I see Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan are back in the Sun today, giving the abduction fable everything they've got and trying their hardest to steer public sympathy back in the direction of Gerry and Kate McCann.
In their lengthy article for The Sun - I expect the hard copy is 'pull out' - they go back to all the old theories and suspects who were ruled out in 2007, and at least once a year ever since. The article has been so carefully worded it reads like the work of a competent student reporter taking Year One exams.
Summers and Swan then return to their pet subject. The McCanns' online attackers, just as they did in 2014 when they released their book 'Looking for Madeleine'. The launch of their book signalled the 'fight back' from the McCanns with Gerry demanding that an example be made and Jim Gamble warning online trolls they would end up in the dock. Jim Gamble also gets an honourable mention in the Summers and Swan article, if only Theresa May had taken up his advice....
But returning to Jim. His advice was to create 'a national command and control room you could contact 24/7 whether your child went missing in Birmingham, Belfast or Barcelona'. Two questions here. What could a national command room do, that local police (who know the area) couldn't? And given that only two British children have disappeared overseas in 3 decades, where is the need for a 24/7 instant response team? His idea was never taken up, but at least he has the comfort of knowing that his Madeleine report sparked off the Review that sparked off the Investigation.
The chances are both these children died in tragic accidents. Madeleine's case has been investigated for ten years and no arrests have been made. Had there been a paedophile gang or human traffickers arrests would have been made years ago. I don't believe any police officer could sleep at night knowing that children were being traded and tortured or sexually assaulted.
That is why I do not believe for one moment the nonsense that little British girls were being sexually assaulted in the Algarve for years. Summers and Swan however, are throwing their full might behind it with mind blowing sex crime statistics (against Brits) on the Algarve that nobody has ever heard about, not even the local citizens and ex pats. My questions here would be, in 2007 with the world's media, top crime and investigative journalists, camped out in PDL, how come not one of them came across this story? And why only British girls? This unknown crime wave in the Algarve does however slot in nicely with last week's anonymous nanny and the rape alarms.
Bizarrely, Summers and Swan are still throwing their full might behind Jane Tanner's sighting. They acknowledge that SY ruled Jane's sighting to be a father carrying his child home from the crèche. But there may have been two men carrying children they suggest. Try not to laugh, I couldn't help it. Yes, another man, clearly not Gerry, walked by and given his shapeshifting abilities they are determined to hang onto him. [who says G&K are co-operating with OG?]
But let's look at the bigger picture. What are the common denominators:
The McCanns, The Sun, Summers and Swan, Jim Gamble. All that is missing is Sky News and Martin Brunt and the troll hunters are reunited!
I don't know why you waste your time talking about this tack. It's a milestone approaching -10 years- so there's a lot of money to be made. Tabloids will be getting the same old pictures ready and deciding which is the most dramatic headline to challenge competition on the shelves.They'll be peddling advertising space for twice the usual price. People will be forming a queue to tell their story about it. The TV have already had a cheap go in Australia. Pat Brown will be writing another tome. Bla bla. It's cheap and tacky exploitation. Ghouls looking for cash.Unfortunately, there's always a market.
ReplyDeleteThe innocent woman - Brenda Leyland- is a tragic sign of the times described above. I know many haters love to throw her like a stone when they get challenged in their little online spats. That's even tackier than the tabloids and 'authors' . To try and offer her up as a victim of the McCanns is quite popular ( and idiotic). Mentioning the media( Sky in this case) needs far more than just a nod. Twitter turned a blind eye and Sky were allowed to set any code of ethics to one side as both made headlines and both escaped any penalties. She's seen as a sacrificial lamb in the anti -trolling sweep that didn't happen anyway. Empty vessels will always make the most noise and, as long as they can use the internet, they'll always talk the most shite. Let's not forget, 'officially,' she committed suicide. The vindictive style of journalism, as you call it, backfired that way, but it didn't backfire to any real degree as it's been business as usual ever since.
''That is why I do not believe for one moment the nonsense that little British girls were being sexually assaulted in the Algarve for years''
'' And why only British girls?''
'' Had there been a paedophile gang or human traffickers arrests would have been made years ago.''
As much as nobody wants to believe certain vile crimes have taken place ( and still do), they do. Not believing it doesn't change a thing.You can't call everyone a liar if what they say doesn't fit your view. You need to demonstrate where and how they lie. As for the 'British girls', they're a preference. I think 'Caucasian' is more accurate, but in the last ten years 'British' has had obvious connotations. Globally, most stolen children are from Brazil ( Sao Paulo) and other countries bordering on third world status( street kids etc). Just because traffickers and rings aren't arrested doesn't mean they aren't doing it.It just means, for a variety of reasons, they haven't been subjected to serious investigation.
''All that is missing is Sky News and Martin Brunt and the troll hunters are reunited''
Knowing what a troll is, why is it wrong to hunt them or try to persuade them to get a grip ?
"All that is missing is Sky News and Martin Brunt and the troll hunters are reunited!"
ReplyDeleteGet your knives and claws sharpened - Brunt is doing a SKY documentary.
The deputy director of the Judiciary Police said that the PJ never suffered political pressure during the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007 and that criticism of the police did not affect the work.
ReplyDelete"The Judicial Police did not feel any political pressure from the British authorities and even less from the Portuguese authorities to act in this or that way. This pressure did not exist at all," Pedro do Carmo told the Lusa news agency.
When did Pedro do Carmo tell that to the Lusa news agency please?
DeleteA source for your quote would be appreciated.
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/pais/784844/maddie-pj-nao-sentiu-qualquer-pressao-politica-de-autoridades-inglesas
Deletehttp://www.tvi24.iol.pt/sociedade/madeleine-mccann/maddie-este-caso-e-uma-pedra-no-sapato-da-pj
16:19, 18:25
Delete'Reflecting on the early years of the Madeleine case, he (Rogerio Alves) said: “One of the most damaging things that most harmed the case was the permanent creation of tensions between the British and Portuguese police and states.”'
No pressure then.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3443594/mccanns-portuguese-lawyer-blame-kate-and-gerry-madeleine-disappearance/
@20:38
DeleteStrange indeed.
http://www.dn.pt/lusa/interior/maddie10-anos-o-que-tem-sentido-e-a-tese-de-rapto-diz-rogerio-alves-6254066.html
"Volvidos 10 anos sobre um caso que a investigação não resolveu, Rogério Alves entende que "uma das coisas mais daninhas, que mais prejudicou, desnorteou e perturbou o andamento do caso foi a permanente criação de tensões entre as duas polícias" (portuguesa e inglesa)."
"Não só entre as duas polícias, mas quase entre os dois Estados, disse Rogério Alves"
["Not only between two police forces, but almost between two states," said Rogério Alves"]
I don't speak Portuguese and I don't put any faith in coincidence.
DeleteThe appearance of PJ boss Pedro do Carmo's disclaimer, barely a week after GA's denunciation of diplomatic interference in the McCann case, suggests there is something here to be swept under the carpet.
The implications of GA's remarks are more serious than they might appear. It would come as no surprise if that were not recognized (and acted upon) by those with a different purpose in view.
I do wonder if we are heading toward a major diplomatic incident 20:38, lol.
DeleteI a sure relations between the two forces have been strained many times over the years 22:34, but hopefully they have the same goal. I doubt either investigation would still be ongoing if that weren't the case.
The PJ Boss Pedro do Carmo, is doing what every Boss does 22:34. He is standing up for his staff. To say otherwise would be to admit the original investigation was flawed.
It is also rather a sensitive topic 22:34, Goncalo Amaral is retired and can say what he wants, Pedro do Carmo is in an altogether different position. He can't, as head of the PJ make allegations against the British Secret Services.
Rosalinda 01:02
Delete"hopefully they have the same goal"
That's what GA thought, immediately before the British contingent upped stakes and withdrew to the UK.
"The PJ Boss Pedro do Carmo, is doing what every Boss does 22:34. He is standing up for his staff."
Why should he feel a need to do that when his staff were not the target for criticism in the first instance?
"He can't, as head of the PJ make allegations against the British Secret Services"
No one is expecting him to. By the same token no one was expecting him to absolve the UK in answer to a question that doesn't appear to have been put, at least not by the journalist.
The McCanns were fully involved in what happened to Brenda Leyland Ziggy. The notorious dossier was compiled by the McCann family and handed to the police. And that comes from Sir Bernard HH. Gerry and Jim Gamble, were singing from the same hymn sheet, they wanted the online critics of the McCanns silenced once and for all.
ReplyDeleteAnd tis my prerogative to believe what I want Ziggy, and I do not believe. These vague reports of British girls being sexually assaulted first appeared in Kate McCanns' book in 2011. They didn't cause any waves then because the Portuguese police did not know about them, nor did the residents of PDL. And btw, Caucasian isn't more accurate, the reports state British, no other nationality.
This nonsense has been revived now because, frankly, there is absolutely nothing left. The McCanns and their minions (S&S) are planting stories to explain SY's 'last significant lead'.
I don't like trolls anymore than anyone else Ziggy, or anymore than I like objectionable people in the real world. I give them as little time as possible - unless I am in argumentative mood, lol.
It is pure megalomania to believe anyone can silence their online critics. It is not logical and it is not feasible. The only control anyone has over online trolls to attack them, is the way in which they react to the attacks. That is where their personal power begins and ends. If you let the trolls know how much they are hurting you, they up the ante - that is what they were going for.
Trolls are attention seekers, every time you respond, they win, it is how they get their thrills. The McCanns have been feeding the trolls for 10 years, regularly giving them headlines and front pages. It is a two way street.
Once trolls see that you are not affected by their weird behaviour, they move on and find someone who is.
Unfortunately, the McCanns chose to go to war with social media and it was a decision they made within hours of Madeleine's disappearance. The early Madeleine discussion groups were battlefields. Anyone who questioned the abduction story was named and shamed and added to the 'dossier'. For many, any suspicion of the McCanns involvement was confirmed by the thuggish behaviour of their supporters.
Before I sign off Ziggy, I would like to make it clear connecting the McCanns to Brenda Leyland's death, does not make me a hater. The McCann family compiled the dossier and handed it to the police and within days of Gerry asking for an example to be made, Brenda was doorstepped by Sky News and on the front pages of every tabloid. Sky News and Martin Brunt offered their sympathy to Brenda's family. The McCannns didn't.
Probably because the McCanns didn't actually want to take things that far but others were lacking enough to deem it necessary.
DeleteIf this case was not 'a case' all this mess in the MSM would'nt be necessary. What a curtain of nonsense, theories, so called sightings. Next year at this time it will be 11 years 'since' ...
DeleteAnd on and on ...
@17:38
DeleteFriday 3 October 2014
Last modified on Tuesday 21 February 2017 18.27 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/03/gerry-mccann-calls-example-made-vile-internet-trolls
"The father of Madeleine McCann has called for an example to be made of “vile” internet trolls who have been targeting the family."
"He also said the police should target people who spread abuse on the internet. “I think we probably need more people charged.”
Very interesting. Thanks Ros.
ReplyDeleteI think we can roughly guess how Ros's blog post on Thursday will go.
ReplyDeleteWednesday 21:00 BBC ONE
Madeleine McCann: 10 Years On Panorama
Madeleine McCann is the world's most famous missing person. Her disappearance ten years ago has been investigated by police forces in two different countries, but they came up with contradictory conclusions. So what really happened to Madeleine in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz?
Reporter Richard Bilton, who has covered the story for the BBC since the first days, examines the evidence and tracks down the men British police have questioned about the case.
Anonymous29 April 2017 at 16:19
ReplyDelete''The deputy director of the Judiciary Police said that the PJ never suffered political pressure during the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007 and that criticism of the police did not affect the work.''
If he's telling the truth ( rather than doing as he's told) then it puts Mr Amaral's claims regarding 'political interference' in a dodgy light. Or is the good deputy referring to Portuguese governmental pressure I wonder. It would be useful to know if he and Amaral are on the same page.
20:06
DeleteOn the face of it this is a very significant rebuttal. For that reason alone I suspect both the statement and its timing may be questionable.
Certain of Amaral's previous comments to the journal Sabado could open a can of worms if not downplayed, as do Carmo is doing.
I rather doubt he and Amaral are on the same page.
Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 April 2017 at 16:27
ReplyDelete''The McCanns were fully involved in what happened to Brenda Leyland Ziggy.''
They weren't. How do you define 'fully involved' ? What did they actually do ( outside of your dark fantasies about them) ? Did they name her as somebody to investigate or ambush ? Or did Sky choose her from Twitter and corner her, using the McCann -based tweets as their premise ? Trying to say the Mccanns were behind it -ergo imply that she'd still be alive if they hadn't- is a desperate attempt to foment yet more bad feeling and opinion about them. The McCanns had said that they thought trolls needed to be exposed and dealt with- not one in particular.There's nothing wrong with wanting poisonous trolls controlled if their idea of 'free speech' is to make people they don't know miserable and accuse them of killing their child.
''And tis my prerogative to believe what I want Ziggy, and I do not believe.''
I would never have guessed.
''And btw, Caucasian isn't more accurate, the reports state British, no other nationality.''
Matter of opinion.Did any of us read about either prior to 'little British mMdeleine' going missing? It sells papers faster..
''It is pure megalomania to believe anyone can silence their online critics.''
No, it's pure megalomania to actually silence them. Believing they can or can't doesn't matter- they just won't. They must have their reasons, obviously. probably keeping these dickheads online draws bigger audiences. People have the right to free speech, libel and the right to enjoy taking crap about anyone.They love it.
''The McCanns have been feeding the trolls for 10 years,''
No, the trolls have fed off the McCanns for 10 years. There's a difference.
''Unfortunately, the McCanns chose to go to war with social media and it was a decision they made within hours of Madeleine's disappearance. The early Madeleine discussion groups were battlefields.''
The battle lines were drawn by the 'public domain' .They wanted to battle.The McCanns had something else more important to deal with ( their toddler had gone).They chose to try and defend themselves. Like most normal people, they probably would have just ignored it. But the depth of the hatred, the seriousness off the unfounded allegations and fictions that hit the 'battlefield' left them with little choice but to defend themselves and their children. Anyone who sees bad in that needs to look closer to home.
''For many, any suspicion of the McCanns involvement was confirmed by the thuggish behaviour of their supporters. ''
What kind of logic is that ? You're actually saying that the behaviour of complete strangers in arguing with trolls confirms that the McCanns were involved in their child's disappearance?Or 'involved' in wanting the poison to stop ? Have you been drinking? I hope so.
''Before I sign off Ziggy, I would like to make it clear connecting the McCanns to Brenda Leyland's death, does not make me a hater''
Why tell me ? All i said was that I thought it was desperate.I didn't call you a hater.
''Sky News and Martin Brunt offered their sympathy to Brenda's family. The McCannns didn't.''
Sky News ( and Twitter ) had blood on their hands. They owe the family of Brenda Leyland far more than token sympathy. Their decisions, and the coincidental suicide of their target shortly after, took place without a McCann being involved. Unless, of course, you can prove otherwise and not merely assume. What was in the 'dossier'- or haven't you decided yet.
If you had been around this case as long as myself and many others Ziggy, you would know that the Dossier was the contents of a public website called 'Exposing the Myths'. It was made up of the names, faces and personal details of all those who criticised the McCanns online. The intention was to expose, name and shame, all those in the Dossier in the same way as Brenda was. What they did to Brenda was effectively, everything they threatened to do to all of us on that List. And according to Sir Bernard HH, the Dossier was handed to the police by the McCann family.
Delete"A decade on - they still think we are stupid"
ReplyDeleteYep.
Hi Rosalinda
ReplyDeleteperhaps a little bit off topic regarding what's being discussed here.
Anyway, Many Thanks Rosalinda for being so determined and strong in trying to seek the truth and to defend the McCanns victims, one of whom is Madeleine. Another is Brenda Leyland and a lot more people.
I’m optimistic in that I believe that the truth will prevail sooner or later and the more attention people in common pay to the Madeleine case, on social media and elsewhere, the more difficult it will be for the McCanns and the team around them to manipulate Media.
However, I’ve less confidence in this Mark Rowley (though he may be a nice guy) and the British police authorities than you have, because to me it seems as though they (the S Y) have more or less ruled out the McCanns, as potential suspects. When Rowley, in this interview that we’ve recently discussed, is asked whether they are investigating the McCanns, clearly affirms, that they are not. ”There’s no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation”, he says. His answer confirms what I’ve suspected all the time, namely, that he believes that the McCanns’ arguido status was based on rumours, while he must believe that there are facts supporting the official assumption about a stranger abduction. So all the critical, sensible or significant lines of enquiry, which he talks about, though they’ve been narrowed down to a small number, cannot possibly refer to anything that has with the McCanns' quilt, responsibility or possible involvement to do. It’s so sad, to say the least.
Hi Bjorn, yes I have to admit I too was a bit unnerved the rest of Mark Rowley's remarks, particularly his 'no reason whatsoever to reopen that line of investigation'.
DeleteHowever, I am struggling to match up the McCanns behaviour with Rowley's statement. If they are off the hook, why aren't they 'doing media' for the 10th anniversary, and why was Kate so downbeat in her annual message? Why too are they flooding the tabloids with the same old theories and suspects that have been ruled out time and time again?
Operation Grange are working within very strict parameters - that is, all the original evidence, the timelines, statements, forensics etc, have been in the public domain for almost 9 years. Eg. In order to take Tannerman out of the equation and add another 30 minutes to the window of opportunity, OG produced a father who collected his child from the night crèche who coincidentally matched the description of the man seen by Jane Tanner.
Did this innocent dad honestly know nothing about Madeleine's disappearance for 7 years? Is it likely the PJ didn't check the night crèche records? Is it possible that Scotland Yard have been less than truthful?
I have watched a huge number of real crime dramas where police (worldwide) have gone to inordinate lengths to nail their suspects. Including subterfuge. How do the police treat people who they know are lying to them? Murder detectives are not boy scouts, sometimes it takes a crook to catch a crook. That is, those doing the pursuing must be just as devious as those being pursued.
I think Bjorn, if you truly believe the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, there are no other options. If the McCanns are not suspects, then why have Operation Grange allowed them to suffer all these years?
However, with this case, absolutely nothing would surprise me Bjorn! 'Angelic Toddler stolen in the night' may still have all sorts of political leverage. Governments worldwide want reasons to spy on our internet activity and nothing works better than the emotive cry 'think of the children'.
continues......
However. Any cover up of the truth in this case will implicate 3 PMs, several government ministers, chiefs of police, 30+ Scotland Yard homicide detectives and everyone who has worked on Operation Grange. If I were to do a risk assessment, I would say there is 95% chance someone would blow the whistle or spill the beans. The McCanns did not act alone.
DeleteThen we have the other investigation - the Portuguese one, and effectively, the one that really counts. I think it was the head of the PJ who said recently, their investigation is entirely separate.
If Scotland Yard reach a different conclusion to the Portuguese, the PJ will carry on regardless. Will the separate investigations produce different results?
Of course the PJ could also clear the McCanns, but this will involve similar numbers on the Portuguese side, also risking the reputations and future careers for the sake of a couple of doctors from Leicester.
At the time of shelving their original file the Portuguese police were adamant that it would not be re-opened without new evidence. That is, the were not going to be sent on anymore wild goose chases.
I hope some will translate the Portuguese post - y gut feeling at this time, is that the Portuguese will not allow themselves to be humiliated (again) by the former suspects and the British police.
The words of the Deputy Director of the PJ several ways, as indeed some have. However, rather than being a criticism of Goncalo Amaral, they reaffirm that there was nothing wrong with the original investigation. Ie. They didn't fuck up, they knew exactly what they were doing.
I think it is the not knowing that makes this case so compelling Bjorn. The last time I expressed doubts, a kind poster reminded me of the Met police donation to Goncalo Amaral's legal fund. The detectives working on Operation Grange obviously can't say anything, but they are not blind.
penultimate paragraph, first line, should read 'can be interpreted several ways'.
DeleteHi again Rosalinda and thanks for feed back
DeleteYes, the McCanns low profile puzzles me the most, considering how much they have sought media attention earlier. Let us wait and see what they will do on the 10th anniversary.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3441991/madeleine-mccann-definitive-case-file-trolls-dna-blunders-intruder/
ReplyDelete"Years later, a father did tell British police that he had carried his child home across the street near 5A at around the relevant time."
And that father didn't tell British police where he came from?
"The child was wearing pyjamas. The top had been perhaps pink, the trousers light-coloured with a floral pattern. That sounded very close to the Eeyore-patterned pyjamas from Marks & Spencer that Madeleine had been wearing."
The top had been perhaps? pink. Jane Tanner never said the top was pink. She saw the child's feet and the bottom of the pyjamas.
Yes indeed 23:02, and it is small details like these that make fabricating a credible abduction story impossible.
DeleteKeen observers of the Madeleine story (and we are legion), spotted the errors immediately. And this was just a tiny section of the evidence released by the PJ.
The idea of Operation Grange or the PJ building a case for the prosecution of anyone other than the real perpetrators, would have to incorporate all the conflicting statements, the open window (which rules out Maddie wandering off) and the findings of the blood and cadaver dogs. Are Scotland Yard really going to say the highly trained EVRD dogs they use, often get confused by pork chops?
Are SY really going to say, a burglar broke into the apartment, murdered the child, hung around for 90 minutes, cleaned up, moved the furniture, then buried he body in the immediate vicinity just after the alarm was raised?
Björn29 April 2017 at 22:42
ReplyDelete''Anyway, Many Thanks Rosalinda for being so determined and strong in trying to seek the truth and to defend the McCanns victims, one of whom is Madeleine. Another is Brenda Leyland and a lot more people.''
Or refusing to accept the official status of the case ( 'missing person') and deciding to accuse the parents of as many dirty deeds( including hiding their child's corpse) as possible with nothing but suspicion to build the theory on. That's seeking vengeance-not truth. Seeking truth involves examining, as fully as possible, all avenues and theories. If no evidence is available, a reality test of each is left. That's where it goes badly wrong. You can only come to feasible conclusions after reality testing something with an open-not closed-mind.So, Bjorn, your hatred addiction aside, can you supply us all with the sources of your information proving Madeleine, Brenda Leyland and others are 'victims of the Mccanns' ? This is exactly what i was referring to in an earlier post when i said many haters love throwing Brenda Leyland like a stone in their irrational online spats. it's disrespectful to her memory.The one haters pretend to respect unconvincingly in order to sound rational.
'' on social media and elsewhere, the more difficult it will be for the McCanns and the team around them to manipulate Media.''
This case and investigation isn't focused on media any more than it was focused on the idiotic libel trial. It's focused on the fate of a toddler.
The quoting and misquoting( depending on agenda) of Rowley or any other copper doesn't matter now . And i doubt you'll find many who would say they have faith in either police force after ten years. I don't know why you assume we have faith in the met here.If any high ranking officer goes on record saying that he doesn't regard the McCanns worthy of an investigation it would suggest he doesn't regard them as suspects( which would be why the status was lifted years ago anyway).So, as you say, he must, by process of elimination, believe the abduction story ( hence the official status being 'missing person'). See, it isn't as complex as so many try to presnt when you break it down is it. It only becomes complex when trying to find out who took her, who for, why, and who knows.
''It’s so sad, to say the least.''
To realise that the police aren't gunning for the parents who had their child stolen ? you have a very strange idea of sad. Sad is what happened to Madeleine and the failure to find her or solve the case.Sad is when the world is asked to pay toward a fund to find her and is given lies and spin in return. Sad is when the lust for someone's pain overrides the desire for justice.
All that's left to scrape at now is more 'McCann reading' on TV and adding the usual subjective meaning.It doesn't matter how hard you wish, it only comes true in fairy tales.
Politicians have won this game.
You really have gone full Tigerloaf here Ziggy - it doesn't make for pleasant reading.
DeleteFor your information, I have examined this case, from every angle, as I have mentioned many times. My own conscience would not allow me to speak negatively about the McCanns if I thought for one moment that they were innocent. You can believe that, or believe it not Ziggy, I don't really care, my conscience is clear.
I do indeed find Gerry and Kate to be deeply unpleasant people, on so many levels I don't know where to begin. And not because I am jealous of them - their life choices and goals are entirely different to mine. My envy, if I have any, is towards far more talented writers than I, and it's not really envy, it's admiration.
I don't 'hate' Gerry and Kate, I don't know them, so the idea is ludicrous. I have studied this case as an academic, that is, I have tried to remain emotionally detached. My interest is human behaviour and Gerry and Kate have been fascinating subjects to observe.
As people I feel sorry for them. Whatever they do, whatever they achieve, they will always be defined by their loss of Madeleine. And unless someone can produce definitive proof that Madeleine was abducted, they will always live under a cloud.
But again, I will stress Ziggy, that I am reactive not proactive. That is I challenge the lies that are published in the name of that poor child. Those lies are hurting people Ziggy. For example the anonymous nanny and her rape alarms, and Summers and Swans' ridiculous claims that little British girls are targeted by paedophiles on the Algarve, have repercussions. For one thing they further jeopardise the Portuguese tourist industry and the jobs of the local people. As too, does labelling the local cops incompetent.
I have to say, your current prose is very pulp fiction Ziggy, your overuse of emotive words makes you sound thuggish rather than passionate. Nobody is lusting for 'someone's pain', good 'eavens.
Both I, and most who read here, however, will not stay quiet in the face of such a huge miscarriage of justice. So far in this case, the only one who has been vilified and dragged through the Courts is the former detective who searched for Madeleine.
And do keep up Ziggy, it was only a few weeks ago that it was confirmed the archiving report did NOT clear the McCanns. I can't be arsed to challenge every piece of disinformation you spout Ziggy, but I would advise my readers to take anything you say with a large pinch of salt.
@ZiggySawdust 29 April 2017 at 23:58
DeleteThe only thing worth reading in your long-winded and emotive comment is “Politicians have won this game.”
Well said Rosalinda.
DeleteAs for Ziggy's comments, whatever opinion you may hold Ziggy regarding the parents' guilt or innocence, Madeleine is first of all a tragic victim of her parents' choice of taking care of her, whether there was an abduction or whether Kate and Gerry are directly involved in her disappearance.
Leaving their children alone night after night, as they themselves claim that they have done, even with open door(s) is a moral crime, no matter what culture we're talking about. Who can argue against that?
They haven't ever apologized to their daughter for not having cared more about her in this respect. On the contrary, they've said that they thought it was a quite normal thing to do, given that they didn't know about all the paedophiles lurking around in the village. Would anyone keep his/her doors unlocked if there were no reports about thieves operating near his/her house/apartment? Defending the McCanns for their choice of "looking after" their daughter could make other parents decide to do the same. Telling people that the McCanns are morally responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will help other children and their parents not to do what the McCanns did. Unfortunately, those who do so are labelled "trolls" and "McCann haters".
'' I challenge the lies that are published in the name of that poor child. Those lies are hurting people Ziggy. For example the anonymous nanny and her rape alarms, and Summers and Swans' ridiculous claims that little British girls are targeted by paedophiles on the Algarve, have repercussions''
ReplyDeletePersonally , I think you pay too much attention to all that crap. As i said earlier, it's a gravy train. There's money and limelight up for grabs. To be honest, challenging their validity is fine. It's fine because they have either no credibility( a 'source' or 'wishes to remain anonymous' ) or stated as opinions and not advanced as truth and fact.
'' My own conscience would not allow me to speak negatively about the McCanns if I thought for one moment that they were innocent.''
How many detectives and policemen and investigators involved in this case throughout ten years will back you up ? How much evidence will ? None ?
''I do indeed find Gerry and Kate to be deeply unpleasant people, on so many levels I don't know where to begin''
you don't know them personally.None of us can comment.We only see interviews.Besides, what does personality have to do with anything.It's a shallow observation. Snipey.
''I don't 'hate' Gerry and Kate, I don't know them''
See ? That's my point.The 'hate' remark i posted was to Bjorn. What made you think it was at you ?
''I challenge the lies that are published in the name of that poor child''
A challenge would be more effective if you actually provided something to prove that they're lies.Without that, it's not challenging, it's merely refusing to believe them. The 'sources close to' and other anonymous commentators may well be lying-they probably are- but why hold that against the McCanns ?
''I have to say, your current prose is very pulp fiction Ziggy, your overuse of emotive words makes you sound thuggish rather than passionate.. Nobody is lusting for 'someone's pain', good 'eavens.''
Have you read Bjorn's last 30 posts ? Maybe if he, even occasionally, provided something to back obvious hatred up or sources, it would be ok.But they're beyond it .Ridiculous.
''Both I, and most who read here, however, will not stay quiet in the face of such a huge miscarriage of justice''
You can't call it a miscarriage of justice.No jury or judge has arrived at a conclusion.That's because there's been no court case. That's because there's been no arrests.
''And do keep up Ziggy, it was only a few weeks ago that it was confirmed the archiving report did NOT clear the McCanns''
Keep hold of that one.It's all you'll have.Scotland yard have cleared them.
'' I can't be arsed to challenge every piece of disinformation you spout Ziggy, but I would advise my readers to take anything you say with a large pinch of salt.''
I think that's a good idea if you confuse reason with disinformation. All i ask is for evidence or something close. If you need to encourage your readers to ignore reason it says a lot about the real agenda here. Advising your readers who to take notice of and who to ignore isn't showing them much respect if you think they need your guidance is it.You could simplify it : ''only correspond with anti's, anyone else is a troll''. That would go with your supposed 'interest in hearing the other side' and covering 'every angle' would it ? let's hope they hear your 'call to arms' ;0
https://joana-morais.blogspot.nl/2017/04/mccanns-vow-to-fight-goncalo-amaral-in.html
ReplyDeleteJerry Lawton @JerryLawton
ReplyDelete18:03 PM - 19 Sep 13
Outside court Amaral's lawyer says #McCann should be suing 'Portuguese state' not detective as the 'state decided to close the case'
http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id455.htm
Hi Ros,Bjorn,
ReplyDeleteThing that bothers me about the JT sighting is that when DCI Redwood said this person has come forward and has been identified, well who is he why the anonymity. Also the puzzling remark about a night creche, I thought the day staff at the creche became baby sitters at night. If there was a night creche then it wasn't part of the OC resort.
Hi John 100
DeletePublic access to the Portuguese P J files has made it possible for us to discuss and question the McCanns' innocence/guilt, which is very embarrassing for people connected to this case, who has something to hide. However, the SY/Met keep the real circumstances around the so called "creche-man" secret and one wonders of course why. It's just as strange that this man, if he really exists, has decided not to reveal his identity. What dangers or threats could he possibly be exposed to if he just told us who he is? What is kept secret from the general public will inevitably lead to confusion and speculation. So Mr Creche-man please tell us who you are!
The night crèche was part of the resort facilities John, it was deemed inconvenient by the tapas group as it involved waking the children and carrying them home.
DeleteTannerman has proved a huge obstacle for anyone investigating this case Bjorn and I can imagine the problems OG prior to the broadcast of 2014 (?) Crimewatch. That is, how do they open up the window of opportunity by 30+ minutes without accusing Jane Tanner of lying? That extra 30 minutes makes the Smith sighting much more significant.
At the time I thought they may have offered JT some sort of deal, but in retrospect, if the main witnesses haven't been co-operating, they have had to fill in the gaps themselves.
There is no evidence for example, that the McCanns and their friends assisted with the Crimewatch reconstruction. Not only did the police use actors, but it was filmed in Spain.
Crimewatch did however, have 'a new revelation', E-fits of the man seen by the Smith family. That is the clean shaven, short haired man, not the long haired changeling seen by Jane. With Tannerman ruled out, Smithman became the prime suspect. The Gerry lookalike that the McCanns had suppressed for over 5 years.
Ros, save your words,
ReplyDeleteZiggy has a wider agenda here I think.
You cannot argue with someone who states that there is no evidence of abduction and then declares that he belives the Mccanns abduction story.
It would appear to me that Ziggy is probably trying to derail your blog or at least make most of the type appear pro abduction. He has been called out numerous times and on numerous points and has steadfastly ignored those challenges.
Ziggy appears to have the same modus operandi as walkercan1000 on twitter, argue till you lose, then leave the argument and start on the next one.
I now skip ziggys posts altogether, and im sure im not the only one.
I read here often & always skip Ziggy's posts. I have read some previously where he is certain there is a cover up by the government, security services, CEOP, yet still he thinks the mccanns are innocent. It simply does not make sense. This blog would certainly be the only place that would entertain his "insane" ramblings.
DeleteYou may be right about the derailing 13:17, but I do welcome the opportunity to challenge the pro McCann arguments directly. Those that are worth challenging that is, like yourself and 16:13, I skip the dross!
DeleteI am actually still intrigued as to who he might be. I tend to think he is much closer to the parents than he would have us believe. He takes cutting opinions of Kate and Gerry personally, and like them he believes criticism is hate.
Morais translation of a documentary that Amaral is doing:
ReplyDelete"Voice over - Gonçalo Amaral believes that Maddie's body was placed inside the casket where the remains of a British woman were, a coffin that was cremated later. This thesis emerged (from a statement) in December 2007 after three shadowy figures were seen entering the church with a bag."
@13.17
ReplyDeleteWhat I find odd about Ziggy is he often contradicts himself, even in the same post. (and I know this will wind him up so I am bracing myself for a long reply)
He often appears very anti establishment, yet is very pro the establishment Mccann line. He could even replace Clarrie lol.
On one post Ziggy says the reason for the immediate official assistance was because someone somewhere had been "compromised".
Well, if he believes the official line, is this person (or two in my view and not as abductees )the abductor? And if so, is Ziggy actually helping to maintain the cover up? And is that the "wider agenda"
I meant (abductors)
ReplyDeleteIm not sure what ziggys agenda is but he is acting very similar to insane on textusas blog, thankfully insane was given short shrift over there and now we dont have to see his BS. Im not sure if its coincidental that ziggy appears here not long after insane is banished from textusas blog...maybe a conspiracy to far??
ReplyDeleteBjörn30 April 2017 at 11:02
ReplyDelete''Leaving their children alone night after night, as they themselves claim that they have done, even with open door(s) is a moral crime, no matter what culture we're talking about. Who can argue against that?''
Nobody can argue against that. I know i certainly haven't.I haven't seen anyone else argue against it either. But i didn't mention that. All I asked was for you to -even occasionally- support your accusations and conclusions with evidence or sources. When you leave your children alone at night, it's negligence. It's wrong to do it. But it isn't quite the same as murder, accidental death, or hiding a corpse.To spot the negligence at point A and make the rest of that nonsense up as point B, is ridiculous.What would change it from ridiculous to credible is proof. Two police forces have stated for 10 years that they have none.You- and your ilk- can choose to call these policeman liars, along with the scientists, but the state of play isn't changing.It would have by now.To believe the McCanns were guilty of hiding their child's body, whether she had died due to an accident or at the hands of a parent, and refuse to budge from that position is to accuse all investigators of the case of being liars and co-conspirators. Show me the evidence and I'll join the crusade.
Anonymous30 April 2017 at 13:17
ReplyDelete''Ziggy has a wider agenda here I think...You cannot argue with someone who states that there is no evidence of abduction and then declares that he believes the Mccanns abduction story.''
My wider agenda is obviously above the heads of most who blog constant speculation and insist that it be taken as truth and proof. My agenda is to actually question why there's no proof and if it would be possible to hold discussions with people who can think critically and openly.Because there's no evidence of an abduction doesn't mean there wasn't one. Abductors wouldn't want to leave clues would they.There's a similar problem with the 'parents as killers' theory that people get off on. No evidence.
''It would appear to me that Ziggy is probably trying to derail your blog''
You're very imaginative. If appealing to reason is seen as an attempt to derail a discussion, the derailing isn't what you should be thinking about.
''I now skip ziggys posts altogether, and im sure im not the only one.''
Then you're not qualified to comment.No wonder your swinging in the dark.
Anonymous30 April 2017 at 16:13
'' I have read some previously where he is certain there is a cover up by the government, security services, CEOP, yet still he thinks the mccanns are innocent.''
The McCanns aren't members of Parliament-unless I missed the memo.
Anonymous30 April 2017 at 13:17
'' Gonçalo Amaral believes that Maddie's body was placed inside the casket where the remains of a British woman were, a coffin that was cremated later. ..after three shadowy figures were seen entering the church with a bag."
No wonder he get's such admiration from the lunatics. If he'd taken that to the prosecution services with no evidence, they'd have had him sectioned.
Aladdins Insane30 April 2017 at 15:31
You're chasing your tail. I'm anti-establishment by nature and with reason. I can remain anti-establishment and still believe an abduction story.I do believe someone had been, and probably is still being, compromised.Unless someone can explain why the parents had the personal numbers of Blair, Brown, and Milliband, i hold the position of political interference being too fast and too fastidious for 'an incident abroad'. That's two prime ministers and a(at the time) prime -minister-in -waiting. Does that mean I'm 'clearing' the McCanns ? No. I question what they know.I can consider that the McCanns are less in the dark than it appears somewhere in the bigger picture.It still doesn't make me consider them as murderers.If it was them, they'd have been arrested.Our government would rather spend millions on keeping them free ? That makes no sense, whatever you add to it with your imagination.
Anonymous30 April 2017 at 16:36
''Im not sure what ziggys agenda is ..not sure if its coincidental that ziggy appears here not long after insane is banished from textusas blog...maybe a conspiracy to far??''
That drivel certainly is. It amazes me how many people want to see a 'wider agenda' if someone simply asks for proof and evidence to support serious and vicious allegations with evidence.The police in two countries have made their decisions regarding the McCanns, the forensics and the various theories of Amaral and others. I didn't make those decisions-they did. What was /is THEIR 'wider agenda' ? Isn't that more important ?If the army of 'antis' are so certain, to the point of not even requiring evidence, they shouldn't bother arguing online, they should challenge those people.
@ Ziggy
ReplyDeleteThe reason the government is spending millions keeping them free (and free of "accidents") is because, in my view,of exactly what they know. As you yourself point out.
And I dont believe they are murderers either.
But fair points put and I am now more clear of your position
20:31
Delete"The reason the government is spending millions keeping them free (and free of "accidents") is because..of..what they know."
Bull's eye!
Hi Ziggy@19:20
ReplyDelete'I now skip Ziggy's posts altogether, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.''
Then you're not qualified to comment. No wonder your swinging in the dark.
Judging by your admission that you have not read any books on the subject, even the official books by both sides. Then how can you possibly comment on this case as well. Sorry but POT, KETTLE & BLACK spring to mind.
John1001 May 2017 at 14:50
ReplyDeleteBecause i wont read the books of Amaral or Km means nothing. I want to stand back and not be effected by anyone. Like the police should. Neither book would be allowed into a trial concerning Madeleine's fate for reasons too obvious too mention. What does that tell you about their validity in a criminal trial ? They're just books.
There's a huge audience who make comments about those books and hold them up to either A- pick holes in KM as a fantasist, them B- discuss Amaral as a Portuguese Sherlock Holmes. But his theories about a fridge( no evidence) a nearby burial( no evidence) and the 'hidden in a coffin with another corpse'( no evidence) never cause them to think he's a fantasist do they ? There's clear bias from these 'literary critics'.They approached the books with an agenda; to isolate any sentence in KM's book and make a mountain out of a molehill to insinuate she's hiding guilt. They approach Amaral's book with the same narrow mind to isolate any 'notion' he was considering and make another mountain of another molehill and blow it up to crime of the century-as solved unofficially by Amaral just before he was removed from his position.
I've read the events of May 03 2007. I've read about the Police and their statements, the tapas 7, Murat and the political involvement as well as the statements of the parents. I don't need Amaral's 'literary work' or KM's 'journal'.
Pot , kettle, and black? I don't think so somehow..
I read the Peter Hyatt analysis of the interview. For those who don't know, it's what we give away in our speech.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what to make of it, but when I listened to the interview one remark which PH ignored and leapt out on me, I maybe be biased, was this from Kate McCann.
" What people do say is that you don't realise how strong you are until you have no option"
I've been in her place many times when the big headed fool thought he could sail close to the wind and it all went wrong and I took over to dig him out of a hole.
I had no option either. It's survival.
That's what I see she was doing. Protecting him. Protecting her way of life and therefor the twins.
I think this is Kate looking for some affirmation that it's she who's kept them out of trouble and I feel so sorry for her. Oh he's gone on to great things while she takes the blame for him.
I've followed from the beginning when it broke, but I still have no idea why Kate is blamed?
Why does anyone think Kate harmed Madeleine and not Gerry?
On the bus. My lovely dad would have had me on his knee. Poor little girl sat alone and her father swearing that he didn't want to be there. Vile creature.
See how he sat alone, leaving Kate to care for all three? It's obvious that he's a horrible person.
It wouldn't surprise me when the twins are 18 that Kate will tell all, hopefully dumping the bastard.
Wish she'd do it now.
@18:12
DeleteAlthough I don't feel sympathy for both, I see what you mean and I agree with you regarding Gerry McCann (at face value). I think neither of them 'harmed' Madeleine. I believe she died due to medical negligence or malpractice.
I have over the years wondered many times as to who is the boss in the McCanns relationship. Kate gives the impression of the subjugated wife leaning on her man, but I expect like Madeleine she could throw a tantrum.
DeleteWhile most of the time Gerry takes the dominant role, there have been many occasions when Kate has stepped up to the plate. The first of these was her response to the German reporter who asked a difficult question on the European Tour.
I think they both have strengths in different areas, and are so finely turned, that they can bounce the questions between them. And they are both artful at changing the subject, Kate especially. She often gives her pre-rehearsed answers not matter what the question is.
I think Kate is dependent on Gerry, which is why it was a huge error to have allowed Gerry to sit in with her on her first police interview. But she is equally complicit.
The Portuguese police saw Kate as responsible, based on her highly strung, volatile nature. Her description of grief in her book is quite bizarre, apart from the late Keith Moon, who smashes up their hotel room?
Kate had every reason to feel frazzled on that holiday, taking care of 3 toddlers is no picnic, and the bus incident showed Gerry was not the hands on father he would have us believe. On the day Madeleine went missing, he had THREE tennis lessons.
Anonymous1 May 2017 at 18:12
ReplyDelete''I read the Peter Hyatt analysis of the interview. For those who don't know, it's what we give away in our speech.''
Peter Hyatt's qualified to teach guitar. Nothing else.
''I've been in her place many times when the big headed fool thought he could sail close to the wind and it all went wrong and I took over to dig him out of a hole.''
Are we supposed to know who 'the big headed fool' is ? or are you getting something personal off your chest.
''That's what I see she was doing. Protecting him. Protecting her way of life and therefor the twins.''
Because you've had a bad experience with said 'big headed fool' ?
'' Oh he's gone on to great things while she takes the blame for him.''
What great things ? He's had as much if not more blame thrown at him. Or is this a 'women and wives are all martyrs because I was ' thing.
''I've followed from the beginning when it broke, but I still have no idea why Kate is blamed?''
So what did you miss while following it ? They're both being blamed for the same mad reasons.
''On the bus. My lovely dad would have had me on his knee. Poor little girl sat alone and her father swearing that he didn't want to be there. Vile creature.''
what ?
''See how he sat alone, leaving Kate to care for all three? It's obvious that he's a horrible person..It wouldn't surprise me when the twins are 18 that Kate will tell all, hopefully dumping the bastard.Wish she'd do it now...''
I can see how you conclude so many things are 'obvious'. it's your objective viewing of things isn't it.
Anonymous1 May 2017 at 20:22
ReplyDelete'' I think neither of them 'harmed' Madeleine. I believe she died due to medical negligence or malpractice.''
Based on what ? A post mortem of the body that wasn't found ? What was the medical negligence of their daughter ( not patient) ?
Rosalinda, What a great read. Your blog is so gripping. You are the oracle in this case.
ReplyDeleteAs I think you mentioned, if the JT sighting and the supposed half hour child checks could be proven false then all the evidence makes sense. Allowing enough time for DNA clean up. Body removal etc.
Keep up the good work.
Aw shucks 05:50, the word 'gripping' is music to an author's ears! I quite like Oracle too, it is good to know that all the knowledge I have acquired on this case, is coming in useful :)
ReplyDeleteFor all Scotland Yard and the PJ might say in defence of the parents, if they blame a burglar or a predatory nanny, they will still have to find means, method, motive, to fit the 45 minute window of opportunity. If they blame it on a woman for example, how do they explain the man (who looked like Gerry) running round PDL with a child in his arms? Any old suspect just won't. He will have to resemble the existing e-fits.
Anyway, many thanks 05:50, it is good to know that people appreciate the work I do :)