Monday, 3 April 2017

LIE SPOTTING - WHY WE DON'T BELIEVE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70lUwwaz2ns&t=9s 

Apologies, I don't know how to link a video, but the above is from YouTube and it's title is Guilt of the McCanns: lie spotting. 

Having realised almost from the off that the parents of missing Madeleine were deceiving us, I have spent almost a decade on the outskirts of society, labelled a 'Hater' and confined to the murky corner of the internet that is the McCann Hashtag.  My crime? I do not believe the abduction story.  It is a crime shared by thousands, if not millions of others, and all the civil law suits and threats of the 'dock' won't change that.  It feels like my convent childhood all over again.  You will believe, or you will be punished. 

I don't believe Gerry and Kate McCann because like thousands (if not millions) of others, I trust my own eyes, my own instincts and my own Judgment.  No Sun headline in the world is going to persuade me there is no giant predator while T-Rex is standing in front of me.  Being able to spot lies, without lengthy arguments from the Prosecution and Tony Bennett, is all part of our genetic make up and ability to survive.   

We can all spot lies.  That is why in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance there was an almighty backlash against the 'abduction story'.  It didn't make any sense and the behaviour of the parents was downright peculiar.  And this was long before anyone even heard of the name Goncalo Amaral.  In 2007 and 2008, the internet was awash with McCann websites, forums and popular tabloid opinion pages.  Kate's statements that doubters were confined to a tiny handful was all part of 'The Lie'. 

There was a full scale social media war going on.  Thousands were flocking to forums and website to discuss this case, and Team McCann were fighting them off with armies of shills and threats of legal action.  The media monitoring was threatening and ruthless, it gave anonymous trolls good reason to remain anonymous and it spawned the myth that the McCanns were victims of a sinister underbelly of trolls on the internet tormenting victims of crime. 

Most of us are not aware of how and why we can detect lies, whilst others can't, or won't.  The short video above is one of the 'gems' that has sunk beneath the radar among the glut of videos on YouTube, which is unfortunate, because it explains in a nutshell, why so many of us have always had a feeling of dissonance towards the parents.

I can't remember when I first saw this video, but it was prior to March 2015 when I wrote 'Duping Delight'.  The above video was destined to go viral, but the maker got cold feet and there were copyright issues with Dr. Meyers words and the Ted Lectures.  It is important to point out that Dr. Meyers is not referring to the McCanns nor was she involved in it's making.  The video has been cut and edited, using the McCanns interviews to illustrate points made by Dr. Meyers in a Ted Lecture. 

What struck me more than anything in the above video, was the heart rendering plea of the genuinely grieving mother.  I, like almost every mother on the planet can feel that poor woman's pain, it moves us because we know that is exactly how we would feel.  Whilst we can't claim to know how the parents of a missing child would react, we have seen, too often, the very real agony of mothers like Coral Jones and Sara Payne. We can identify with them. We want to comfort them.  Kate McCann does not arouse those emotions in us, not because she is slim and successful, but because she is so darn cold.  I doubt the mother in the above video feels any kind of forgiveness for the monster who killed her child.

The abduction story has not aged well, but not half as badly as all those interviews filled with 'tells'.  I was toying with the idea of deconstructing any one of their interviews, and perhaps I will, but in the meanwhile, if you can't put your finger on what that nagging doubt is, watch the above! 



 


225 comments:

  1. There are no lies. But that doesn't mean the truth has been told.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It is important to point out that Dr. Meyers is not referring to the McCanns nor was she involved in it's making. The video has been cut and edited, using the McCanns interviews to illustrate points made by Dr. Meyers in a Ted Lecture."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nothing more appalling than the 'grieving mother photoshoot' of Kate McCann. Gruesome. If she gets away with that, she can easily become the next PM of the UK (with or without Scotland?) or the first female pope. Google and horror: the professional photoshoot of mourning Kate. "No Kate, a bit more errrh ... really sad. Think about something heartbreaking ... A broken fingernail. A failed haircut. Another day with Gerry."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ros

    Whilst watching your suggested vid i came across this one which was pretty intriguing. I would love to hear what you think of it.


    Madeleine McCann Possibly Solved Located and How it happened The Portugal Job

    Link below;

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iZ4ze77QnY

    regards
    Afan

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Afan, I'm afraid I got to the part recommending Hall and Bennett and that was it for me. I let it go for a few moments, then it referred to the 'dodgy child carer' and I was appalled. Those accusing the Warners' nannies and other innocent witnesses should be ashamed of themselves!

      Delete
  5. Yes, folks. Watch the video and become an expert, like Ros!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "guilt of the McCann's: lie spotting" video is a compelling piece of film, whilst Pamela Meyer didn't include the McCann's in her lectures, and whilst the film was edited to add the McCann interviews it shows how the classic signs of deception are there for all to see. So you may not agree with Rosa or the maker of the video but throwing cheap jibes from an anonymous heading shows your true character. Or maybe you have an agenda like all the other pro mccann trolls on the world wide web?

      Delete
  6. "We can all spot lies"

    If only.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That is why in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance there was an almighty backlash against the 'abduction story'. It didn't make any sense ...."

    LOL. The abduction theory is the ONLY theory that makes sense!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only in your head it does 20.47.the lies the dogs etc there was no abduction

      Delete
    2. Life imitating art here.

      "What prevails in court is whichever of two fictional narratives makes the most material sense to the lowest common denominator". ['Mojave' (2015) - written and directed by William Monahan]

      Delete
  8. Hi Ros,

    I'm with you on this, I don't believe for one minute in the abduction theory. However I find it strange that none of their friends have to my knowledge came out in support of Gerry & Kate, nor raised funds or awareness of the dangers of leaving kids unsupervised. One of the comments made on your last blog stated what I believe is happening and I suggested previously (I can't find it in my previous threads) that I wouldn't be surprised if SY were running a separate investigation looking at all parties concerned. Op Grange is just a front to keep the McCanns happy. There's a precedence where the police have said one thing but looking at the other.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John, nice to see you.

      I think we were all bemused when DCI Redwood, at the beginning of Operation Grange, stated they were working on the theory that Madeleine was either alive or dead. Looking back on the simplicity of the statement now, it makes more sense.

      My opinion is that the digging up of PDL leans more towards the theory that Madeleine died in the apartment, that is, the findings of the dogs.

      Like yourself John, nothing in this case would surprise me, but whilst I can see that Operation Grange are working hard to protect the family, I don't think they are trying to keep them happy. Digging up PDL while they were attending Court in Lisbon for example, probably made them very unhappy.

      Delete
  9. Hi Ros,

    What I also wanted to say as well, is Gerry & Kate to face a serious no holds barred TV interview. The interviewer asks the question that need answering & then we can see the real body language that is displayed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think therein lies their problem with the 10th anniversary interviews John. When they were in demand, they had the power to control the interviews they gave and could ensure they were not asked any awkward questions. But times have changed, even the sycophantic Piers Morgan cannot avoid their massive losses to Goncalo Amaral, and that 10 years on there is still no evidence of an abductor.

      Delete
    2. Any interview where they neither have eye contact nor touch with each other, would be well worth watching, even if somewhat pre-recorded and pre-scripted. This overlapping body silhouette & arms around & hands in laps (or groin) is a farce & as times passes on, looks even more peculiar now than it did at the time.

      Delete
    3. Ain't that the truth 14:58, although I think everything looks more peculiar now than it did at the time, the interviews especially!

      Delete
  10. Anonymous3 April 2017 at 20:47
    "That is why in the early days of Madeleine's disappearance there was an almighty backlash against the 'abduction story'. It didn't make any sense ...."

    LOL. The abduction theory is the ONLY theory that makes sense!

    And what part of the Abduction theory would that be , the original version , or the later version door left open etc , remember it was only later they remembered the door was left open , that was after it was proved the shutters had not been jemmied so the door had to be open !!, oh and the original version had the cat high on a shelf , no mention of swooshing curtains , just fantasy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @21:34

      Abduction is THE plausible theory. How about coming up with a better one instead of simply speculating why the dogs reacted as they did.

      Delete
    2. "Abduction is THE plausible theory"

      Thereby giving credence to the dictum: 'You can fool some people all of the time.'

      "How about coming up with a better one"

      Death (based on precedent - dogs or no dogs).

      21:34 has his own thoughts on the matter (below)

      Delete
  11. The woman in vid one is talking about Bill Clinton after he'd been found out. Somebody inserted the clips of the McCann couple and tried to do the same.It's like that nutcase on Richard Halls website.At least the woman herself isn't using the McCann couple though.So what's the point of using her ? The second video is just stupid.It's full of mistakes and whoever put it together keeps putting things up like' its a hunch'.That's not solving anything is it ?If it was that easy the police would have done something.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I wouldn't be surprised if SY were running a separate investigation looking at all parties concerned. Op Grange is just a front to keep the McCanns happy."

    LOL! #McCann

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Operation Grange is an affront alright.

      Delete
  13. Anonymous3 April 2017 at 22:42
    @21:34

    Abduction is THE plausible theory. How about coming up with a better one instead of simply speculating why the dogs reacted as they did.

    I never got as far as the dogs , that just reinforces my first point , i guess the Abductor removed every trace that maddy had been there as he carted her off not a tooth brush , not a hair bobble it was if she had never existed , all can be brushed off with some smart legals , but common , it stinks as much as the hire car .and the famous trip to the dump .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi All

    Looking at this case logically, none of us know what exactly happened but we can only speculate on the books we've read and the official PJ files. What I will say is, which has been mentioned was the door locked, unlocked, window opened, Jemmied opened or plain negligence on the parents. The actions afterwards of the parents to my mind set alarm bells ringing in 2007. Now I'm not going to say who I am, but I've said I'm ex military, I work in a certain department.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John 100 I'm interested to know what you think happened Madeleine and do you think this case will ever be solved

      Delete
  15. @22:55

    "The Polícia Judiciária case file, released in 2008, showed that 5A lay empty for a month after the disappearance, then was let out to tourists before being sealed off in August 2007 for more forensic tests.
    A similar situation arose outside the apartment. A crowd gathered by the front door of 5A, including next to the children's bedroom window—through which an abductor may have entered or left—trampling on evidence." - Wikipedia

    Did you forget that alternative, plausible theory?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 3.4 @20:47, 22:42, 23;44

      "The abduction theory is the ONLY theory that makes sense!"

      "Abduction is THE plausible theory. How about coming up with a better one"

      "A crowd gathered by the front door of 5A, including next to the children's bedroom window—through which an abductor may have entered or left—trampling on evidence." - Wikipedia

      "Did you forget that alternative, plausible theory?"

      I know. Instead of the plausible theory of abduction, why don't we consider that other plausible theory - abduction. Or 'stolen' perhaps, or maybe even 'taken'.

      Why don't you settle for 'removed'? It would at least allow for the possibility she was dead at the time.

      Delete
    2. Sorry 10:10, but that went over my head.

      Delete
    3. @10:10

      Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam... “the most likely places that she could have been moved to”?

      Delete
    4. I'm not surprised

      Delete
    5. Rome, Madrid, Berlin, Amsterdam... "the most likely places that she could have been moved to"?

      A safe house, a fridge / freezer, the beach, water-treatment building... "the most likely places that she could have been moved to"?

      Gary Sweeney.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous3 April 2017 at 23:21
    @22:55

    "The Polícia Judiciária case file, released in 2008, showed that 5A lay empty for a month after the disappearance, then was let out to tourists before being sealed off in August 2007 for more forensic tests.
    A similar situation arose outside the apartment. A crowd gathered by the front door of 5A, including next to the children's bedroom window—through which an abductor may have entered or left—trampling on evidence." - Wikipedia

    Did you forget that alternative, plausible theory?

    Oh that ones for me , Clearly you have never read the former chief investigators book , i think he has it about right . So what would be the motive for abduction , or as the McCann's would have it Abduction lite , ie the loving family childless couple , that just longed for a child they wanted a grown up one , if your going to steal a child take a baby , there were two to choose from .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @23:44
      "Clearly you have never read the former chief investigators book , i think he has it about right."

      Without the how, the what becomes meaningless.

      "So what would be the motive for abduction..... if your going to steal a child take a baby, there were two to choose from."

      I'm gobsmacked.

      Delete
    2. @10:01

      "I'm gobsmacked"

      Why? It's a plausible alternative. Isn't that what you asked for?

      Delete
    3. @10:47

      You've re-ordered my two responses.

      Delete
    4. 12:36

      "You've re-ordered my two responses."

      I didn't order them in the first place (they're not to my taste).

      Delete
  17. I trust the coast is clear.

    "The abduction theory is the ONLY theory that makes sense!"

    "Abduction is THE plausible theory"

    Funny that. There has so far been just one finished (archived)investigation into the disappearance of the child. Its conclusion? "Type of crime: unknown."

    But you, of course, have read lotsa, lotsa newspapers and watched lotsa lotsa TV and you know better.

    Shouty capitals are always such a giveaway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @11:45

      "There has so far been just one finished (archived)investigation into the disappearance of the child. Its conclusion? "Type of crime: unknown.""

      They gave up. I'm giving an opinion. If you've got a plausible what and how, give it up.

      "Shouty capitals are always such a giveaway.".

      Unfair criticism. An upper-case single word in a sentence, where there is no obvious facility to emphasise, should be acceptable to all but the pedant.

      Delete
    2. Hi JB good to see you!

      I think abduction is the ONLY theory for those who still believe in God, Father Christmas, the Tooth Fairy and the words of Donald Trump. It takes a special kind of innocence and naivety to believe that the clean living and the God fearing are incapable of committing crimes. Villains are losers, Godless and off their heads on mind altering substances, not upstanding pillars of the community. Like Mary Archer, the McCanns were too fragrant to be considered suspects.

      Ah well, as the end of Operation Grange draws near, so too does the end of the 'abduction' story. Scotland Yard will have to confirm one way or the other, whether there was an actual abduction. 'We don't know' is never going to pass the mustard.

      If there are gangs of traffickers out there stealing children, the public have a right to know. The parents, no matter what anyone thinks of them, have pleaded for closure, how can they accept 'we got nothing' without protest?

      I suspect Operation Grange are piling on the pressure, all those involved have a 6 month countdown in which to come forward and make deals. The size and extent of Operation Grange, suggests there are many potential defendants who could be facing jail time.

      The problem we all have with speculating, is the fact that Operation Grange is unprecedented. It began with 30+ homicide detectives and a blank cheque from the UK government to investigate a crime that was committed in Portugal where they have no jurisdiction. Unless of course, some arrangement was made between the CPS and the Portuguese Judiciary.

      No other missing child case in history has had a dedicated police department working exclusively on their case for almost 6 years. In similar cases worldwide the police simply bide their time, they don't waste resources on cases where the witnesses clam up.

      If I were Kate or Gerry, or indeed of them, I would be shaking in my boots. It is a few years since OG declared the parents and their friends NOT persons of interest. It has also been quite a while since they mentioned any outside suspects, the latest 'last throw of the dice stories' are pure spin from Team McCann.

      Delete
    3. Rosalinda 13:41

      "Like Mary Archer, the McCanns were too fragrant to be considered suspects"

      What did Mary Archer do (apart from be fragrant)?

      Her 'old man' was the con artist who played away occasionally.

      "Scotland Yard will have to confirm one way or the other, whether there was an actual abduction. 'We don't know' is never going to pass the mustard."

      'We don't know who carried out the abduction' is a perfectly feasible conclusion. We'll just have to wait and see, won't we.

      Delete
    4. @13:41

      Lighten up Ros. It's nothing to do with how clean-living the McCanns are. It's about the plausibility of the theories. Anonymous @13:05 makes a reasonable request for an explanation of how the McCann's are supposed to have carried out a dastardly deed.

      "The size and extent of Operation Grange, suggests there are many potential defendants who could be facing jail time. "

      Piffle, nonsense, rubbish.


      Delete
    5. Unfortunately, at the end of the day, many will have to admit that they accepted the word of the McCanns because they were respectable, well educated, doctors. And that will include politicians, police chiefs, crime experts and television presenters. It is as it is.

      So what have Operation Grange been doing this past 6 years 14:16?

      Delete
    6. 14:16

      "Anonymous @13:05 makes a reasonable request for an explanation of how the McCann's are supposed to have carried out a dastardly deed."

      What 'dastardly deed' might you have in mind?

      "We played no part in the disappearance of our lovely daughter", said Gerry McCann, once upon a time.

      O.K. then - someone else must have 'disappeared' their lovely daughter, because she's not there/here any more. That leaves open the question of whether she was alive or dead at the time she made her exit.

      'Alive' = abduction, of course. However, quite a number of people seem not to trust the 'proof of life' as served up by the McCanns and their friends, e.g., a sunny 'last photo' taken on a cloudy day, a 'tennis photo' taken on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday (take your pick, and you can even choose the photographer), "Why didn't you (both?)come when (I/we/they) was/were crying Mummy/Daddy" (delete as appropriate).

      Why do you think DCI Redwood's Operation Grange was so keen to start from 'point zero' (10 o'clock) in their search for an abductor, while the McCanns et al. were so concerned with events beforehand that they lied about them (e.g., the fourteen texts Gerry McCann received 'from work' on the Wednesday)?

      I'm sure they had their reasons.



      Delete
    7. @14:53
      "So what have Operation Grange been doing this past 6 years 14:16?"

      If that is regarding my dismissal of your "The size and extent of Operation Grange, suggests there are many potential defendants who could be facing jail time.", then I don't see the relevance of the question.

      Delete
    8. john blacksmith 4 April 2017 at 11:45

      Fanny that, john, for I’ve been thinking about you today having visited your site under the cover of the night.

      I’m glad you are back.

      “I trust the coast is clear.”

      ?

      “"The abduction theory is the ONLY theory that makes sense!"

      "Abduction is THE plausible theory"

      Funny that. There has so far been just one finished (archived)investigation into the disappearance of the child. Its conclusion? "Type of crime: unknown."”

      It often happens that something unknown gives rise to a theory and, searching for information relevant to the theory and its ramifications, one looks at various sources.

      I take the view that it is unreasonable in the circumstances to argue that there had or could have been an abduction as proposed by Madeleine’s parents. I understand you think likewise.

      “Shouty capitals are always such a giveaway.”

      I would say ‘often’, perhaps even ‘more often than not’, but not ‘always’.

      I forgo the fish pie. Perhaps a pint on me? :)

      Sincere thanks for your post. Welcome back.

      Peace.

      T

      Delete
    9. Anonymous 4 April 2017 at 15:04

      I was just about to comment on 13:05. You’ve done it better than I ever could.

      A very similar ‘criticism’ of the dogs has been posted on Rosalinda’s blog before and dealt with appropriately. It’s time children be told that throwing their toys at adults is not always rewarded with offerings of ice-cream.

      Respect.

      T

      Delete
    10. "'Alive' = abduction, of course. However, quite a number of people seem not to trust the 'proof of life' as served up by the McCanns and their friends, e.g., a sunny 'last photo' taken on a cloudy day, a 'tennis photo' taken on Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday (take your pick, and you can even choose the photographer), "

      #McCann

      Delete
    11. @ john blacksmith4 April 2017 at 11:45
      "Type of crime: unknown."
      ---------------------------

      No shit Sherlock - most right minded people have known that for years. It means that abduction has not been ruled out.

      Delete
    12. 16:14

      Now we know you can copy/paste text, have you anything sensible to add?

      Delete
  18. "I have spent almost a decade on the outskirts of society, labelled a 'Hater' and confined to the murky corner of the internet that is the McCann Hashtag."

    That sounds very sad - it is not compulsory to comment on the Mccann case and you could have walked away at any time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately I couldn't 12:27 - I was on the McCann's blacklist, my name and reputation was being destroyed online - look at the reviews for my books? I have had no option but to defend myself.

      Delete
  19. OK, for those who don't believe in the abduction theory, please provide us with a plausible explanation of where Madeleine's body was hidden during the initial searches by guests, staff and police, and then how it was disposed of later, especially as the McCanns were so quickly deemed by GA to be prime suspects and, therefore, would have been subject to constant surveillance by the Portuguese police.

    And as for the dogs, those same dogs alerted police to cadavers at Haut de la Garenne in Jersey, you can see their reaction in videos on YouTube.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 13:05

      "please provide us with a plausible explanation of where Madeleine's body was hidden during the initial searches by guests, staff and police"

      (Is that 'us' a reflection of the royal prerogative? Should I wipe my feet first?)

      Answer to Q1: In a locked apartment upstairs

      Answer to Q2: Disposed of earlier by someone else

      In reply to your observation regarding police dogs, no EVRD alerts police to 'cadavers' ever, in Jersey or anywhere else. They respond to a scent. How that scent is interpreted is a matter for the handler. And for goodness' sake don't come back with that sorry tale about a coconut - you know, the one that was analysed and found to contain collagen, which happens not to be present in coconut - ever.

      Delete
    2. LOL, 13:05, I see that old 'provide a plausible explanation, blah blah blah' chestnut has resurfaced as a line of defence. Unless you can figure out how they dunnit, you must accept their explanation. End of.

      It's almost like a challenge or a parlour game, with the ones holding all the answers laughing at the preposterous suggestions while making a note of any that get close.

      Again with the 'dogs are unreliable' argument 13:05, even though no-one believes a word of it. Dogs are still used worldwide to find bodies, and their handlers still give evidence in murder trials where there is no body.

      And, slightly off topic - if there were a trial, would the McCanns be able to produce an 'expert' to discredit the findings of the dogs in the witness box?

      Delete
    3. @14:20
      "I see that old 'provide a plausible explanation, blah blah blah' chestnut has resurfaced as a line of defence. Unless you can figure out how they dunnit, you must accept their explanation. End of."

      Which leaves us with just the one plausible explanation on the table. Fair enough.

      Delete
    4. 1) Who is us?

      2) The state of the investigation at present is "Type of Crime: unknown". Since you reject the findings of a national investigation - for emotional and personal reasons, not factual ones, since factual reasons for such a rejection do not exist - then you aren't going to be convinced by "plausible" explanations from mere posters, are you?

      3) No, the McCanns were not subject to constant surveillance by the police, as the evidence clearly shows. If, after ten years, you still don't know such an elementary and easily discoverable fact, then you are ignorant of the evidence. People ignorant of the basic evidence, on the whole, tend not to produce viable explanations for events, don't you think?

      4)What have dogs - any dogs - got to do with your abduction theory?

      Delete
    5. @ Ros 14.20
      "And, slightly off topic - if there were a trial, would the McCanns be able to produce an 'expert' to discredit the findings of the dogs in the witness box?"

      Yes - Grime himself - read his reports.

      Delete
    6. Lol, I suspect Martin Grime would be appearing for the prosecution, and besides, it is unlikely he would discredit his own dogs.

      I mean an alternate expert, someone who will state in Court that specialist police dogs are useless and in this case they made not one, but eleven errors. That is, someone to support Gerry's contention that cadaver dogs are notoriously unreliable.

      Delete
    7. @ Ros -various comments - as dog evidence is not acceptable in court what the hell are you on about?

      You can ignore what Grime said in his reports until the cows come home - stamping you foot and repeating it over and over again will not make you right.

      Anyone that thinks that the dogs alerts = the Mccanns "dunnit" (and they are of course unable to explain exactly what it is that the Mccanns did) is wrong and has been wrong for 10 years.

      Delete
    8. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 April 2017 at 14:48

      "Lol, I suspect Martin Grime would be appearing for the prosecution, and besides, it is unlikely he would discredit his own dogs."
      ------------------------------------

      Prosecution solicitor:

      I now call my next witness Martin Grime...

      "can you please state the value of the evidence provided by your dogs?"

      Marting Grime

      "yes :
      "No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence."

      "Thankyou Mr Grime - you may stand down."

      Delete
    9. Didn't Perry Como have a hit back in the day with 'It's Implausible'?

      Delete
    10. You wish 17:47!

      Considering the alerts of the dogs changed the entire course of the investigation, I think there will be rather more questions than that.

      Delete
    11. I can assure you I am not stamping my foot 15:50, the alerts of the dogs are far more important to you than they are to me.

      I don't think for one minute the findings of the dogs have ever been discarded, somebody died in 5A, and Madeleine hasn't been seen in 10 years. The police can't ignore that.

      Delete
  20. I see 'plausible' is today's word. It's like Sesame Street but GCSE level...

    Whether you have no other wish than to see the parents behind bars or an abductor produced, 'plausible' is not a word that can be used by either party in the broader context of this case.

    How plausible is it that so many diplomats jumped all over an incident abroad so fast. People who normally only act so fast and so efficiently for matters like invasions of Iraq and national security.How plausible is it that the (allegedly) long and distinguished career was capped by his interference with the PJ and removal of their local police and Amaral before he disappeared ?

    How plausible is it that our PM was insisting himself upon the case while the UK and Iraq were on the brink of more trouble ?

    How plausible is it to discuss the validity of the dogs findings now ? If they were not enough 10 years ago, why would they be now ?If you take the position that a forensics team shelved them because 'Gerry said they were notoriously unreliable' -how plausible is that without accusing that team of perverting the course of justice and, therefore, becoming accessories after the fact ?

    How plausible is it to not only suggest that our police force should take over an investigation in foreign country and replace the force who knew the area like the back of their hand,and demand that the lead detective be taken off the case even if it was to be an alleged 'joint investigation' ? How plausible was it for our force to say nothing when the PJ closed their end of things in 2008 ?

    How plausible is it to suggest that so many diplomats and politicians have involved themselves closely, funded the ten years, told the forensics team to 'turn a blind eye' to tangible evidence all because the parents are 'middle class doctors' when jails have housed so many doctors, surgeons, members of the clergy, and politicians down the years ?

    How plausible is it to point at videos of self-proclaimed 'experts' who can read facial expressions and body language when no kind of case anywhere will ever call upon them as an 'expert witness' for blindingly obvious reasons ?

    How plausible is it that no less than Sir Alec Jeffreys, pioneer of DNA fingerprinting, offered to testify on behalf of the McCanns to say why the DNA evidence is flawed ? How plausible is it that he would deliberately lie because of orders from higher up ?

    How plausible is it to stand proud in defence of a lead detective who is staking his reputation and, possibly, home and cash, when his suspicions vary from accidental death followed buy a concealment of a body in a fridge, freezer or coffin to buried in an area near 5A ?

    How plausible is it to argue that an abduction took place because the child was no longer in the apartment on the return of one of the parents ? How plausible was it not to take swabs from everyone in and around the apartment after 10:30 for DNA ? Or to examine the condition of the twins who were, allegedly, asleep among the chaos ?If Madeleine had been 'doped' ( by a parent or abductor ) it would surely be 'plausible' to suspect all three had, given the twins deep sleeping.The parents might, in theory, have wanted to guarantee that they'd 'stay put'.On the other hand, an abductor might have wanted 'no disturbance' so he/she/they could get a 20 minute start.But the doping scenarios wouldn't cause blood loss.
    It seems, online, that Madeleine has already been pronounced dead. Not by everyone, but the larger slice of the population. They offer endless reasoning. Would they, hypothetically, survive a grilling from a prosecution QC with their reasoning ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't see what you've got against 'plausible', Ziggy. You've just used it to great effect! You can use it to rule out (Madeleine was never there, Madeleine disappeared days before she was last seen) and rule in (abduction IS a plausible explanation for the disappearance of a child).

      Delete
    2. I once attended a sales conference at which a company's marketing manager interpreted a graph as the inverse of what it actually represented.

      Were you there taking notes by any chance?

      Delete
  21. Hi Anonymous@15:50

    It was Gerry that opened the door by saying the sniffer dogs were unreliable. As mentioned were did he get his information from, what research was carried out to back up his claims. Dogs have been used over the centuries because of their ability to smell whatever they are trained for.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi Ros

    Also again back to the dogs, what people are forgetting is the use of the dogs was a completely UK operation, from suggestion in the use of to carrying out the tasks. It could be that they perhaps weren't going to find anything but they did and suddenly the case was turned on its head. Also worth mentioning is someone in the UK also didn't buy the abduction theory as well. Why send human cadaver & blood dogs out.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark Harrison with the National Police Improvement Agency (NPIA) - one of the rival police agencies mentioned by Jim Gamble on the launch of the Summers and Swan book. I doubt there was much love lost between CEOP and NPIA.

      Mark Harrison was instructed by Leicester Police and the PJ - they are who he reported to. It must have been a bizarre situation - CEOP calling for photos of the abductor, and the NPIA searching for a body.

      Delete
  23. john 100

    Evening John

    Gerry McCann was giving his opinion. That's all it can be taken as.His expertise is with humans. He couldn't offer it as a defence but his counsel could argue it by pointing to historical cases of dogs making mistakes or their evidence being misleading. Overall, sniffer dogs have a very impressive record in all areas in which they're involved.But overall isn't all. A defence would need only have to find one or two failed cases to prove his point. As for his 'research', you only need 20 minutes and Google.

    Your point about the dogs messing a bluff up is a good one. The McCanns were telling the police that Madeleine must have been abducted.Early on that looked reasonable, after all, she wasn't there anymore. Amaral, without dogs, sniffed out guilt in the parents. His gut told him as much( also inadmissible in court, by the way).So, he set about speculating that even if their daughter was dead, maybe it was an accident but the parents panicked perhaps, and hid the body, called on their 7 friends to back them up, and make her 'disappear'( possibly in cold storage, possibly in a coffin in a church and so on- he should have been an author).

    The PJ acting on his( or someone he'd shared his theories with) behalf must have called the dogs in to get his theories some credibility.

    It's possible-i stress possible- that the UK didn't stop this as they were confident that nothing would be found.Or, maybe they just had no legal reason to put the block on it. Amaral, in a post-career /new career radio interview said there were 'microscopic' blood dots discovered too.It's a shame he didn't ask the internet, they saw 'blood spatter' without a microscope.

    The pertinent part of this whole dogs yawn, is that whatever they found was rejected once the UK had invaded the show. It's one thing to contaminate evidence at a crime scene, it's a whole new ball game when a case has been contaminated intentionally by those that were telling us all they were taking over the case. But that's what's happened if we think objectively.The big question should be why . Get the answer to that one question, you'll be an inch away from solving the case.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It is in discussions such as these that your lack of knowledge about the case becomes irritatingly clear Ziggy. The dogs weren't brought in because Goncalo Amaral had a 'gut feeling'. Mark Harrison of the NPIA was instructed by the PJ working in conjunction with Leicester Police. It was Mark Harrison who advised bringing in the blood and cadaver dogs.

    What they found has never been rejected Ziggy? Do you not remember DCI Redwood saying that Madeleine may not have been alive when taken from the apartment? Where do you think he got that from? Why do you think Scotland Yard were digging up PDL?

    The idea that the UK invaded the show and took over is ludicrous. And are you seriously suggesting that the British NPIA contaminated the evidence?

    Your threadbare knowledge of the case irks because you are creating scenarios that simply didn't happen and alternating between blaming GA and now a government department/ agency and a PM. Why would the British Government go all out to protect the McCanns whilst simultaneously trying to frame them?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Meant to add Ziggy, in 10 years the McCanns have not been able to find a case where the specialist dogs gave false alerts. The Eugene Zapata case being a prime example. Nor has any expert spoken out condemning the dogs, because the chances of an expert trashing sniffer dogs in a witness box is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rosalinda 22:37

    "Why would the British Government go all out to protect the McCanns whilst simultaneously trying to frame them?"

    I think one has to be mindful of the operational segregation of Government/the Civil Service and other executive branches of State management.

    It is improper, anti-democratic and ultimately dangerous for a government to be allowed direct control of a nation's police. If you recall, Cameron was very careful to acknowledge only a 'suggestion' as regards the inauguration of Operation Grange. Reality is of course stabled elsewhere, but it would not do for the public to perceive government interference at a stroke.

    So, while diplomats were being encouraged to 'exceed their authority' in assisting the McCanns, the police were ostensibly working under the direction of Gold group management, which just happened to include representation on the part of both the Home Office and the FCO.

    Amaral is perfectly clear that co-operation between the two law enforcement groups (Portuguese-British) was weighted in favour of the McCann parents but, as Jim Gamble has ironically articulated, too many cooks rather spoiled the UK's broth; not because they were tripping over each other in a fit of competitive enthusiasm, but because someone as senior as MH was first allowed to direct his own activities then introduce Martin Grime and his dogs. Result - a spanner in the works.

    If you read their statements (Grime's AND Harrison's) you will discover a noticeable dilution of both their commitments. I cannot escape the feeling that their decisions afterwards to ply their respective trades a long way overseas owe more to expediency than career opportunity.

    I think the phrase is 'tying up loose ends'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 4 April 2017 at 23:22

      Good comment. Thanks.

      T

      Delete
    2. Many thanks 23:22, and I agree with T, good comment!

      I have to say I too raised an eyebrow at Jim Gambles comments on the release of the Summers and Swan book. To me it suggested that some time down the line the alternate opinions of the various UK police agencies who flew out to PDL, would come to light.

      It seems to me that the PJ were working amicably with Leicester police, they jointly instructed MH to prepare a report, and they acted on his opinion, that is they brought in the dogs.

      You are of course right in that our Government are not omnipotent, and that a democratic government is structured to prevent abuse of power, and thank heavens for that!

      I think however, that the capitalist approach to public services, particularly with police agencies, encourages them to err, shall we say exaggerate the extent of work that they do. It would seem several were falling over themselves and each other, to assist the photogenic Madeleine and her publicity seeking parents.

      Like yourself, I too find it odd that MH and MG quietly withdrew from this case, and indeed country. The statements of the Leicester police are also strange - lacking in detail and ending with 'nothing unusual in the parents' behaviour'. Wtf? Daily press calls, an online shop and a private investigation of their own! All perfectly normal. Righto! It seems no-one knew the PJ would be released to the public.

      Delete
    3. I think much of it has to do with the UK police 'toeing the line', once that had been drawn for them.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 April 2017 at 10:23

      “I think much of it has to do with the UK police 'toeing the line', once that had been drawn for them.”

      Yes. Thank you.

      Sometimes the line is drawn after the toeing and the toes are seen on the ‘wrong’ side of it. :)

      T

      Delete
    5. 11:40

      That was Catherine Howard's problem I believe.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 5 April 2017 at 12:21

      “11:40

      That was Catherine Howard's problem I believe.”

      I consider your belief rational.

      T

      Delete
  27. Ros

    I hoped I'd see you tackle my post about so many 'plausibles'.Hoped, not expected...

    I apologise for my 'irritatingly threadbare knowledge' of the unsolvable case. What was I thinking. You might take every word allowed to be spoken publicly as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - I don't. It doesn't matter which stuffed shirt makes the announcement that's allowed to be broadcast.It never leads anywhere in this case and never has. Mark Harrison says a lot without saying anything.

    If the evidence hasn't been rejected, why hasn't it been advanced as part of a case against the parents who were in the apartment ?That sure sounds like a rejection to me. Why do you find the idea of two PMs, this diplomat and that diplomat 'ludicrous' ? Is it only ludicrous when I say it ? Whereas when you call it 'unprecedented' it has validity.

    No, I wasn't suggesting that the NPIA contaminated any evidence, nor any other set of initials. If i was suggesting it, you would have read it in my post and not added it to your protest. I suggested that the case itself was contaminated. That's why you and the rest bang on( and on and on) about the DNA/Blood/Cadaver being so crucial in the case against the McCanns yet 'shelved'. Amaral had a clean record and long service with the PJ, and he was removed from the case. Has he not said himself that the UK political motives were behind the smothering of the case against the McCanns ?

    I find it rich criticising me-or anyone- for 'creating scenarios'. There's ten years of created scenarios bordering on insane,from the Bennett and Co paedophile /Lolita crap, swingers and jealous rages, and the endless 'tells' that 'nail' the parents as all kinds.But you, and others with the requisite in-depth knowledge and expertise, know that, as you attack them regularly. There's only one you won't attack;the one that frames the 'fragrant middle class doctors' and reveals their real streak of dishonesty and viciousness( a scenario). You have the case solved and the 'perps' behind bars. Something an army of scientists and police forces have failed to even get close to in ten years.

    I don't go from blaming GM to to the UK Gov. I've said it's possible that the McCanns may be innocent of a death but not innocent of everything.After ten years, a lot of things are possible. I also said recently that the protection of the McCanns has been iron clad and that isn't the way things work normally. I suggested they must have been given assurances that nothing and nobody will ever emerge to land them in the dock. I further suggested that it also served those who protect them.It keeps them( parents) in the firing line and all eyes on them.

    You say the chances of trashing sniffer dogs is 'absurd'. I had no idea that this was another area of your expertise. Somebody, somehow, trashed them in PDL.

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/sniffer-dogs-get-it-wrong-four-out-of-five-times-20111211-1oprv.html

    http://crimebodge.com/fool-a-sniffer-dog/

    http://dogsdontlie.com/main/2008/12/cadaver-dogs-how-reliable-are-they-at-detecting-death/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not going by the opinion of a stuffed shirt Ziggy, I am going by the facts contained in the PJ files, that is Mark Harrison's statement and report, which, incidentally, corresponds with GA's book.

      Whilst I agree with you that there was political interference Ziggy, none of those politicians or spin doctors were there on the night of the 3rd May 2007. Everything that happened that night is down to the parents and their friends.

      Their behaviour whilst in PDL, would, I agree, suggest they had been given assurances that nothing and nobody would ever emerge to land them in the dock, but all that changed when the dogs were brought in.

      It doesn't take any expertise to know that the work of sniffer dogs is highly valued worldwide Ziggy. In putting their reputation up against the McCanns denials, you will always be on dodgy ground. In a courtroom situation, there would be mountains of evidence to demonstrate the amazing skills of the dogs, versus Gerry's 'cadaver dogs are incredibly unreliable'. It's not difficult to imagine how a jury would decide.

      Delete
    2. 23:39

      Your suggestions (penultimate paragraph) are the nub of the issue.

      Your 'dog' sources unfortunately do not stand up to scrutiny as support for any argument that sniffer dogs in general, or cadaver dogs in particular, are 'unreliable'. But that is a separate consideration altogether.

      Delete
    3. I meant to apologise for not tackling your 'plausibles' Ziggy, but each leads off onto a topic of it's own and life is too short. Whilst I am usually happy to go where the discussion takes us, you bring out my inner school marm who wants to box your ears. You remind me of former students who would use bullshit to cover the fact that they hadn't read the book. Admirable and even amusing traits in some, but seen through by the teacher every time.

      For those who have done their homework however, it irks, because they are being held back whilst you catch up. I should add, I have no problem whatsoever with questions from newcomers or anybody, one of the joys of acquiring all this knowledge is sharing it!

      However, with yourself I am having to tackle theories and ideas that you have literally pulled out of thin air - they are not supported by any of the evidence available, you are making them up as you go along!

      And btw, if you want me to review your writing, I charge ;)

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 April 2017 at 10:01

      Absolutely. Concur. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry…:)

      You PhD certificate is with the printers.

      T

      Delete
  28. Anonymous4 April 2017 at 19:49

    ''Can't see what you've got against 'plausible', Ziggy. You've just used it to great effect! You can use it to rule out (Madeleine was never there, Madeleine disappeared days before she was last seen) and rule in (abduction IS a plausible explanation for the disappearance of a child). ''

    I wasn't using anything.I was asking questions.Inviting thought.

    Anonymous4 April 2017 at 21:06

    ''I once attended a sales conference at which a company's marketing manager interpreted a graph as the inverse of what it actually represented.
    Were you there taking notes by any chance?''

    I was indeed.That was me who approached him afterwards and sacked him for being incompetent. The last i heard about the comedian was that he joined Operation Grange.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ZiggySawdust 4 April 2017 at 23:51

      You are very good with words, Chairman, but very wrong. You remind me of how I used to be before descending “into the world of perpetual solitude”.

      Mao (better known as Chairman Mao)

      Delete
    2. 23:51

      Regarding that sales conference, an earlier apology appears to have 'gone west' (as we used to say. It's more often 'south' nowadays).

      Anyhow, my remark was not aimed at yourself, but at 19:49, whom you quote.

      I know you weren't there taking notes in any case, because the marketing manager I referred to was female and went on to create further havoc afterwards!

      Delete
  29. http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/simon-jenkins-cressida-dick-must-put-aside-politics-and-get-back-to-basic-police-work-a3506791.html

    Simon Jenkins: Cressida Dick must put aside politics and get back to basic police work

    "As for computer fraud, the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, Tom Winsor, recently came close to ridiculing the Met for a lack of competence.

    He offered an image of PC Plod waving a night-stick and handcuffs at his computer. This new area of crime, said Winsor, “does not need a traditionally trained cop”, more a back-office nerd. The same goes for most modern white-collar crime.

    The truth is that such crime wins no headlines. Over the past decade the Met has instead been fixated with high-profile “marquee operations”, as budget-draining as they are bizarre. Some £30 million was blown on tracking down journalists’ phone-tapping.

    A similar sum went on the ludicrously implausible “Nick” and his celebrity sex fantasies. The Met makes periodic gestures to curb so-called “illegals”, such as last week’s incarceration of shop worker Stojan Jankovic, a Kentish Town resident for a quarter of a century. It is still hunting for Madeleine McCann at public expense."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting post 07:22.

      I do sometimes wonder if given the choice of plodding the beat or sitting in front of a PC screen, certain police are taking the easy option. With child abuse especially. Hundreds if not thousands of kids live in abusive homes, many too small to use the internet and many who simply don't have access. Tracking down solitary creeps online with a penchant for kiddie porn doesn't help them one single bit.

      Who knows what the purpose of the phone hacking trials were - journalists have used dubious means to get stories since the printing press began. It's what they do, they are the Fourth, or is it the Fifth Estate? Keeping an eye on those in authority is all part of a healthy democracy and long may it continue. Laws to protect privacy will be abused by those who want to cover up crimes.

      The disappearance of Madeleine had nothing to do with the internet, but it didn't prevent CEOP from wanting to seize personal computers and exercise their online protection powers. So keen is Jim Gamble to make this an internet crime of some sort, that he has veered off onto internet trolls. He wants subversives tracked down (online) and in the dock.

      Delete
  30. I have to say that I have found some posts on this thread most interesting. I too feel this is a huge cover up, but what I don't understand is a) why is it taking so long? And b) why are they allowing the parents to suffer not only online but at times in the press? If they are being protected surely it would have only taken a couple of years to tie up loose ends.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 09:48

      I can only state this as opinion, not fact, but I would suggest the parents are no longer being 'protected'. They are already immune from prosecution, and have been since they scrambled home in 2008.

      The business with Amaral, case reviews etc. stems from their desperation for absolution - to be perceived innocent in the eyes of the wider public.

      Operation Grange was a sort of 'oh go on then' reaction on the part of a government that no longer had any genuine need of involvement in the McCanns' affairs. That ended years earlier, when the possibility of prosecution in Portugal was forestalled. They have not since become 'persons of interest' as far as the Met. are concerned - quite the opposite in fact.

      It all seems to be a tangled web of nonsense, until you consider the possibility that Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' was not the parents' idea, but one put to them by whoever they turned to for help earlier in the week.

      That IMHO is the relationship under close guard, not the McCanns themselves. Anyone who advocated committing a crime in order to conceal a crime would not be held in very high esteem were they to be unmasked.

      A relevant question has very recently been put by Blacksmith:

      "how come that before our eyes this sweet little grouping is beginning, in mid-May 2007, to equip itself with “corporate” weapons, i.e. those designed and sold primarily for the development and protection of multi-million finance and business organizations, not individuals. They’re just a couple of NHS doctors with a missing kid, for f***s sake. What’s going on?

      'What's going on' indeed. Whatever it was, it was considered significant enough for someone to 'phone Kerry Needham to ask for her opinion on the subject, and for an ex-pat journalist in Spain to set off on a five-hour drive to Praia da Luz before news of the 'abduction' had broken in the UK.

      Delete
    2. Hi 11:01 and thank you for your post. I'm confused by your opening paragraph. Protection for the McCanns has stopped, but they remain immune from prosecution? Why are/were the parents immune? Who granted them immunity?

      I agree the McCanns are desperate for 'absolution', they were mightily irked that Madeleine's Fund was stopped in it's tracks by their arguido status. That the UK should bend over backwards to grant their wish however, is bizarre.

      I have been catching up with Blacksmith, he does indeed have a gift for hitting the nail on the head. Why indeed would two NHS doctors with a missing child need Crisis Management, PR companies and government spokesmen etc. And of course, how did grieving parents and family sit around with these ambulance chasers, discussing ways and means to capitalise (financially) on their missing daughter's plight. It is so distasteful I am lost for words.

      Delete
    3. Thank you for your reply 11:01

      You say:
      "It all seems to be a tangled web of nonsense, until you consider the possibility that Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' was not the parents' idea, but one put to them by whoever they turned to for help earlier in the week"

      So Madeleine died earlier in the week and the Mcc's knew people in high places to assist them? So they/GM must have been more than an NHS worker? I understand he was one of many on a Government Committee, could it be something to do with that? or am I way off beam! I don't know which of the two scenarios is the worst, abduction through neglect or death through neglect - either way they have lost their child. All this could have been made so much easier for them, for instance, abduction through the night while the parents are in bed or a fall whilst one was playing tennis or something like that and the other getting a shower


      Delete
    4. Anonymous 5 April 2017 at 11:01

      A perfect abstract.

      Not just the nutshell, but the nut as well!

      Thank you so much.

      T (also known as Major Tom)

      Delete
    5. "Why are/were the parents immune (from prosecution)?"

      I don't want to turn into Ziggy Sawdust, but 10 years at liberty and raking in cash should tell us something!

      If the Portuguese were keen on a prosecution they'd have done it by now. UK jurisdiction over the destiny of the parents is limited I think to a case of homicide, if there were one to be made that is. Scotland Yard have no stomach for that fight either.

      "That the UK should bend over backwards to grant their wish however, is bizarre."

      Nobody bent over backwards. Cameron bent over forwards, with a little persuasion from Murdoch's 'Rapunzel', from behind.

      "I have been catching up with Blacksmith, he does indeed have a gift for hitting the nail on the head."

      I think he's spoiled for choice on the nail front, being a Blacksmith and all.

      Whilst I share his suspicion as voiced on this occasion, I cannot accept his earlier argument that it was all accomplished by the wider McCann circle and a compliant media.

      Never mind donations to fund private eyes, who forked out up front for Control Risks' services?

      The McCanns could barely afford the holiday in the first place by all accounts, and I can't imagine their strategically placed blue buckets filled up quite that quickly.

      Delete
    6. 12:05

      "So Madeleine died earlier in the week"

      I believe so.

      "and the Mcc's knew people in high places to assist them?"

      Maybe no higher up than the Ocean Club. The helpers' (i.e. the decision makers, not the porters') first concern would have been with helping themselves in some way.

      "So they/GM must have been more than an NHS worker?"

      Something 'other than' is quite possible - as possible as their ally, Jim Gamble, being something other than the head of CEOP the time.

      "I understand he was one of many on a Government Committee, could it be something to do with that? or am I way off beam!"

      We can only speculate as to the nature of any relationship between McCann and significant others. If and when we were able to define the chain of communication between them we would be better placed to identify where it led.

      "I don't know which of the two scenarios is the worst, abduction through neglect or death through neglect - either way they have lost their child".

      I'd have to argue for the second, since the first did not happen.

      Delete
    7. Ahh, I see your point re: immunity 12:44. I think the immunity was quite real in those very early days, that is while Gerry, Kate and their huge entourage holidayed in PDL, but I think it drastically cut back at the end of June, beginning of July, when they oved out of Warners and into a rented villa.

      I don't know about Scotland Yard having no stomach for a fight. Six years on and all those top ups, I would say the opposite. It seems to me Scotland Yard have been determined NOT to give up.

      I agree with you that everything the McCanns accomplished was not without the assistance of a powerful person or persons unknown. Someone who was able to sell the abduction of Madeleine as the best thing since sliced bread.

      Delete
  31. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 5 April 2017 at 09:06

    Concur.

    Thank you, Captain, for, inter alia [:)], not losing your ship to fools.

    Sail on.

    Bless.

    Major Tom

    PS ALLCAPITALSANDOTHER‘TRANSGRETIONS’HEREINAREADEADGIVEAWAY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks Major Tom. Your comment has put a grin on my face that I am pretty sure will last all day! :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 5 April 2017 at 10:17

      Message received. Proceed with care: I cannot swim. :(

      :)

      Major Tom

      Delete
  32. Point of Departure

    Kenny Dorham - trumpet
    Eric Dolphy - alto saxophone (1,2,3), bass clarinet (3,4,5), flute (3)
    Joe Henderson - tenor saxophone (all), flute (3)
    Andrew Hill - piano
    Richard Davis - double bass
    Tony Williams - drums

    Miss you, Eric. Miss you all, guys.

    Peace


    Point of departure:

    Anonymous 3 April 2017 at 15:04

    "There are no lies. But that doesn't mean the truth has been told."

    There are no lies... What is that which we have been and are being told by the McCanns and their supporters may I ask?

    T

    ReplyDelete
  33. Aladdins Insane5 April 2017 at 14:43

    Hi all again and in particular Ziggy.
    If you want to read a plausible/implausible theory (your chioce), then take a look at another forum where my other self has posted.
    Yes I know I`m schizophrenic, but there is only two of me (I think).
    I`m new to all this lark and this site was the first I came across,but was curious when I saw references to "the cesspit" so thought I would take a look.
    Anyhow I posted on there under the name Lord Sleuth and attracted some derision and expect I will get the same here.
    But we all have our theories and we all think ours is the closest to the truth.
    I have promised not to post there again for a while, yet feel the itch, hence this.
    I think I should take cover now.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Chairman of Signet Committee (aka ZiggySawdust)

    Well don't know which one is worse,
    Doing your own thing or just being cool.
    You remember only about the brass ring,
    You forget all about the golden rule.

    Zimmy

    ReplyDelete
  35. ZiggySawdust

    All the things you could be by now if Sigmund Freud's wife was your mother.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous5 April 2017 at 10:27

    ''You are very good with words, Chairman, but very wrong. You remind me of how I used to be before descending “into the world of perpetual solitude”.

    Mao (better known as Chairman Mao)''

    Dicky Mao..

    Right or wrong don't exist if we're discussing a ten year old case that stopped within hours of starting.Unless you, or anyone, can show me different of course. Whatever way I Have with words is of secondary importance to me. The ability to stand back to see more and evaluate without bias is more important.I enjoy solitude.The trick is to make a friend of it, not an enemy.It's easier of late.I flounder if I find myself in the shallows rather than swimming upstream. Out there is becoming more shallow with time.Worse, so many of them have n internet connection and keyboard now.No escaping the blinkered shouters..

    Anonymous5 April 2017 at 12:27

    ''I know you weren't there taking notes in any case, because the marketing manager I referred to was female and went on to create further havoc afterwards!''

    Women eh..

    Ros,

    Your blog gets quite a few posts a day so nobody expects you to address each and everyone. I certainly don't anyway. But, in replying to me, you're wasting your time and mine if the main body of your text is talking about me personally and trying to disguise insults as intellectual criticism.That's not clever.. I'll add 'bullshit' to the growing catalogue of ad hominem arguments. You may well enjoy being entrenched in your 'facts'( or the PJ files you often repeat) and you may well 'know' that 'dogs don't lie' and the McCanns and forensics team do. But running around in the smallest of circles will only drive you mad. The McCanns are guilty , the dogs said so, Amaral knew /knows everything is never going to be the Christmas number one this or any year, nor has it in the last 10.Your 'i've read everything so am an expert' is also a song we hear online from so many.So the 'experts' on this case, apart from being self-proclaimed legends, have shown the rest of us what exactly ? The McCanns are at liberty out there. Are the police never going to acknowledge the 'obvious' that you and the team are shouting from the rooftops ? If not-why not ? It's no good preaching the good word to thousands who have no power of arrest.

    I prefer, after 10 years of nothing, to ask questions as there haven't been any answers in that time so far. There's been endless speculation and theorising-that's all it is. It raiies a lot of questions in a lot of areas. That's why it's been ten years.I think it's more important now, as the 10 year anniversary approaches, to ask them. Some of those questions will obviously be about why, despite the unanimous verdict of the worlds biggest jury-Twitter- haven't the McCanns ever been charged or even arrested. Why were certain protocols ignored by our diplomats to get inside this case so fast, why a PM passed his personal phone number to the parents and why nobody in a higher seat has had the met in to kick there collective arses given the size of the fund snatched from tax payers.Why was Amaral removed on the 'advice' of Mr Buck ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Aladdins Insane5 April 2017 at 14:43

    ''Yes I know I`m schizophrenic, but there is only two of me (I think).''

    Be more specific, just so I know how many glasses to set on the table :-)

    ''when I saw references to "the cesspit" so thought I would take a look.''

    That would be the infamous Mr Anthony Bennett, he who left his logic in San Francisco. I was walking around the net prior to Christmas.My interest in the McCann case popped up again after years as I was watching /reading about the JonBenet Ramsey case (as it was an anniversary of that). I came across his cave and did some reading.I'd already read about him and his bizarre leafleting campaign and libel case against the McCanns. He's taken 'stubborn' to new heights. He has two targets and that's it.He's prepared to move imaginary mountains to prove his point, get revenge and a financial fortune (and fame).It looks like a huge blog but it isn't really.It's a bit like walking into a huge store but the shelves are empty.Whatever they're paying to have the ranking high on google is wasted; people see the empty shelves and leave. The 'hardcore' element remain. They bite on their knuckles and then each others.The deciding factor not to involve myself with it, however, was after reading the paedophile 'theories' and then having the misfortune to click on a different page to see a heated debate about the legality of bestiality in the states and Canada.Apparently, if you agree with the official line, you're welcomed with tea and biscuits.If you dispute it, you get banned and blocked.The little mafia only want to hear themselves echoed by people prepared to kneel in awe.Him and his ilk deserve some sense and decency slapped into them.I hope he leaflets Liverpool one day.

    ''Anyhow I posted on there under the name Lord Sleuth and attracted some derision and expect I will get the same here.''

    Lord Sleuth ? My, my, my( to quote the mighty Joe Kenda).Not just a lord but a sleuth too ;-)I prefer names that point to the genius that was, and will always be, Mr David Jones. I doubt you'll get the same derision here. You could well be on the end of some juvenile hilarity, but that comes with the territory if you're surrounded by the collective genius o the virtual Scotland Yard. Ros doesn't censor-she's against it. She'll make it clear how you should address people, what you should and shouldn't say and advise you when you're ideas don't fit.That's not censoring though, it's more a subtle warning system.

    So, Lord Insane Sleuth etc, rather than dirty my shoes in the pit, why not share your theory on here ? I agree, all we have is theories. Nobody has been able to prove any of them and no so-called 'support' of said theories have helped them reach the elevated position of 'proof'.Yet.

    Anonymous5 April 2017 at 14:51

    ''ZiggySawdust

    All the things you could be by now if Sigmund Freud's wife was your mother.
    T''

    Didn't he marry the daughter of Electra ? No wonder he was a nutter. Perish such thoughts, chairman.
    Stay Jung at heart.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 April 2017 at 09:06

      '' So keen is Jim Gamble to make this an internet crime of some sort, that he has veered off onto internet trolls. He wants subversives tracked down (online) and in the dock.''

      Interesting theory. Who do you think-or think that he thinks-is or are 'subversive' ?

      ( apologies for that stuttering sentence)

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust 5 April 2017 at 16:42

      “Didn't he marry the daughter of Electra ?”

      No, he married Rectela.

      “Stay Jung at heart.”

      Nice…

      In repose, a pensive comrade shares with you their innermost and sacred and you decide to Jung at them? Oh, you are awful...

      “Not ruq 'ej jatDaj mach valbe'chugh loD poStaHvIS roses He'”. My translation from Klingon would be something like “It is unwise to fart while smelling roses”. I would tentatively attribute the Klingon quote to Confucius.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJe_ZlFC084

      Mao

      Delete
    3. In this case Ziggy, the subversives are those who criticise the McCanns.

      Delete
  38. Aladdins Insane5 April 2017 at 17:31

    Ziggy 16.42

    I would rather not Ziggy. If my theory is controversial for the other place, it is certainly not suitable here.
    I didnt post any links or clue where exactly to find it as I didnt want to upset the blog owner. I gather there is much animosity between the two places, but wanted to give the chance for anyone to read my thoughts if they wished,albeit with a little searching.
    It is pure speculation on my part, although after a lot of reading and thinking and as I said it is anyones choice to make of it what they will.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Thank you Anonnymous 13:44

    Jim Gamble yes he does go Wayback! I can't help referring back to this which would no doubt involve JG:
    http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2015/09/metaphoric-comprehension-revisited-by.html
    it just needs some loose ends tidied up!

    As for the choice of abduction by whoever, I find it despicable that they would choose this option to continually collect money under false pretences and to travel the world like ruddy hotel inspectors.



    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous5 April 2017 at 18:42 - Mao (major)

    ''“Didn't he marry the daughter of Electra ?”
    No, he married Rectela. ''

    Excellently Freudian and slippy, major, well done :)

    ''“Not ruq 'ej jatDaj mach valbe'chugh loD poStaHvIS roses He'”. My translation from Klingon would be something like “It is unwise to fart while smelling roses”. I would tentatively attribute the Klingon quote to Confucius.''

    A wise man indeed, old 'Conny'.I wonder what he put on his own roses.That could be very confusing. But that's Klingons for you;fine pilots, shocking gardeners.

    That music brought instant images of Paul Whitehouse in his Fast Show Jazzy Gillespie character(nice). I've often wondered what it was called.Not because i'm a fan of jazz, but because it seems to be a sort of default setting in my head.If I'm running late for anything, and i have to rush( a pet hate of mine), I can hear it coming from somewhere as if to hurry me up. It could be worse I suppose, if it was George Formby I'd go back to bed mad..

    ReplyDelete
  41. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton5 April 2017 at 21:00

    ''In this case Ziggy, the subversives are those who criticise the McCanns.''

    I don't like this gamble character whatever his supposed opinions are.He's another front man, clearly. I was looking for the more significant contributions he's made to the show and found an old newspaper story.

    ''Jim Gamble, former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), found that so many UK agencies got involved it damaged relations with Portuguese police...
    Gamble criticised the Association of Chief Police Officers decision to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation because the McCanns lives in the county... the force was ill-equipped to deal with such a big investigation...

    No 10, the Home Office and the Foreign Office – were demanding briefings from the various agencies...

    Gamble said: “All of us, including myself at CEOP at the time, your first gut reaction is you want to help, a child has gone missing … so everyone came with best intention, that created a sense of chaos and a sense of competition, people putting their hand up and wanting to help ...

    the Met investigation team that's engaged now are still having to manage and massage that relationship and perhaps to be fair to the Portuguese, mend some fences that were trodden on in the early days..''

    He goes on to say( accuse) the PJ and their 'haphazard' approach in the early days.Haphazard because our fine UK army of 'help' was'trodding' on those fences maybe ? But putting pressure on the PJ bosses to hand over the lead to the UK even though the crime had occurred in the territory of the PJ wasn't 'haphazard' . Whether it's Leicester or 'the yard', it isn't PDL. Besides, the former mentioned fine body of men and women at Leicester had been, and were still at that time, fighting like dogs to fend off the attacks from everybody regarding the discovery of their covering up of the Lord Greville Janner 'investigation' and his years of unpunished filth committed against children. Irony...

    No 10, the Home Office and the Foreign Office were 'demanding briefs' were they ? That sounds a bit panicky doesn't it ? None of this happened when Ben Needham went missing abroad.None of it happened when any child-home or abroad- went missing.There's support from politicians, and there's panic. Support we could understand, if it was dealt out equally regardless of the alleged crimes. But panicking and insisting on briefs and hiding unpublished reports is a little bit different to that of a criminal investigation into a crime unless that crime had occurred with a political sphere . If this has happened in a case before than i will stand corrected regarding my insinuating that this political scrutiny has a lot more to it than mere concern.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11068928/Secret-Madeleine-McCann-report-finds-competing-British-forces-hampered-inquiry.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5.4 @22:24

      Keep talking Jimmy. The wider you open your mouth the easier it is to see your fillings.

      "so many UK agencies got involved it damaged relations with Portuguese police..."

      I detect a false relation here. The 'it' in question was not merely the number of UK police elements, if at all.

      "Gamble criticised the Association of Chief Police Officers' decision to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation"

      ACPO were in no position to place anyone in charge of anything within Portugal much less 'the operation'.

      UK police have to seek, and be given, authority to function abroad professionally, having first been invited to do so. That's a mighty long way from being in charge of things.

      "the (Leicester) force was ill-equipped to deal with such a big investigation..."

      Again. They weren't expected to. And what turns a missing child into such a 'big investigation' after 48 hours? Leicester police were on the ground in little more than 24 hours after learning of the incident on the Friday morning.

      "No 10, the Home Office and the Foreign Office – were demanding briefings from the various agencies..."

      He makes it sound as if members of one uncoordinated rabble were independently asking for (independent) reports from members of another. Not quite the same thing as those at the top table being handed copies of the minutes from a committee meeting eh?

      Delete
    2. You have made some excellent points there 11:07, many thanks. Most notably, the British police agencies had no right to take charge of anything - it was a Portuguese investigation!

      He also sounds miffed that he wasn't put in charge.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 6 April 2017 at 11:07

      Good day

      Valid points made.

      Thank you.

      T

      Delete
  42. Zee

    “A wise man indeed, old 'Conny'.I wonder what he put on his own roses.That could be very confusing. But that's Klingons for you;fine pilots, shocking gardeners.”

    Confusing [:)] indeed.

    Good to have a laugh early in the morning.

    Chairman Meow

    ReplyDelete
  43. 2005

    https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeuleg/34-xi/3424.htm

    "Jim Gamble, Deputy Director General of the National Crime Squad, gave a presentation on the considerable law enforcement benefits of retaining the telecommunications data for longer periods, giving both examples of its use and setting out the safeguards for restricting access to retained data."

    ReplyDelete
  44. November 30, 2016

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/europol-data-breach-by-former-agent-leaks-historical-data-54-terrorism-investigations-1594186

    “The files included analysis of the Hofstad Network, the Madrid bombings and foiled attacks on airplanes with liquid explosives, Zembla said. They also featured "hundreds of names" and telephone numbers believed to be linked with terrorism alongside information on investigations never made public.”

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

    “It added that they mostly dated from 2006 to 2008 and included investigations into the Madrid train bombings, the Hofstad Network - a Netherlands-based Islamist terror network - and foiled attacks on several flights.”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38158258

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hi Rosa, great article. I first saw the lie spotting video a few years ago and i thankfully saved it, i uploaded it on to my channel and i stated clearly in the description that it had been edited to show the blatant similarities between the McCann's interviews and the behaviour exhibited some proven liars. I guess the original uploader. Was afraid of being sued as well all know that carter ruck have sued many people on behalf of the McCann's. However i have made it clear in the description that Pamela Meyer didn't include the McCann's in her lectures so i think I'll be ok. Hope all is well, and keep up the good work, ignore the nay sayers. Your work always makes for entertaining reading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Chris Connell6 April 2017 at 10:59
      "Was afraid of being sued as well all know that carter ruck have sued many people on behalf of the McCann's"
      ----------------------------------------------

      How many people have been sued by Carter Ruck on behalf of the Mccanns?

      Delete
    2. Hi Chris, many thanks to you for preserving this video! I was awestruck when I first saw it, mostly because it answered many a niggle.

      In the early days I wondered if they had had coaching - but as I learned more and more about body language etc, I could see that their performances were actually terrible - not realistic at all! They were blagging it.

      Anyway, as I say, many thanks.

      Delete
    3. I totally agree Ros, whilst some may find the McCann couple convincing as "the distraught parents of an abducted child" anyone who watches closely and like you say, learns a little about lie spotting techniques.. it's plain to see that they're not being entirely truthful, now people are accusing me of picking on a vulnerable family and calling me a troll but the mccanns have lied and the way i see it, innocent people don't need to lie, if Madeleine had been abducted like they said all they had to do was be truthful and they chose to lie. And to the anon comment above, the mccanns have sued or tried to sue and silence a host of people and tabloid newspapers. So was that question really necessary?

      Delete
  46. The doctor presenting her 'case' doesn't actually mention the McCanns or their guilt. The maker of the video has been suitably impressed by the lecture, watched the videos of the McCanns, and edited it cleverly to incriminate them. I wonder if she's OK with that. I suppose so, as she hasn't actually accused anyone of anything. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.Useless, but wonderful.Foresight is far more useful. When the seedy Bill Clinton was under fire, we all 'knew' didn't we. It was Clinton, after all. I wouldn't trust him to mind my dog. But it was Monica Vs Bill ;servant V master. Once Monica had opened her mouth( for a productive reason for a change) we had him bang to rights. The rest just wrote itself. He eventually coughed up ( to a degree). So, to analyse the facial tics etc and eye movements etc is pretty easy once you already know you're looking at someone who was eventually proven guilty. A lecture, with video evidence actually ahead of a verdict would be worthy.It would carry more weight. I remember in the 90s and some lectures /talks /papers on body language was becoming quite trendy amongst Psychology students who secretly nurtured dreams of being criminal profilers 'like off the telly''. Often, conversations would be punctuated with 'NVL' ( non-verbal-leakage) references and Freud.All very knowing. Until the real 'observation' module appeared and the reality was far less attractive or fun.It was a lot more difficult too. I wonder if the good Dr would give her time to assessing the videos of the McCanns.It would make for interesting viewing, being that she's qualified in such matters. I'm betting she wouldn't touch it-or any similar unsolved-as-yet case.It would be in breach of the BPS code of ethics anyway .But, whether you buy into this angle or not, I'm left with a question. Are those present on the thread buying it ? Do they think using this magic to 'read' the hidden innermost of the MCCanns can implicate them even further in crime or crimes as yet unknown ? I'm going out on a limb here but I'm guessing the majority verdict is 'yes please!'

    The problem I have with that is when considering another 'psycholgical magician' -Peter Hyatt.

    On the minus side when considering his particular interpretation, his 'credentials' are, let's say, suspect.Apparently he's a dab hand on the guitar( not as dab as Ziggy) and charges for lessons. His 'sideline', apparently, is 'analysing' speech that give away the 'tells' of liars or confirm their innocence. With video 1 we have someone with actual qualifications using hindsight to demonstrate her insight-that's the visual taken care of.With Video2(Hyatt) we have a Guitar tutor using whatever his qualifications claim but at least not relying on someone already proven guilty as his 'proof'.That's the audio taken care of. The (in)famous 'embedded confessions'. Here's where my problem lies.Somebody unqualified has edited a filmed lecture to apply it to the Mccanns as further 'proof' of their guilt of something and it's received like manna from Heaven, or online Ambrosia for the hordes.Someone else unqualified ( and apparently endorsed by the FBI fools) presents an audio presentation and he gets lambasted like a killer dog. Richard Hall, who foolishly paid air fare to go and interview him, receives the same for his efforts. What both theories propose is the same-the McCanns are guilty of something and hiding even more. Why is the latter ridiculed and the former held up as a victory ? They're of equal worth aren't they ? Both achieve the intended aim of those behind them(something else to assume the McCanns guilt), and neither would be considered of any worth by any police force. The most either -or both- can ever achieve is successfully continuing the fomenting of anti-McCann collective psyche.They're either both 'valuable' or both not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I said in the description that the video had been edited to include the McCann's interviews and highlight the similarities in behaviour between the mccanns and known liars, nowhere did i say anything about Pamela Meyer quoting them. By the way Ziggy, are you related to Michael Walker?

      Delete
    2. @Chris Connell6 April 2017 at 21:23

      I asked you at 12.15 today - How many people have been sued by Carter Ruck on behalf of the Mccanns?

      I noticed that you have not answered.

      Delete
    3. Do you think your soul has been stolen if you have your picture taken Ziggy?

      Body language is not magic, and no special skills are needed to see that Gerry and Kate are lying. Hundreds of thousands picked up on it from the earliest interviews.

      Have you never had somebody lie to you and been able to detect it? Or do you accept without question that everyone tells the truth?

      As we know, one of the most prominent words in the case that is McCann, is 'Hate'. Almost immediately, the parents claimed that those who did not believe them, hated them. And in many instances they were right. When people lie to us we feel uncomfortable and we feel hostile towards them. It is all part of our genetic make up, our survival instinct.

      Some people are better at lying than others. Gerry and Kate however, are not nearly as good as they think are. They have trapped themselves into 'the perfect family', they have left no room for human weakness. They can never relax.

      Their lack of human frailty makes them unpopular, nobody likes perfect and nobody believes it. Why do they not blame themselves, or each other? How do you go through that kind of trauma without arguments or recriminations? Goncalo Amaral's faults make him real, the McCanns' perfection, makes them phoney.

      Your dismissal of body language as magic dismays me Ziggy, you're not Amish are you?

      Delete
    4. Chris Connell6 April 2017 at 21:23
      ''nowhere did i say anything about Pamela Meyer quoting them. By the way Ziggy, are you related to Michael Walker?''

      That makes two of us. I mentioned early in the post that the Dr wasn't discussing the McCanns .

      No, I'm not related or friends etc with a Michael Walker. I went to school with a John Walker a long time ago.I don't think they're related. I don't know where Michael Walker's from. I've had the 'guess who' games on a couple of other threads. My name's Mark. I don't know(or care) if there's a 'Mark' that has been posting about this case in the past or is doing so now-This is where I am and that's about it.And no, I'm not ' a Healy' as has been supposed because i refuse to join a pack. I'm just an observer from a distance with the same limited evidence that everyone else has. it's just that I realise it.

      Delete
    5. Dr. Pamela Meyer had nothing to do with the making of the above video as has been made very clear Ziggy.

      And do not be placing the renowned academic Pamela Meyer alongside Hall and Hyatt. Hall and Hyatt are charlatans, chancers, and opportunists. I doubt either one of them have ever been anywhere near a text book.

      Delete
    6. I wouldn't answer 21:53 if I were you Chris. The 'pros', as you probably know, love to give anti's assignments. On occasions such as these the middle finger is appropriate ;)

      Delete
    7. ''Do you think your soul has been stolen if you have your picture taken Ziggy?''

      No. I don't drink.

      I know body language is not magic. Nor is Hypnosis or Graphology. There is a basis in it all.At the basic 'human' level we all read it. It's a basic instinct in our DNA that helps us survive.On that basis, no special skills, as you say, are needed. Experience develops a bullshit detector in most of us. But we're not talking about day to day give away lies here.We're talking about a ten year old abduction or murder case that's had the parents as suspects, a PDL part time neighbour as one, several other theories, efits. dismissed 'science' etc etc. If we need 'no special skills' to spot the guilt, why are such Drs and the rest called as experts to testify one way or another. What if one was called to the stand and her evidence cleared someone on a charge of murder because 'their faces and hand movements suggest no guilt' ? How would that be received ? If this is seen as 'evidence', is it to be shelved with the rest ?

      The McCanns said they hated people yes. If- i emphasise 'if'- they were innocent, they would hate being accused of being party to whatever happened to their toddler.Who wouldn't ? If their faces are contorted in anger and their accompanying gestures are threatening, a reader of body language woould say their anger was genuine and not a pretence. Does that mean it's a sign that they, therefore, must be telling the truth if they're so genuinely pissed off ? You're forgetting, it isn't just blogs like you and Bennett have put online, there are some sick freaks on Twitter who go too far. Have you seen 'thecolemanexperience' front page on McCanns ? I don't care how much people want the McCanns jailed, that being allowed to stay online is sick.

      That they ( parents) can never relax is true. They'd say it's because of not knowing where the daughter is or what happened to her as well as the fingers pointing their way. You say it's because they're guilty. The McCanns may well be lying and you may well be right. They have to be shown to be lying before you can be shown to be right.That's the nub of the problem and has been since 2007.

      I don't think we're privvy to what goes on behind their closed doors.. We only see them when the show comes to the TV or before press microphones and Q n A sessions. I believe they're frail.Why-I don't know.It's either guilt combined with fear, or the not knowing about the fate of their daughter.Again, proof is needed. Nobody charged with finding proof has been up to the job.They owe the public some results and the tax payer.

      ''Your dismissal of body language as magic dismays me Ziggy, you're not Amish are you?''

      I'm not Amish. I'm not uneducated either.I don't dismiss it, i merely recognise it's limits.So do courts.

      Delete
  47. @Chris Connell

    ''nowhere did i say anything about Pamela Meyer quoting them''
    That makes two of us. I actually mentioned it early in the post that the lecture had nothing at all to do with the Dr's thoughts or opinions about the McCann case.

    No, I don't know a Michael Walker. I went to school with a John Walker years ago.Not sure if he's related.I don't know where Michael Walker's from. I've done the 'guess who' games on a couple of other threads.My names is Mark. I don't know if there's a 'Mark' elsewhere posting about the case, or has been involved in it in any way. If there is,or was, it isn't, and wasn't, this Mark.

    ReplyDelete
  48. @ Chris Connell

    I notice that you have hidden your reply to my question "How many people have been sued by Carter Ruck on behalf of the Mccanns?" at the end of your comment at 21:20.

    You originally said "Was afraid of being sued as well all know that carter ruck have sued many people on behalf of the McCann's."

    Now you say " the mccanns have sued or tried to sue and silence a host of people and tabloid newspapers."

    So maybe now - as you are obviously an expert on the Mccanns and Carter Ruck, you can answer the question: "How many people have been sued by Carter Ruck on behalf of the Mccanns?".

    It is a number that I am sure you know (because you are the expert).

    ReplyDelete
  49. Kate wrote the novella and what an excellent job she did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didn't she just 22:04, lol. If some of those tweeting on #McCann had brains, they might be dangerous!

      Delete
  50. Someone posted a while ago on site:

    " All words are subject to the interpretation of the reader, and if that reader is already predisposed to believe or not believe, the actual words won't change anything. Words make up a very tiny part of the way in which we communicate. The study of language cannot be reduced to one tiny area of research, excluding everything else. It makes no sense!"

    Substitute "body language" for "words".

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2017 at 22:05

    So that is your opinion of accepting and posting opposing views in the interest of fairness and freedom of expression is it?

    In other words any hater can make whatever allegations they like but if questioned to substantiate what they say they are advised by you to use the middle finger!

    Thankyou for clarifying exactly what sort of blog you are hosting.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 April 2017 at 22:00

    The post i made was more a compare and contrast question. I wondered why the face reading was spot on and the transcripts and audio reading of Hyatt( which reached the same conclusion) was nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Kate McCann writes in her book, my report of events is so accurate it covers the most insignificant details. So when she states the officials from CEOP, including a Police Superintendant, came to PDL on Wednesday the 9th May, she must be telling the truth.

    But Jim Gamble of CEOP states his officers arrived on Saturday 5th May but did not announce their presence to the Portuguese Police.

    CEOP admit they could not get any sort of a meeting with the Portuguese Police until the following Saturday 12th May.

    So the question is what were CEOP doing?

    Its obvious they did not have the authority to be there and seemed to have spent the week fitting up Murat.

    Before OG is wound up Gamble should be made to explain why he and John Reid, the Home Secretary, felt the need to undermine the Portuguese Police and the Leicestershire Police force.

    Leicestershire Police Officers committed criminal offences meeting the McCanns without Portuguese Police permission and then CEOP officers did the same.

    Does anyone seriously think OG will arrest their own colleagues.

    The farce is 10 years old because UK Police are covering up for UK Police, it is that simple.

    Read Amaral's book, chapter 6. He writes that he knew nothing of UK Police arriving in Portugal before Monday.

    That is why the book will not be published in the UK, it exposes too many British Policemen to criminal charges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi JJ, totally agree, Jim Gamble and John Reid have much to explain. It looked as though CEOP were acting on behalf of the parents and running a separate investigation to the Portuguese, and indeed Leicester Police - that can't have helped. At some point, the infighting between the UK police agencies must come to light.

      As for OG arresting their own colleagues. Hmm, this is a sticky point for sure, but not insurmountable. Look at Theresa May's address to the Police Federation in 2014. She highlighted the way in which sensitive cases were mishandled by the police and the fact that one third of the public did not trust them.

      Bearing that speech in mind, it was Theresa May as Home Secretary who launched Operation Grange and OG is destined to come to an end under her watch as PM. Given her stance on police corruption, I think the chances of a cover up in this case are unlikely.

      Delete
  54. JJ @09:07

    "But Jim Gamble of CEOP states his officers arrived on Saturday 5th May but did not announce their presence to the Portuguese Police."

    Do you have a link for that statement of Gamble's, please?

    "CEOP admit they could not get any sort of a meeting with the Portuguese Police until the following Saturday 12th May."

    Hardly surprising since their presence wasn't requested until the 7th:

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_510.jpg

    See: 02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_511

    "2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.

    "Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation"

    Which heightens the significance of:

    "So the question is what were CEOP doing?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ 7 April 2017 at 09:07
      Anonymous 7 April 2017 at 10:11

      Interesting and pertinent observations.

      Thanks you both very much.

      OT If you could, a link to the destruction (as having taken place) of the samples that had been used for LCN analyses please.

      T

      Delete
    2. T @11:33

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282.jpg

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm

      Delete
    3. Anonymous 7 April 2017 at 17:45

      «T @11:33

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P9/09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2282.jpg

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm »

      Much obliged, I don’t recall seeing the FSS letter at the first of your links before.

      Uncertainty remains. It seems most unlikely that the McCanns’ solicitor would request the samples not be destroyed: his clients being innocent etc., keeping the samples would serve no purpose. Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      T

      Delete
  55. Hi Rosalinda and others
    I wished that I could share your view upon Theresa May Rosalinda and her being a kind of guarantee against corruption in the Madeleine case, but I can't.
    The case has attracted the attention of people around the world in a similar way as the Dreyfus affair did in the 19th century. Émile Zola, already then a recognized and famous writer, accused the French government for covering up its mistaken conviction of the army officer Alfred Dreyfus. His accusation was written in an open a letter to the President of the French Republic and published in the newspaper L’Aurore. Emile Zola’s voice at that time was that of the French people, but not that of those who represented the establishment.

    Will there ever be a British Émile Zola, who has the courage to question Theresa May and the whole British establishment for not telling its citizens the whole truth and almost nothing about what the S Y have been doing since they got involved in 2011, or possibly earlier.

    Émile Zola, if he had lived in the U K in our time, would never have accepted the lack of transparency and all the oddities in the ongoing investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and he would have denounced the implicit threats by society against many of those who do not share the official version. His opening phrase of his letter to Theresa May would have been “J’accuse”


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bjorn, much to ponder here!

      I had to have a little read up to remind myself of the 'J'accuse' affair and I see the similarities. This case does indeed need an Emile Zola, but I struggle to think of any contenders. The public figures who have spoken out so far do not have the credibility or public respect to be taken seriously.

      What with Brexit, cuts etc, the Left are otherwise occupied, but in reality, for them it would be distasteful for them to attack a perceived grieving 'family'. Anyone in 'power' criticising the parents, is seen as a bully.

      The Madeleine case as we know is heavily aligned with charities and child protection. Just as it is taboo to criticize a national charity, it is taboo to criticise the McCanns. Like Saville and Armstrong before them, they are protected by their perceived good deeds and fundraising.

      I sense however Bjorn, that if there are any Emile Zola's out there, they are holding back until they know the results of Operation Grange. I might even have a bit of an Emile Zola moment myself if the McCanns are declared innocent!

      Delete
    2. Hi Rosalinda
      thanks for feed back.
      Yes, it will interesting to see in a few months what happens and if there will be some kind of closure or final report. Theresa May is definitely not corrupt, but can she deal with corruption, in case she would find such "activities" within the Met/S Y/Operation Grange? Let's wait and see.

      Delete
    3. Björn 7 April 2017 at 12:17

      Thank you for your post, Björn.

      I owe you more words than I can afford to say at the moment.

      Since you've mentioned Zola, I admit to having liked him enough to have read most of Les Rougon-Macquart by the age of about 24. I'm well past my 20s now and I've been following the deception of rather different thrushes for a rather long while.:)

      May I attempt to entertain you a little, if you like puzzles that is, with the following question:

      What did Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Émile Zola, Charles Dickens, Sigmund Freud, Karl Jung, and Erwin Schrödinger have in common (in French, three words, 12 letters)?

      With reference to the McCanns case - Dreyfus affair, there neither is nor will be a Zola-like writer in England any day soon me thinks. ‘Post factum’ there will likely be many… Also, NL’s comment today is good to keep in mind.

      Actually, I owe you an apology. I’ll explain later if I may.

      Kind regards.

      T

      PS You are not a ‘hater’ as far as I am concerned. The ringed Commandant, if he carries on calling you that, will not only loose his ring, as well as the three tin stars I’ve awarded him for speed-writing (he’s often uses AK-47 for a keyboard when writing on McCanns: many shots, few hits), style and sense of humour, but will also get a jolly good spanking.:) One may bet he’ll come back for more (one means medals of course, though one never knows…: Liverpudlians have always been a mystery to one.).:) Peace ‘n meow to you from afar, Björn, and a purr or two to Commandant.

      Delete
  56. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton7 April 2017 at 11:21

    ''Given her stance on police corruption, I think the chances of a cover up in this case are unlikely.''

    If her stance on political corruption is the same you might be right.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Lie Spotting?

    This one's not easy to see. It's been 'lurking' for a very long time though:

    Patricia Cameron – Witness statement 15.4.08

    “In total frustration, I contacted our local police to ask for help and advice but unfortunately they were not able to help us. Sandy began to search for ‘phone contacts on the computer and there were phone calls back and forth to Portugal and to the Embassy in Lisbon.”

    It concerns the final statement about 'phone calls back and forth TO Portugal AND to the Embassy'

    Who might the Camerons have dialled (call TO Portugal) as part of a 'back and forth' exchange and separate from any call to the Embassy they claim to have made?

    One might reasonably assume they were interacting with Gerry McCann, who 'phoned them in the first place. But no. They did not see fit to return any of the four calls he made to them around midnight.

    Nor did they 'phone later on at all, which is rather odd.

    You'd think someone, suddenly told in the middle of the night by a close family member that a dear little niece had gone unexpectedly missing, might show some genuine concern, and call back after a sensible interval of time, 24hrs. say, to find out if she'd been found locally.

    Not in this case. Equally odd is that 'Uncle Brian' did not do so either, after Gerry had spoken to him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous7 April 2017 at 12:54

      Nice one, Ziggmund, You 'Marked' it in one! Not just a big mouth then. :)

      T

      Delete
    2. “Anonymous 7 April 2017 at 14:33

      Anonymous7 April 2017 at 12:54

      Nice one, Ziggmund, You 'Marked' it in one! Not just a big mouth then. :)

      T”

      Dear Anonymous 7 April 2017 at 12:54

      To mistake you for Ziggmund is almost unforgivable. In the circumstances, my only hope of redemption is to humbly ask you to read my above post as ‘Nice one. You marked it in one! :)’ and be so kind as to let it pass.

      I must be getting awfully feline.:)

      Regards.

      T

      Delete
  58. Björn @12:17

    A ‘British Émile Zola’ requires a false accusation. Therein lies the problem, as far as I can see.

    As an aside, isn’t it somewhat ironic that Zola fled to England to avoid jail?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi NL
      You're quite right.So let's wait a few months to see whom the S Y (Operation Grange) will blame the abduction on and hoping for a Zola to take action.

      Delete
  59. Regarding the second book myth, it's a matter of namesake.

    http://www.enc.edu/searchpage.aspx?q=kate%20mccann

    ReplyDelete
  60. Addendum to 6.4 @11:07

    "Gamble criticised the Association of Chief Police Officers' decision to put Leicestershire Police in charge of the operation"

    From http://library.college.police.uk/docs/npia/Strategic-debrief-operation-task-2009.pdf

    "Leicestershire Constabulary will have primacy for liaison with the Portuguese investigation"

    'Liaison with' being somewhat different to 'in charge of' wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous 7 April 2017 at 13:27

    Greetings, ‘NL’

    “…isn’t it somewhat ironic that Zola fled to England to avoid jail?”

    Ironic twice over perhaps, for he was unhappy in London. :(

    It’s always good to have you comment.

    Many thanks.

    T

    ReplyDelete
  62. is the 'Anonymous7 April 2017 at 14:08' post an actual post or some cheap spammy trick- or did i miss something

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @15:07

      Debunking a Twitter myth that KM from Rothley wrote a second book. As shown by the link you refer to, she's not the only Kate McCann.

      Delete
    2. If the PJ would have been left alone to do their job, on their turf, for what was considered a mysterious crime, the case would have been in a court one way or another. That would have been the normal protocol too. Does anyone know if visitors from abroad who were victims of a crime in Portugal previously( or since for that matter) who saw the local police bulldozed by the police from their own country ? If such instances exist, I'm sure the UK crowd would have referenced them at some point to justify their bizarre intervention and then their taking over. I somehow doubt that this was common practice. Another 'unprecedented' to add to the rest.

      The Theresa May speech to the Police Federation was a face-saving PR exercise. It's significant that it was made in 2014. Following the death of Savile, the lid was yanked off a big can of worms. Between 2012 and 2014 case after case was brought out from their dark corners. Big names were named and big names were implicated. From Thatcher's covering up police activity at picket lines and Hillsborough, to ' lost dossiers' in Leon Brittain's even darker corners. One by one, as cases were called out, we learned about police officers and teams being told to look the other way or 'lose it' when evidence or complaints had been made. The internet, mainly social networks were unanimous in their condemnation of those who lord it over us and the others who keep us in line. Celebrities were frantically hauled out and thrown to the media-and us- to make it appear how they were 'stamping it out' and doing their jobs. That was to placate us. Celebrities have no effect on anything meaningful in our life.

      I didn't envy whoever took over from Cameron.Talk about the short straw.But she 'manned up' and faced it. Corruption would no longer be tolerated. Instead we have the likes of Operation Grange who do nothing. PR speeches are shows. We've been owed,to coin the favourite Tory lie - 'transparency'- a long, long time.

      Delete
    3. Ziggmund 7 April 2017 at 15:07

      You Signetic Reverence

      To clarify:

      http://www.enc.edu/news/2010-news/poetry,-prose-and-music-to-highlight-annual-%E2%80%98arts-week%E2%80%99/

      “• Wednesday, April 21: An Evening of Poetry with Kate McCann. English professor, McCann will read from her new book, A Roof Gone to Sky. A “Magnetic Poetry” contest and open mic poetry slam with Karen Marshall will also be held.”

      My reverence.

      T

      Delete
    4. ZiggySawdust 7 April 2017 at 19:31

      Concur with the indisputable bits, your Reverence.

      T

      Delete
    5. Further explanation re 14:08/15:07/17:06

      Rosalinda is right, it is another KM. Alas, some people don't look any further than their own back yard.

      https://twitter.com/TruthOrKarma/status/850441651399118854

      Delete
    6. Unfortunately people like Isabel McFadden do the minimum of research, the author of the Christian romance has the same name as Kate, and, drum roll, she too is a Christian! 2 + 2 doesn't just equal 4, it equals a solid 10! Grieving mother writes romantic fiction, what a bitch!

      The fact that it is an entirely different Kate McCann matters not, Isabel despises Kate and she has found another good reason to rally up an angry mob.

      This of course has FA to do with justice or finding the truth, it is all about stirring up hatred. This Californian self proclaimed millionairess wants the public to hate this mother just as much as she does, no reasoning or logic required. And that, in a nutshell, is why the MSM treat the obsessives on twitter with contempt.

      Delete
  63. Aladdins Insane7 April 2017 at 22:06

    I know what people here think of Richard D Hall, but I just watched his new video today and he says almost word for word what I said about Murat and got laughed at about both here and elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that you again, Tony?

      Delete
    2. Aladdins Insane8 April 2017 at 12:33

      My name is David.

      Delete
  64. JJ 7.4 @09:07

    "But Jim Gamble of CEOP states his officers arrived on Saturday 5th May but did not announce their presence to the Portuguese Police."

    Could you please provide a link for that statement of Gamble's. It's rather important in the wider context.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous7 April 2017 at 20:43

    Mr 'T'
    Thanks for clarifying the above. The original link had none of that when i hit it.What's in a name etc...

    Mortimus Clay indeed *shakes head*

    I wouldn't have mind that slam poetry fest. I could do my 'beltin' out britpop to wheelie bins and flowers' bit.Or maybe my critically acclaimed 'summoned by lawyers'.

    All my bits are indisputable.They're disputed.But they're indisputable :-)

    The Right Hon, Zig

    ReplyDelete
  66. ''This Californian self proclaimed millionairess wants the public to hate this mother just as much as she does, no reasoning or logic required. And that, in a nutshell, is why the MSM treat the obsessives on twitter with contempt.''

    It's halfwits like her that get all tweeters tarred by the same brush and give social networks a bad ( well, even worse to be more accurate) name.It's also begging the McCanns to ''sue me'' with it's sheer stupidity. Dare they-and risk another backlash ?

    It's hard to believe this creature hasn't had-or didn't have- her mistake pointed out to her so she could exercise some self respect and take it down sharpish.Or maybe this too-bad-to-be-true effort is that of a shill. Christians eh ..This is why i can't give any serious consideration to endorsing any established religions, especially Christianity.This particular one is guilty of judging and has no forgiveness.Just a narrow, ill-informed view and money( a lot of). McFadden is what psychologists would call a 'dickhead'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dickhead or not Ziggy, at least SHE has the bollocks to put her name and face to what she says. You on the other hand Ziggy, as a Mccann sympathiser, should be ashamed that you DONT.

      Your self righteousness seems to know no bounds Mark and when you resort to calling people dickheads it makes you no better than them.

      Like it or not, Mcfadden has the same freedom of speech rights as you and I dont remember anyone appointing you as her judge and juror.

      Cue long winded diatribe....

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure if it's just her religion that makes her an ignoramus Ziggy, she is also a Trump supporter, but I guess that figures.

      Like Bennett, Hall and all the other intransigent liars who have attached themselves to this case, she cannot and will not accept that she is wrong. She will continue to push blatant lies using her many twitter accounts to like and retweet her own comments and misinformation.

      That she truly believes Kate McCann is now writing romantic fiction, shows just how little she knows about this case, and how little she knows about the mother of Madeleine.

      Isabelle McFabulous has attached herself to Madeleine, not because she believes in truth and justice but because it is an opportunity to promote her 'McFabulous' self. Not entirely sure why, she has no discernible talents, her looks are average at best, and her videos are almost as dull and monotone as those of Richard Hall. Outrageous lies are pretty much all she has.

      Delete
  67. Anonymous8 April 2017 at 15:51

    ''Cue long winded diatribe....''

    Seriously ? Not in this case. Sometimes it's better to treat ignorance with ignorance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. as the saying goes...it takes one to know one

      Delete
  68. Rosalinda,

    Referring to books and reading, I got a question if I may.

    Gerry McCann’s sister, Patricia, said that Madeleine would go to reading lessons as preparation for school. Just as a matter of interest, is this common practice in the UK?

    NL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not that I am aware of NL, it may have been a private arrangement. Much will depend on the family I expect NL, some parents read with their kids, some don't.

      Delete
  69. I doubt very much that private tuition for a pre-4 year old in any area of English is even available in the UK. At that stage of cognitive development just recognising shapes and remember them is all that can be expected.It's still very much 'learn by playing' at that age.Even then it would only be in short bursts. The normal practice for parents who are so determined that their children will grow into outstanding graduates eventually is to wait until around 7. I doubt a tutor would have the gall to advertise for under-4's.

    I don't believe KM /GM would be that naive.I'd be shocked if they found the tutor. Is Patricia trying to slip that information into the show so it might leave the impression of ultra conscientious parenting ? Crafty, but a tad clumsy... All i've read about that area ( reading and Madeleine)is that she was read TO- not WITH.That's not teaching, it's storytelling; believable and a normal practice. That's a far cry from getting her private lessons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 00:52

      "Give me the child UNTIL he is seven and I will show you the man" - Aristotle

      Delete
    2. ZiggySawdust 9 April 2017 at 00:52

      Good Morning

      “I doubt very much that private tuition for a pre-4 year old in any area of English is even available in the UK.”

      I share your doubt, Your Gentle Ziggyness. In my experience, children under five are rarely capable of being taught reading as such.

      “Crafty, but a tad clumsy...”

      Alternatively: ‘clumsy, but a tad crafty’.

      Tea, or coffee, Your Gentle Ziggyness?

      T

      Delete
    3. Actually T, my brother and I were fortunate to have a lovely Dad who taught us both to read before we started school. Even more so for myself as I was heartbroken when my brother, 11 months older than myself started school. I caused an almighty scene in the playground on his first day, and had to be carried away kicking and screaming.

      I was inconsolable and the whole neighbourhood knew about it! My dear old dad, bless him, bought a blackboard and some chalk and recreated my brother's lessons just for me, with my mum bringing little glasses of milk for breaktime.

      I was a brat for sure, lol, but so fortunate to have a Dad who indulged me. He loved books and so did I, and it was at a very early age that I set my heart on becoming a writer.

      If there are any dads reading here, and mums too, I would recommend teaching your own kids as much as you can. Little ones are like sponges, they have a capacity for learning that is immeasurable, look at the tiny children of Ivanka Trump speaking Chinese!

      Delete
  70. Have just watched the latest R D Hall Maddie film shame it's his last. He has opened my eyes about Robert Murat, what he says about the convos between Murat and Martin Brunt is very interesting, plus I didn't know before that Murat was recommended to the PJ by the British Embassy. I think I can see now why Tanner, Rachel Oldfield, Russell O'Brien and Fiona Payne were all so keen to implicate Murat as the lead suspect. Not sure I can go all the way with Hall regarding child sexual abuse being at the heart of the cover-up, but the McCann connections with folk like Sir Clement Freud and the weird Ray Wyre make for interesting viewing, and two reputable GPs like the Gaspars would hardly make up those sexualised gestures by David Payne

    ReplyDelete
  71. Anonymous9 April 2017 at 10:24

    ''"Give me the child UNTIL he is seven and I will show you the man" - Aristotle''

    I think old 'ari was discussing character.And he was right.Thinking skills can be nurtured, not installed like an 'app'. At three, kids are still mastering the basics of speech. Around 4-5 you can start on letter identification. Then you can think of reading.

    Anonymous9 April 2017 at 11:26


    ''Tea, or coffee, Your Gentle Ziggyness?''

    Good morrow, Major. It seems i have a bit of a post-Aintree hangover.I bypassed 'ladies day' as too may frightening sights in one space can play havoc with the old punting skills.It paid off as i managed to nail 2 of the first 3 in the 'big one' which included the winner.Last thing i remember was offering to buy a horse of a drunken Irish farmer.No idea where i would have put it.I remember why i don't drink or attend many special occasions now.

    Earl Grey please.Slice of lemon, 1 sugar ( stirred anti-clockwise). bacon sarnie wouldn't hurt either..:-)

    Ziggy..not much life on mars today..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I stuck a tenner each way on Blaklion earlier in the week when it was 14/1 so I got £45 back. My wife had the winner, a quid each way I think it was, and no amount of explaining can make her see why she got less than half of what I won.

      'But, but, mine WON .... yours only came 4th,' she continues, even when I explain the much higher stake.

      I might just have an Earl Grey myself - a very calming drink.

      Delete
  72. Is this a new low? Discussing Madeleine's reading and ziggy and T having laughs whilst commenting about a missing child?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is wrong with discussing Madeleine's reading? She’s supposed to read her mother’s account of the truth when she’s coming home.

      Delete
    2. @ 18.51

      Concur

      Delete
  73. Anonymous 9 April 2017 at 18:51

    Good morning

    “batlh ghob yIpab”
    The Klingon Dictionary of Wisdom

    Enter T entity:
    “Where you from,
    You sexy thing?”

    Hot chocolate, all-work-and-no-play Jack?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Ziggmund 9 April 2017 at 15:56
    Anonymous 9 April 2017 at 22:28

    Mazel tov!

    No Mars bars for you and me from Jack though, methinks.:(

    Minor =Tom=

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous 9 April 2017 at 18:51

    ‘T’ (after Max Bialystock): “Who are you and why are you loitering on this blog?”

    ReplyDelete
  76. 18.51 . i agree the ziggy character has hijacked this blog like its his own , i just skip over his posts now ,

    ReplyDelete
  77. I hope you are well, Rosalinda.

    T

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bless you T, and thank you for asking. I am fine T, though at a bit of crossroads. I have answered more fully in a new blog, hopefully tomorrow :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 11 April 2017 at 02:24

      Good, ‘C’.:)

      T

      Delete
  78. Anonymous9 April 2017 at 22:28

    I'm wondering, anon..is that your wife being a 'typical bird' at sums..or you being a typical hubby and not owning up that you threw a tenner EW on ( don't worry, we'll say nothing )..:-)
    You can pay for the Earl Grey and it's only fair we save a cup for your good lady and hope that it cheers :-)


    Anonymous9 April 2017 at 18:51

    I don't think the subject of Madeleine's reading was the point of the reference. I think it was to point to the story( told by Patricia) that she had been having private lessons for it at such a tender ( and unlikely) age. Is it believable ? Is it a lie ? If it's a lie, why say it etc..

    ReplyDelete
  79. Anonymous9 April 2017 at 13:49

    '' I think I can see now why Tanner, Rachel Oldfield, Russell O'Brien and Fiona Payne were all so keen to implicate Murat as the lead suspect''

    Why ? I agree he looks 'dodgy' and his personal history isn't very stable but that's hardly grounds to suspect of criminal behaviour. If anything implicates him in any way it isn't anyone from the Tapas group- who's own statements are less than bullet proof- but his statement being unreliable;especially when stood next to that of his mother, whose statement did nothing to corroborate his version of events.It contradicted them.

    '' but the McCann connections with folk like Sir Clement Freud ''

    The McCanns had no connections with Sir Clement Freud prior to the night. He slipped into their life not long after to offer them his idea of a 'sanctuary' at his nearby apartment. Offering them hospitality as a fellow Brit and wining and dining them seemed friendly at the time to all who read that story.Nobody pointed fingers.That's because Freud wasn't 'outed' as a paedophile until he'd died a few years later.That's when the tabloid collective started to become the finest brains in criminal investigation. Freud's 'thing' wasn't toddlers. But his connections to the media had a long history and his connections to people who could cover up 'leisure' activities of his fellow pervert politicians was even longer.But those dots weren't for joining as they weren't as 'juicy' and they were never going to be printed in a paper during his lifetime.

    '' weird Ray Wyre ''

    He might be weird but, again, 'weird' isn't against the law-unfortunately.

    '' two reputable GPs like the Gaspars would hardly make up those sexualised gestures by David Payne''

    I've read the statements . I believe them. But nowhere is it mentioned that Payne was talking about Madeleine. it's stated that he must have been-not was. It was also stated that he'd said and done the same before a long time ago( probably when Madeleine was no more than a baby). The conversation Gaspar was witnessing through her haze didn't seem to have two sides to it-which is a prerequisite for a 'conversation'. It's assumed, or implied, that he (Payne) was in that conversation with GM. But GM's side isn't reported. What did he say in reply ? Could Payne be talking about a woman they both knew ? There's nothing to say he wasn't.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Anonymous9 April 2017 at 00:44

    ''as the saying goes...it takes one to know one''

    Not a saying I've ever taken seriously.Should anyone ?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous10 April 2017 at 13:33

    ''18.51 . i agree the ziggy character has hijacked this blog like its his own , i just skip over his posts now ,''

    'the ziggy character' respects your freedom to exercise your right to ignorance.Bliss is always nice, regardless of what floats your boat.

    ReplyDelete
  82. ZiggySawdust10 April 2017 at 23:55
    Anonymous10 April 2017 at 13:33

    ''18.51 . i agree the ziggy character has hijacked this blog like its his own , i just skip over his posts now ,''

    'the ziggy character' respects your freedom to exercise your right to ignorance.Bliss is always nice, regardless of what floats your boat.

    More drivel Ignorance , when you state you have never even bothered to read the case files , pot and kettle and all that .

    ReplyDelete
  83. I see verdi is striking out bennett from history:

    "by Verdi Today at 1:23
    I thought Pat Brown was another one (Textusa and blacksmithbureau spring to mind) that claimed to withdraw from commentating on the Madeleine McCann case."

    Has verdi forgotten that bennett said that he would stop commenting as well.
    ----------------------------------------------------

    "by Verdi Today at 12:03
    Apart from visiting Praia da Luz and having her photograph taken with Goncalo Amaral,"
    --------------------------------------------------

    Has verdi forgotten that Brown also had her photo taken with bennett earlier on the same trip to PDL?

    ReplyDelete