck of it.
Trouble : Mental or emotional disturbance or distress; worry.
Forums: Forums are made for discussing topics with like-minded people.
Debate : Deliberation; consideration. A formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.To participate in a formal debate.
Discussion: An act or instance of discussing; consideration or examination by argument, comment, etc., esp. to explore solutions; informal debate.
Anonymous17 February 2017 at 21:56
''Thank god it's not just me. I try just to ignore his/ her posts but then everyone else seems to be replying to the nonsense''
Anonymous17 February 2017 at 18:19
''Probably 'Merde'..........or is it Verde? No ! It's Verdi from COMMM . What a prize twat!''
Anonymous18 February 2017 at 17:25
''I have no interest in anything ziggy says and couldn't care less about his/her identity.''
JJ2 March 2017 at 20:27
'If Mr Ziggy, you were not bullshitting''
JJ1 March 2017 at 10:36
''I have offered advice before for Ziggy to seek strong medication for his severe mental illness,which is clearly getting worse.''
John blacksmith17 February 2017 at 11:09
''He's a thicko troll who is making your site unreadable''.
A fine stand, Mr Blacksmith. We're here for you.
10 Mar 19:02
DeleteZiggy only recently you state 'your opinion of me or anyone elses of me is redundant. Worthless.
You also wrote 'I do what I like, when I like, where I like, I am that important to the internet'.
You spend hour after hour, day after day patrolling Cristobell Unbound.
Why ziggy, just why?
I do believe Ros is feeding your paranoia, for probably the first time in your life, you feel important and you have people responding.
Most of us know you have less a grasp of reality than Bennett/Hall and certainly proffer as much if not more nonsense.
As for myself I do not hate the MacCanns I have met them both and find them rather sad. Clarence Mitchell on the other hand I find a pompous overbearing buffoon.
If you are a Mccann family member,friend or paid shill, your hours at the keyboard are understandable, if not why?
When you rant about you've forgotten more than the rest of us will ever know and how qualified you are, you come across as a complete nutter, because we are on the internet.
Unless you are sitting at a GCHQ computer terminal you really do not know other peoples' qualifications.
I believe that you are not as well educated as you insist, because of your poor grammar and spelling but that is my personal bias.
This phase of your life will pass Ziggy, there is help available out there.
Why are people still posting year after year about the dogs.
ReplyDeleteask the dogs Sandra?
why don't the pro's and the Mccanns explain the dogs.
It is simple:
"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
if you have questions about the dogs - then I suggest you address them to Grime - he was the handler and the expert - not saucy Sandra.
20:59
Delete"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
Oh. So the deceased cannot be positively identified in the absence of a body, is that it?
And?
Do you think you can overcome common sense with a little semantic bleach?
What's the answer when the smell of decomposition is present and only one person is missing? (hint: 2 + x = 4. Find x).
It stands to reason (the same reason) that since the absence is undeniable, the only recourse open to the defence (i.e., you) is to question the validity of the dogs' indications.
That's two different dogs, each giving a positive signal at the same locations, but on different occasions, i.e. independently.
If you were to calculate the statistical likelihood of both animals giving false positives under such circumstances you'd probably find you had a better chance of winning the lottery.
Given Professor McCann's standing as a leading heart specialist and research team leader, perhaps international search and rescue services should pay attention to his earlier advice and re-think their use of dogs as detectors.
The police too should abandon any programme they might have in place that trains dogs to localize people, drugs, fire accelerants, currency, explosives etc.
A clear waste of money according to the nay sayers.
I bet you wouldn't board a suspect plane, or anything else, after a dog had signalled it positive for a bomb though.
So true. I'll save this one and spread it. The dog findings suffocate the lie.
Delete'Why are still posting about the dogs year after year?'
DeleteYour kidding right? You are acting as if the dogs' findings were shelved in 2007 and that's an end to it. Professor Gerry has proved beyond doubt that the highly trained EVRD dogs were a waste of time and money. End of.
Except he hasn't. EVRD dogs are still used every day all over the world, and are as highly valued as they ever were.
There is no room for doubt in the Madeleine case. The dogs only alerted to McCann property and they alerted 11 times. I am astonished that anyone can even suggest that the dogs' findings should be discarded.
LGBT - lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.
ReplyDeleteTB - transgender, bisexual.
@21:23
DeleteBGT - Britain's Got Talent
With reference to the sniffer dogs, how quick would you think Gerry would dismiss their findings if they alerted scents at RM's house. They didn't but they gave alerts at apartment 5a, the rented villa they stayed in whilst searching & the hired car three weeks after Madeleine disappeared. Now please tell me the dogs don't lie.
ReplyDeleteCome on you warriors of truth -
ReplyDeletepost your lies about the Mccanns - come on Ros - you believe all the crap - do it - say what you really believe happened.
Show how brave you are and how you support freedom to tell lies. Time to tell the truth of what you have been doing for nearly 10 years.
23:19. Time to tell the truth? LOL, I've been telling the truth for 10 years - I don't believe the abduction story! And I've been brave enough to say in my own name and with my own face. You, on the other hand, are flogging a lie and hiding behind anonymity.
DeleteGone quiet have you Ros?
ReplyDeleteIt twill only cost you £xxxx for what you consider is your freedom of speech.
I believe Ros and others may be looking back and deleting old tweets.
ReplyDeleteI haven't written anything I am ashamed of 23:43, I write under the maxim of honesty and integrity, I don't have to delete anything.
DeleteJohn10010 March 2017 at 23:16
ReplyDelete''With reference to the sniffer dogs, how quick would you think Gerry would dismiss their findings if they alerted scents at RM's house ''
I don't think GM dismissed them in the first place.It was a couple of scientific studies.Because of those, GM was able to dismiss the findings as they had failed whatever tests set by the scientists.
0:33. Gerry and Kate dismissed the findings of the dogs when they were made arguidoes at the beginning of September 2007 Ziggy. At that time there hadn't been any scientific studies. In fact Kate gives a very colourful account of her dismissal of the dogs findings in her book, she sat there in the police interview room chanting 'f***ing t*sser'.
Delete@00:33
DeleteWould you like to tell us some more about the scientific test in which EDDIE and KEELA took part? You know, the one(s) that led to GM dismissing 'the findings' on account of EDDIE and KEELA's failing whatever tests you and he (GM) refer to.
The mccanns suing anyone would just bring more attention on them I don't think they will.23.43 I doubt much deleting needs done heard it all before
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 10.3 at 20:59
ReplyDelete("not saucy Sandra")
The McCanns preferred advice from their friend Clement Freud.
Anon 01:03
ReplyDeleteI bet you wouldn't board a suspect plane, or anything else, after a dog had signalled it positive for a bomb though
Brilliant I too will use it in future
BTW Ros there does seem to be something wrong with the posting of comments as 1 of mine seem to have faded into cyberspace
I've no idea what is happening to these missing posts 07:43. They are not appearing in my spam box, there's been nothing in there since 5th March. It is a mystery!
DeleteAnon 01:03
ReplyDelete"I bet you wouldn't board a suspect plane, or anything else, after a dog had signalled it positive for a bomb though"
Check out
"However, when the dog's behavior becomes evidence in the legal realm and assumptions are made about what the dog "meant", or the mythical belief in canine abilities prevails, or where issues of reliability are simply ignored because of handler bias, then we have a problem".
Extract from http://www.science20.com/gerhard_adam/how_reliable_are_sniffing_dogs-95956
I expect this will only trigger contradicting articles from the antis!
@08:35
Delete1 (of two)
"I expect this will only trigger contradicting articles from the antis!"
No. It will provoke closer examination of this article than you were prepared to give it.
"However when the dog's behaviour etc., etc."
Note: The author, Gerhard Adam, is not a scientist, nor even a columnist with a science speciality. He's a blogger!
"Gerhard Adam, the man in the white hat, philosophizes from his ranch on life, thought and the luxury of belief" - that's reassuring.
Note too that the discussion centres upon dogs trained and deployed in the USA/Canada. It includes reference to malpractice on the part of 'cowboy' operators, whose standards, if they adopt any, may be open to question ("only two states have standards for dog certification")
"Would one consider a dog that is abused by its handler to be in the best condition to respond to commands and perform tasks?"
Irrelevant to the McCann case as the dogs were not abused.
"...without truly understanding the psychology of the dog involved, it becomes impossible to ascertain the motivation for any particular response."
Handler Martin Grime understood the psychology of the dogs involved perfectly well (he trained them) and was therefore ideally placed to interpret their motivation. He did not call for a 'second opinion', yours or mine, but explained, perfectly adequately, what the dogs did and why.
@08:35
Delete2.
Adam quotes from 'Springerlink' (http://www.springerlink.com/content/j477277481125291/fulltext.pdf?MUD=MP) as follows:
"The overwhelming number of incorrect alerts identified across conditions confirms that handler beliefs affect performance. Further, the directed pattern of alerts in conditions containing a marker compared with the pattern of alerts in the condition with unmarked decoy scent suggests, etc."
Here's some of what he didn't quote:
"There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers. Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations."
(Where were the 'markers' in apartment 5A?)
"When a handler “called an alert,” that is, confirmed that the dog had found a target scent location and was issuing its trained operant response..."
Notice it is the handler's 'calls' (interpretations) that were recorded for the purposes of the study. The dog had no direct say in the matter.
Remember 'Tweety pie'? ('I thought I saw a puddy tat a creepin' up on me'. It's the 'I thought I saw' bit that matters).
Adam again:
"One of the most contentious elements of the legal argument is the lack of reliable data regarding the error rates for these canines. Despite a long history of using canines, there is a remarkable lack of scientific data to back up our assumptions."
Given the 'lack of reliable scientific data', Adam's arguments, such as they are, have no more support than anyone else's, including yours.
He goes on to cite percentages of errors etc., such as:
"A recent study of three years of data from an Illinois police precinct found a 56% erroneous alert rate. Only 44% of the alerts resulted in discovery of drugs..."
But such examples are NOT instances of dogs making mistakes. That the drugs were not 'discovered' does not mean they were never there. The dog(s) respond to a residual scent. When they indicate with their trained 'I've found it' response they mean the scent, that's all.
Returning to your primary quote 'assumptions' made about what a dog 'means' are assumptions made by people, not dogs. If the assumption is erroneous then it is a human failure, not an error on the animal's part. There is no 'mythical belief in canine abilities', but a testimonial record accrued over many years of observation and practice.
Evaluations conducted in a laboratory produce results garnered under experimental conditions, which do not invariably contradict the experiential evidence, despite Gerhard's homespun reservations.
hopkins twitter libel....
ReplyDeletequote
The judgment also made a number of other interesting determinations and observations which will be instructive for future Twitter defamation cases:
Even if a tweet is deleted a sound assessment can be made of the extent of publication (which is important in determining serious harm) through a combination of Twitter analytics, the number of the defendant’s followers and number of visits to the defendant’s ‘home page’ on Twitter.
If a tweet is deleted, the element of transience can be considered when assessing serious harm. However, when assessing this, what matters is not the period of time for which a person is exposed to the message but the impact that the message has.
The absence of evidence that a tweet was believed is not evidence of a lack of harm.
Evidence of serious harm in the form of abuse from other Twitter users can be helpful to a claimant’s case, but it must show causation resulting from the defendant’s defamatory tweet.
Ms Hopkins’ argument against the occurrence of serious harm on the basis that the Tweets were only made to people whose opinions about Ms Monroe couldn’t be shifted was rejected. Ms Hopkins had argued that because of the nature of Twitter, the people who engaged with the Tweets were either her followers or Ms Monroe’s followers and therefore either strongly supported Ms Monroe or were already opposed to her. The judge held that a person could have a low opinion of another, and yet the other’s reputation can still be harmed by fresh defamatory allegations.
Ms Monroe’s own responses to the Tweets on Twitter did not mitigate harm. Denials are not the same as corrections, retractions or apologies. More importantly, Ms Monroe had no access to the followers of Ms Hopkins.
An appendix to the judgment entitled ‘How Twitter Works’ contains a detailed overview of the mechanics of Twitter and may be particularly instructive for future Twitter defamation cases.Food blogger and political activist Jack Monroe has won a defamation claim against Katie Hopkins in respect of two tweets published on Twitter. Ms Monroe was awarded £24,000 in damages. The case is particularly significant given the Twitter context generally, but also that this was the first time that the ‘serious harm’ test under the Defamation Act 2013 has been applied to tweets.
quote
ReplyDeleteWhen arguing that Ms Monroe had not suffered serious harm, Ms Hopkins contended that Twitter is the "Wild West" where vulgar and crude statements are par for the course. Accordingly, due allowance should be made for a forum which has less credibility than 'serious' media publications. This argument was roundly rejected by the court given that Ms Hopkins is a well-known figure. Each case is of course dependent on its own facts, but it may now be more difficult to argue that attention-grabbing provocative tweets are just 'mere abuse', 'banter' or statements that aren't taken seriously because they are made on Twitter. Tweets can be held to the same standard as a 'reputable' or 'serious' publication and, crucially, the judge had little difficulty in this case in finding that the serious harm test was satisfied. Controversy-baiting Twitter celebrities may need to be more cautious with what they tweet in the wake of this judgment.
@08:35
ReplyDeleteI've already submitted a lengthy two-part response to your comment. It may have found its way down the cyber-drain, in which case I would just add the following:
An EVRD/Cadaver dog (call it what you will, the dog won't care so long as you feed it) is NOT TRAINED TO FIND BODIES.
It (and other specially trained canines) recognizes and localizes a specific odour/scent with which it is familiar; something of which ALL dogs are capable, and to an almost unimaginable degree of precision.
Despite this extraordinary feature of its being, a dog is not the sharpest tool in the shed, especially when it comes to deceit (for that you need a human). They cannot lie and do not 'make it up' simply in order to get a pat on the back.
Evolution has seen to it that a dog's sense of smell is the primary weapon in its arsenal. Where a mistaken detection could prove fatal, you tend to find they seldom if ever occur.
A scenario of 'Follow me boys, I smell food - Oh f*ck, it's a bear!' is not one conducive to species survival after all.
@ Anonymous11 March 2017 at 13:22
Delete"They cannot lie and do not 'make it up' simply in order to get a pat on the back."
Read about how dogs are trained.
@17:32
Delete"Read about how dogs are trained"
Why? Crufts doesn't interest me.
@ 18:46
DeleteThen don't pretend you are a dog expert because you are clearly not.
@19:20
DeleteDon't pretend you're intelligent because you are clearly not.
Read about the testing of sniffer dogs by police in Rotterdam. You can do that here:
Dr Zakaria Erzinclioglu, 'Forensics - True Crime Scene Investigations': Carlton/ Sevenoaks, 2004).
"...the dog has not chosen a second best, a nearest odour to the one it was seeking. The smell was either present in one of the jars or it was not. It is as simple as that. The dog would not identify a false jar even to please its handler; it would rather fail than do that."
As I said, they don't make things up. Nor do I. And you?
Pour la n'ième fois ... The dogs' findings are what they are: crucial. Wooshing them is simply not an option. That's why Mr. and Mrs. tried to explain them away with -je répète- 6 bodies, sea bass, dirty nappies and remarks such as 'ask the dogs' and 'notoriously unreliable'. By the way -and also 'pour la n'ième fois'- sending in the dogs was a proposal of the British. F*cking tossers!
ReplyDeleteRA
@15:34
DeleteRA
You are, of course, absolutely right.
Regrettably (since it takes a deal of time to type a lengthy answer) I felt it necessary to rebut 08:35 using his own terms of reference, otherwise we'd still be in 'oh yes they did - oh no they didn't' territory.
As you so deftly point out, there should have been no need to invoke a variety of explanations for what the cadaver dog is supposed not to have smelt.
It's the same class of irrational behaviour from innocent parties that saw them lie about events on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday when the child was not 'taken', unexpectedly (?) until Thursday night.
Btw., do you not find it curious that the two principals behind the dog searches (handler, Martin Grime and senior NPIA officer Mark Harrison, who recommended him) have both seen fit to pursue their careers on the other side of the world?
Did they jump or were they pushed?
@ sloganman11 March 2017 at 15:34
Delete"No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."
Are you calling Grime a liar?
@17:15
DeleteYou appear obsessed with that sentence.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain what an 'intelligence reliability' is and how it's made.
I wouldn't call Grime a liar personally, but I would question his use of English.
That said, I do not question for a moment his training, utilisation and understanding of the dogs he employs. The UK Police did not do so previously, nor do the FBI now.
@ Anonymous11 March 2017 at 18:49
DeleteI am not obsessed with the sentence - it is what Grime states in his statement - if you have a problem about it or his use of English then you should address Grime and not me.
It is a comment that the Mccann haters conveniently leave out when they are saying "the dogs don't lie".
I would also suggest you check out the accreditation of the dogs.
@19:17
Delete"It is a comment that the Mccann haters conveniently leave out..."
Why 'convenient'? Of course dogs don't lie. They don't even speak!
Grime's remark, which you persistently quote in isolation, was addressed to people, and concerned what people might do with respect to making an 'evidential or intelligence reliability' (whatever that means) from 'this (i.e. one) alert', (whichever that particular alert may have been).
"I would also suggest you check out the accreditation of the dogs"
Why? I don't wish to use them. Aren't they dead anyway?
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton11 March 2017 at 06:41
ReplyDelete''0:33. Gerry and Kate dismissed the findings of the dogs when they were made arguidoes at the beginning of September 2007 Ziggy'
I should have made myself more clear.
Before they were official suspects, they were ther victims of a crime.Many a murderer has been caught near his victim with bloodied knife in hand or a smoking gun.They instinctively 'dismiss' it( ''I found them and the weapon officer, honestly').The police don't take their word and leave.It's the police who check the evidence and decide if it's evidence or not-not those dismissing it.The victims of a crime or the suspects, have NO say in what is or isn't evidence.Only when the investigators have examined it, and had reports from a forensic team, is that decision reached.
In the McCann case - or rather online inquests about it- it seems that the vast army who have charged, put on trial, and found ( in their Knagaroo Court) the McCanns guilty of secretly killing their child then hiding the body are suggesting quite loudly, and with confidence,that every detective, regardless of whatever 'operation' they were involved in, scientists ( actual real ones ) and a professional dog trainer-liars.
So, as one of the minority who would like to see a transparent investigation take place( ALL forces) and a partly sane, adult discussion, can the majority answer the following :
1-Why would the authorities shelve the evidence ?
2- Why would Mark Grime lie ?
3-Why would the forensic team dismiss DNA /Blood evidence ?
4-If the police had granted your wish and jailed the McCanns-who would suffer apart from the McCanns?
5-If NO politicians had intervened, and no 'PR controller', do you think the case woud have been cracked early ?
6- Do you think the strangest aspect of this case is that the priority is to keep the McCanns free-if so -why ?
7-If all the police, forensic team, media, politicians, dog trainers have lied, do you think they should be charged with perverting the course of justice ?
It is odd Kate in her book p267 quotes the case of Wisconsin v Zapata as an indicator of incorrect dog alerts.
ReplyDeleteIt must have been a real shock to them to find the dogs had correctly alerted where the body had been but that Zapata over a period of 30 years had dug up his wife and moved the body several times?
Zapata was sentenced in Feb 08 in a plea bargain to 5 years for homicide by reckless conduct
They never want to tell us this
I wonder why?
JJ @19:54
Delete"I wonder why?"
Don't be coy. You know as well as I do.
When people neglect to mention something it's invariably for a reason.
Anonymous @08:35 referred to a blogger in a white hat (who also seems to have a problem with sniffer dogs).
Here's a little exchange 'white hat man' included in his blog on the subject, and which Anonymous appears to have ignored (the last observation says it all):
"Q. Do you keep records as to the effectiveness of your dog?"
"A. Yes, sir, I do."
"Q. Do you know how often your dog gives false positives?"
"A. He doesn't give any false positives. We're just unable to verify the alerts at the time."
I wonder why that simple statement of fact induces such a widespread lack of understanding?
Maybe because it arouses the 'God complex' in people.
"Btw., do you not find it curious that the two principals behind the dog searches (handler, Martin Grime and senior NPIA officer Mark Harrison, who recommended him) have both seen fit to pursue their careers on the other side of the world? Did they jump or were they pushed?"
ReplyDeleteROFL! How very #McCann!!
Ros, Probably the most relevant post on this thread was the one by Anonymous 9 March 20.39, who quoted a couple of sentences from a damning assessment by Inspector Varanda of Murat as an interpreter. He should have quoted the whole report; his conduct was disgraceful e.g. trying to sneak a look at confidential police documents he had no right to see. I know you've said you 'like' Murat, but I want to know why he didn't tell the truth about his activities in PdL in the days before Maddie was reported missing. How come the 'nice', 'likeable' Murat only admitted his lies when the PJ confronted him with his mobile phone pings, which showed that his first statement had been a tissue of lies?
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Robert Murat did lie 22:28, and I'm definitely not reading through Bennett's shite!
ReplyDeleteIn any event, he was released from his arguido status and he has never been charged. I know the same could be said for Gerry and Kate, but quite clearly, G&K have never stopped being people of interest.
I don't do Bennett's misinformation, but I agree with Anon @22:28.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous12 March 2017 at 08:47
ReplyDelete''I don't do Bennett's misinformation, but I agree with Anon @22:28.''
I don't think it's all misinformation, I think it's another case of a nutter who's let his crusade knock his brain sideways and now it's running on fumes and hate.A common online malady. I've suspected him as a brown-noser from day one.By all reports of him, he knows exactly who to ingratiate himself with to keep up his appearance.He's been treated with more suspicion by the police than the McCanns. The myth of the McCanns being the most suspected is the headline because of the online groups aiming at them from behind a weak 'justice for Madeleine' banner.A million people can make the same mistake if they subscribe to the same wrong belief.
Hi Rosalinda and others.
ReplyDeleteMaybe too late as I see, that yr blog has now moved on to discuss other matters, and this's perhaps a bit off topic. Still I need to say a few words.
The Sun (16th March 2017) quotes the McCanns regarding Gonzalo Amaral’s
and Francisco Moita Flores wish for a reconstruction.
”Ten years on from their daughter Maddie’s disappearance, Kate and Gerry have said that a police reconstruction after so many years would be “pointless.””
However, a random search for Madeleine for almost 10 years, without the slightest clue to follow or any idea about what kind of a person the alleged abductor might, let alone without a shred of evidence of an abduction, is not pointless, but should go on forever in the
McCanns’ opinion.
Others, who like Gerry and Kate may now think that it’s no point in doing a reconstruction, should be reminded about that the McCanns thought so in 2008, in 2009, in 2010, in 2011, in 2012, in 2013, in 2014, in 2015, in 2016 as well. So if it should be too late now, which I don’t believe, it cannot be anything but the McCanns’ own fault. However, ruthless, unscrupulous, insensitive, heartless, selfish and manipulative people rarely take responsibility for their own actions. Neither do the McCanns.
.
This topic still has a lot of readers Bjorn, so no problem.
DeleteThere is an interview from 2008 where Gerry is positively squirming as he tells the interviewer there is 'no point' in a reconstruction, and ever the good husband, he cites how painful it would be for Kate. Kate then says they would do anything for Madeleine, but not that apparently. Is it any wonder we struggle to be sympathetic?
As for the McCanns not taking responsibility for their own actions - I could write an entire blog on it Bjorn and you are always welcome to write a guest blog for me :) (Rosalindhutton@aol.com).
A couple of years ago, I watched an amazing documentary (Netflix I think), called 'The Secret'. It was lifechanging, I felt much as I did when I read 'The Road Less Travelled'.
I found that I had (unknowingly) practiced much of it throughout my life, during the times I was successful that is, not so much when the black dog struck. I have always tried to live by the sweetness and light philosophy of my favourite literary hero 'Uncle Dynamite', which of course fits the theory of 'laws of attraction' - if you give out positive energy, that's what you get back.
Accepting that you alone are responsible for everything that has happened to you in the past, present and in the future, is a huge, almost Nietzsche-esque moment. Well it was for me, lol. There is no God, or indeed anyone else to blame.
However, accepting that I am not responsible for the actions of others, was a huge weight off! I can't change what others do, but I can change the way in which I react to it. Take internet trolling for example, I can't stop people abusing me online, but I have full control over whether I react to it - or not.
Astonishingly, Gerry and Kate still believe they have the power to control what is said about them online. And, without any legal authority whatsoever, they have banned the publication of Goncalo Amaral's book in the UK. Why are the news agencies and publishers still kowtowing to them?
Gerry and Kate live on 'if onlys', that is, all would be perfect in their world if other people did what they wanted them to. Therein lies a lifetime of discontent, because it almost never happens.